Agenda item

The Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder conveyed the Business and Customer Services Portfolio Holder’s apologies for having been unable to attend the meeting in order to present the report with him. The Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder presented the financial and risk elements of the report.

The committee was informed that the changes it had proposed to the recording of risk, had been considered by the Audit and Corporate Governance Committee and the Executive Management Team was currently reviewing the risk register.

The report was discussed and the following points made:

·         More consistency was requested between the information presented in this report and the Medium Term Financial Strategy.

·         The Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder explained that the underspend in development control was additional income in development control fees.

·         It was felt that the inclusion of the £3 million developer contributions as a success may seem distasteful to local residents as some of this would have come from speculative planning applications. The Portfolio Holder pointed out the good work that had been done in securing these contributions, which had also come from non-speculative planning applications. Committee members felt that developer contributions was an under-exploited resource. In response to this the Portfolio Holder reminded the committee that a balance had to be struck between developer contributions and the viability of affordable housing provision, to ensure that the latter did not suffer. Committee members advised that parish councils needed more help in engaging and securing developer contributions.

·         In response to a query, the committee was informed that unplanned income would be put into the Council’s reserves.

·         The red indicators regarding the percentage of undisputed invoices paid in 30 days was queried. In response to this the committee was informed that the new Financial Management System would help resolve this, as the current system did not allow for streamlining of the processing of invoices.

·         Regarding the performance of sundry debts, the Portfolio Holder explained that these were hard to anticipate and these variations were often seen. The committee was advised that these were rarely a real cause for concern and the figures in the report were due to one large invoice. The committee was assured that this was under control.

·         Regarding Ermine Street Housing, it was clarified that income was above target. The Portfolio Holder informed the committee that Ermine Street Housing targets were not in the public domain as this was a private company.

·         The levels of staff sickness were queried. The Portfolio Holder informed the committee that a process had been implemented through his portfolio, regarding staff motivation and the avoidance of staff sickness.

·         In response to a query regarding the hoarding protocol, the Director of Health and Environmental Services informed the committee that the Council through Environmental Health, had responsibility for private rental housing standards. The committee was informed that increasing numbers of hoarding issues were being identified. The Council was working with the fire service to reduce hoarding, with Environmental Health officers and Fire officers developing a standard approach to hoarding. It was advised that members should be made aware of this as they may be aware of other cases of hoarding in their wards.

The committee raised the following issues regarding planning performance:

·         Concern was raised that the Council’s planning department was under resourced and a consequence of this was that residents were not getting a good service with untimely processing of planning applications. In response to this the Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder advised that planning applications were now being processed in a timely way and directed the committee to the relevant key performance information at page 59 of the agenda pack.

·         Although planning applications were being processed in time, it was pointed out that conditions then took time.

·         S106 money was notional as the houses were not yet built. It was advised that parish councils needed to be encouraged to engage with regards to S106 contributions, even when they were against proposed schemes.

The Scrutiny and Overview Committee NOTED the report.