Agenda item

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 care to new communities. The Housing Portfolio Holder stated that there were also issues regarding the County Council’s use of Section 106 funds and it was important that the District Council were involved in these discussions.

It was noted that the Mare Fen Bank was an earth bank designed to protect the nature reserve.

The Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder thanked the Committee for their concerns regarding the Risk Register, which would be discussed at Cabinet.

Minor amendments

Members of the Committee identified typographical errors and requested financial appendices to be printed in larger size in future reports for clarity.

The Committee NOTED the report.