To approve the Minutes of the Meeting held on 21 July 2015 (Minute Nos. 111 - 119) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 21 July 2015 (Minute Nos. 111 – 119) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves or their spouse, civil partner or person with whom they are living with as a spouse or civil partner.  They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

The Chairman will ask Members if they have any interests to declare in respect of items on this agenda, under the following headings:

(a)          Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) under the Localism Act 2011.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DPI, the Member must leave the meeting and not take part in the discussion or vote.  This applies even if there is provision for public speaking.

(b)          Disclosable Non Pecuniary (DNPI) under the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council in May 2012.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DNPI interest, the Member may stay, speak and vote on the matter.

Advice to Members:  If any Councillor has any doubt about the existence or nature of any DPI or DNPI which he/she may have in any item on this agenda, he/she should seek advice from the Director of Corporate Services as Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

Councillor Mike Henderson declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in respect of the tender award for the Front Brents Flood Defence Bund project which was referred to in the Forward Plan.  He advised that if this subject was discussed, he would leave the meeting for the duration of that discussion.

Cabinet considered the Financial Outturn Report 2014/15 at its meeting on 15 July 2015.  The Scrutiny Committee noted that the Cabinet had made the following resolution: 

(4) that the further revenue service rollovers from 2014/15 and the setting up of new reserves, as set out in Table 4 of Appendix I be approved.

However, the Scrutiny Committee identified two items within the resolution which they wanted the Cabinet to reconsider, as follows, and for the relevant Cabinet Members and officers to consider alternative options:

Appendix I, Table 4; £20,000 – to fund S106/Community Infrastructure Levy Monitoring Software in 2015/16.  The Scrutiny Committee have questioned whether this software is needed.  They would like to discuss this further and receive more information about the software and why the money should be spent on it.

Appendix I, Table 4; £23,947 – Members’ Localism Grants – Budget underspend.  47 awards have already been approved but final paperwork is awaited to finalise all grants.  The item requested approval to distribute the carry forward equally between Members.  The Scrutiny Committee have suggested an alternative proposal that the carry forward is only distributed to those Members who have fully spent their Localism grant last year and to new Members.

The following Members and Officers have been invited to attend for this item:

Cabinet Member for Finance; Cabinet Member for Planning; Cabinet Member for Localism; Head of Finance; Head of Planning; Head of Economy and Communities.

Appendix I, Table 4: £20,000 – fund S106/Community Infrastructure Levy Monitoring Software in 2015/16

The Chairman invited the Cabinet Member for Planning and the Head of Planning Services to provide further information on the S106/Community Infrastructure Levy  (CIL) Monitoring Software required by Planning Services. 

The Cabinet Member for Planning advised that the system proposed was a more effective data storage system that could be used for monitoring the collection of funds from Section 106 and CIL; the current software that monitored S106 monies was becoming out of date and could not be used to monitor CIL, which was a new requirement.  Up to 5% of monies collected from Section 106 and CIL could be used to offset the cost.

The Head of Planning Services explained that the software did more than just monitoring; the system proposed was on a Uniform/IDOX platform which would fully integrate with existing systems, and would be used to administer the Community Infrastructure Levy when introduced in the next 12 to 18 months.

In response to questions, it was confirmed that the current system could not manage CIL; the system would be used by Swale Borough Council and Maidstone Borough Council who would have their own software; all options had been considered, including in-house options; many London Boroughs had introduced CIL using the proposed IT system; the income from CIL was considerable and the cost of the software was very small in comparison; the £20,000 up front cost and £8,000 annual management fee for 4/5 years was considered to be good value for money and the costs could be recovered through a maximum 5% charge against CIL income in the future. The system was compatible with existing IDOX software and ICT were supportive of the proposed system.

In response to further questions, the Head of Planning Services advised that the cost was fixed but other costs might be incurred, for example, if further templates were added. A concern was raised that the contract should be tight in order not to incur further extra charges. In response to a question concerning the ability to recharge the capital and maintenance costs, the Head of Planning Services confirmed that costs could be recovered from S106/CIL receipts.  During the discussion it was also clarified that charges could be levied on permitted development as well as approved applications.

The Committee made no recommendations on this item.

Appendix I, Table 4: £23,947 – Members’ Localism Grants – Budget underspend

The Head of Economy and Communities advised that the majority of the £23,947 rolled forward was already committed funding for projects; it was proposed that the £7050 left would be used to maintain a grant allowance of £2400 per Councillor. This would leave £67 spare.

A discussion ensued regarding whether the £7050 rollover should be shared equally between Members, or whether the amount should be shared between new Members and re-elected Members who had spent all of their grant last year.

It was proposed by Councillor Mike Baldock, and seconded by Councillor Mike  ...  view the full minutes text for item 204.

The Committee is asked to consider the Financial Monitoring Report for Quarter 1 2015/16 (April – June 2015).

The Cabinet Member for Finance and the Head of Finance have been invited to attend.

The Cabinet Member for Finance introduced the report and clarified it covered up to the end of period 1.  He highlighted the total forecast revenue underspend of £319,390 and capital expenditure of £119,800 although these figures could change throughout the year.

The Chairman took Members through the report page by page, starting with the Appendices.

The Head of Finance responded to a question regarding projected zero variance in some services and confirmed that this projected a break-even position, but that he would expect there to be some variation after 6 months of monitoring. He also agreed to provide a response to Members regarding the slight increase in the forecast for Planning Fees.

In response to questions concerning the anticipated overspend in Democratic Services, despite a vacant post for several months, Members were advised that there may be other issues in that service that would offset the figure over the year.  In respect of the projected overspend due to the increased National Insurance (NI) on Members’ travel, the Head of Finance advised that this was backdated and was a one-off; it had not been possible to budget for this in advance as it had been due to a change in legislation. The Head of Finance agreed to report with further information on this, including how far NI was backdated.

In response to a question regarding business rate appeals, the Head of Finance explained that there would be a full report on this to the Audit Committee.

A discussion ensued regarding the projected savings in Grounds Maintenance, and questions were asked on where these savings were being made.  Concern was expressed regarding cleanliness of the Borough and tidiness of parks, open spaces and cemeteries and why the full budget was not being spent.  The Cabinet Member for Finance agreed to feed the comments back to the Cabinet Member for Environmental and Rural Affairs for a response.

In response to a question regarding which budget the park ranger post was within, the Head of Finance advised that a report had been considered by the Strategic Management Team regarding staff restructuring in this service area.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

The Committee is asked to review the updated log of recommendations (attached).

The Policy and Performance Officer introduced the item and highlighted item 1, Members shadowing service units. It was confirmed that information had been sent out to Members to encourage them to take up shadowing opportunities, and the meeting was advised that this would also be promoted by the Member Development Working Group.

A Member asked why Mid Kent Improvement Partnership (MKIP) papers were not made public as highlighted in item 13 of the report, and was advised that this had been recommended by the Scrutiny review but had been rejected by the Cabinet.

The Committee is invited to consider the scope of proposed reviews on:

·         Housing Services

·         Planning Services

·         Tourism and Leisure.

The Policy and Performance Officer referred to the three topics that had been suggested by the Committee for review.  Draft review plans had been prepared based on comments made previously by the Committee, which were tabled at the meeting.  The Committee considered each of the draft review plans in turn.

Housing Services

Suggestions were made to improve the clarity of the objectives and to include the lack of availability of suitable housing to downsize to. It was also suggested that AmicusHorizon should be invited as a witness to this review.

Leisure and Tourism

Members discussed the objectives and suggested additional areas to include in the review, such as those who stayed in Swale to visit other areas; the infrastructure impact on tourism; the inclusion of the wetlands on Sheppey and rural villages as tourist attractions; the cycle infrastructure; the lack of parking, in particular coach parking in tourist areas and public bus services. The review should also focus on leisure and tourism facilities for residents, not just visitors.

Development Control

Members were asked what areas they would like the review to focus on.  Members suggested a number of areas including planning enforcement; reports from highways; impact of outside bodies such as the Environment Agency; developer and Section 106 agreements; delays in determination of planning applications; communication and consultation with members of the public, Parish Councils and Members; consistency issues; responsibility for parcels of land on developments; defending planning appeals; conditions not being enforced or monitored; and accurate information not being available on-line.

During the debate, the Policy and Performance Officer explained the way in which reviews were conducted and agreed to prepare draft questions for the Committee to use as part of the reviews.  There was also discussion regarding the timetable for the reviews and it was suggested that an additional meeting would be required in December.

The Policy and Performance Officer undertook to update the review plans, in consultation with the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee.

The Committee is asked to consider updates on other reviews.

There were none.

The Committee is asked to review and discuss the Committee’s Work Programme (attached) for the remainder of the year.

The Policy and Performance Officer introduced the item and after some discussion by Members it was suggested that the Housing Review would start on 14 October with a briefing on Housing; the Development Control review would start on 14 November and an extra meeting would be arranged in December to start the Leisure and Tourism Review. 

It was confirmed that the Director for Regeneration and the Cabinet Member for Regeneration would be attending the next meeting in October, as requested at the last Scrutiny Committee meeting, to update the Committee on Sittingbourne Town Centre regeneration.

The Committee is asked to consider the Forward Plan with a view to identifying possible items for pre-decision scrutiny.

The Policy and Performance Officer introduced the item which was included on the agenda for information.  In response to a question the definition of a key decision was clarified.