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the collection of funds from Section 106 and CIL; the current software that monitored S106 monies was becoming out of date and could not be used to monitor CIL, which was a new requirement.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 Henderson, that ‘£7050 be allocated amongst new Councillors and Councillors who spent their full amount last year.’

The Cabinet Member for Finance gave an example of how it was possible for applications not to be forthcoming, even though a Member had allocated some of their grant money to it.  His preference would be to allocate the rollover across all Members for the benefit of the organisations.

During the discussion, a suggestion was made that the rollover money could be donated for a specific cause or preferred project but this was not supported.  The suggestion was also made that perhaps the £7050 rollover should not be allocated at all. It was suggested that it would have been useful if the commentary in the report could have set out the unspent money and the allocated money.

The Chairman put the proposal to the vote, which was agreed.  It was clarified that the Cabinet would meet to consider the Committee’s recommendation.

RESOLVED:

That the Cabinet be advised that the Committee recommends that the £7050 be allocated amongst new Councillors and Councillors who spent their full amount last year.