Agenda and minutes

The Chairman will read the following announcement:

“I would like to remind everyone present that this meeting will be recorded for subsequent repeated viewing on the Internet and copies of the recording could be made available for those that request it.

By being present at this meeting it is likely that the recording cameras will capture your image and this will result in the possibility that your image will become part of the broadcast.

You should be aware that this may infringe your human and data protection rights. If you have any concerns please speak to the webcasting officer.

Please could I also remind members to put on their microphones before speaking by pressing the button on the microphone unit”

The Chairman made a short address to remind all present that the meeting would be broadcast on the Internet, and that the Council had adopted a protocol for the webcasting of its meetings.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 16 June 2008 (previously circulated).

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 June 2008 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive) To declare interests in any item on this agenda.

There were no declarations of interest pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct.

Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, together with paragraphs 6 and 25 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in the Constitution require that the permission of the Chairman be obtained, after prior notice to the Chief Executive, before urgent business not specified in the agenda (including a supplementary agenda of which the statutory period of notice has been given) may be transacted.

In accordance with Operational Standing Order 6 (non-executive bodies), any item raised by a non-member shall require the support of a member of the Committee concerned and the Chairman of that Committee. Two weeks’ notice of non-urgent items is required.

It was noted that there was no other urgent business for consideration by the Cabinet Committee.

Presentation by the Chief Executive and the Director of Housing (Chairman of the Use of Resources Working Party) on a VFM Review  - attached.

All Members of the Council have been invited to attend the meeting for this item.

The Cabinet Committee received a presentation regarding the Value for Money review that had been undertaken by the Use of Resources Working Party. The first part of the presentation was given by the Chairman of the Use of Resources Working Party, the Director of Housing, and examined the Council’s current position on Value for Money. The second part of the presentation was given by the Chief Executive and outlined the Council’s future approach to Value for Money. The Cabinet Committee was reminded that the review had been undertaken following the assertion by the Audit Commission that the Council was a high cost authority.

In the first part of the presentation, the Cabinet Committee was appraised of the factors contributing to the Council’s relatively high costs. It was reported that the Council had a number of artificial costs that were not experienced by other Councils, as well as a number of explainable reasons for the Council’s relatively high costs. The artificial costs cited included: Parish Precepts, as more parishes within the District led to higher costs; the existence of the District Development Fund to finance projects that enhanced the District; and the use by the Audit Commission of estimated expenditure when producing their figures, despite the Council’s underspend for last year being approximately £1million. The explainable reasons cited included: the relatively low level of the Council’s fees and charges, which had a beneficial effect upon residents; the District’s geography, which included a large rural area; the District’s location on the edge of London, which made it a higher cost area; and the fact that the Council had completed its job evaluation exercise, with resultant higher salary costs due to pay protection. The review had also highlighted that not all local authorities had allocated their costs in full, which would also distort the rankings issued by the Audit Commission.

The Director of Housing informed the Cabinet Committee that the Council’s performance had been analysed, as this was also a component in determining Value for Money. It was found that performance at Service level was mixed, although it was generally improving but not at the same rate as the best performing Councils. Concerns had been raised in respect of the cost data used by the Audit Commission. The Audit Commission also used net costs for its judgements, thus a high gross cost could be masked by equally high charges. There was also a significant concern regarding the quality and accuracy of the data used by the Audit Commission, which had been revealed when the Council had checked some of the figures of its comparator authorities. The level of errors found was such that it had casted doubt over the validity of the data used and the resultant comparisons, and the Council intended to recommend to the Audit Commission that it should audit the data relied upon, just as it would audit the outturn for performance indicators.

In conclusion, the Director of Housing stated that it appeared, on the basis of the Audit Commission’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

(Deputy Chief Executive) To consider the attached report.

The Finance & Performance Management Portfolio Holder presented a report concerning the self-assessment submissions in respect of the Council’s Use of Resources Assessment for 2007/08. The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet Committee that, as part of the overall Use of Resources assessment process, the Council could complete a Value for Money self-assessment. Although not mandatory, it was considered a useful exercise as it would highlight areas of improvement. In addition, it was also considered beneficial for the Council to complete a Use of Resources self-assessment for 2007/08, based around five Key Lines of Enquiry, even though it was not a mandatory requirement. Both self-assessments for 2007/08 were required to be submitted to the Council’s external auditors by September 2008, for subsequent on-site validation shortly after. Consequently, it was proposed to recommend both self-assessment submissions to the Cabinet for adoption at its meeting due to be held on 1 September 2008. Authority for the Chief Executive to amend the self-assessments following their adoption by the Cabinet but prior to their submission to the external auditors in order to incorporate any belated details was also requested.

It was queried as to whether the Capital Strategy could be regarded as fully funded when there was no mention of the Loughton High Road Town Centre Enhancement Scheme, the Portfolio Holder replied that the current priority was the Town Centre Enhancement scheme at Loughton Broadway but that the Capital Strategy would be  reviewed on an annual basis. The Cabinet Committee were informed that the replacement of the Asset Register software had been at the recommendation of the Audit Commission. Following careful consideration, the Cabinet Committee duly recommended both self-assessment submissions for adoption.

RECOMMENDED:

(1)        That the draft self-assessment submission for the 2007/08 Use of Resources assessment be adopted;

(2)        That the draft Value for Money self-assessment submission for the Use of Resources assessment for 2007/08 be adopted; and

(3)        That, subsequent to their adoption by the Cabinet prior to their submission to the Council’s external auditors, the Chief Executive be authorised to amend the draft self-assessments to incorporate any additional details in relation to the Council’s performance as necessary.