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 announced that the meeting would be broadcast live to the Internet, and that the Council had adopted a protocol for the webcasting of its meetings.

(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.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Cabinet Committee held on 22 November 2010 (previously circulated).

RESOLVED:

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 November 2010 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

(Director of Finance & ICT) To consider the attached report (FPM-028-2010/11).

The Assistant Director (Accountancy) presented the draft General Fund and Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Budgets for the financial year 2011/12. The budgets had been presented by Directorate, with accompanying notes highlighting areas where significant changes had occurred. The majority of savings had been found from budgets that had been traditionally underspent in previous years. They were presented to the Cabinet Committee to consider and make recommendations prior to the budget being formally set during February 2011.

(a)        Office of the Chief Executive

The Acting Chief Executive reported that the original estimate for 2010/11 had been expenditure of £3.226million, with a probable outturn of £3.157million. The current draft estimate for 2011/12 was £3.061million, which represented a saving of £165,000 due primarily to an overall reduction in recharges to this budget for central overheads. No Continuing Services Budget (CSB) growth had been identified for 2011/12; a District Development Fund (DDF) item had been included for the Referendum on the General Election Voting System, but full re-imbursement of the costs was expected from the Government.

The position for the individual cost centres within the Office of the Chief Executive, in comparison to 2010/11, was as follows:

·                     Corporate Activities                 £192,000 reduction in expenditure;

·                     Elections                                 £20,000 reduction in expenditure;

·                     Member Activities                    £95,000 increase in expenditure;

·                     Voluntary Sector Support        £18,000 reduction in expenditure;

·                     Other Activities                        £30,000 reduction in expenditure; and

·                     Support Services                    £35,000 reduction in expenditure.

The Cabinet Committee felt that £166,010 was a high cost for Electoral Registration; It was agreed that some benchmarking would be performed to compare the Council’s costs for Electoral Registration with other Councils of a similar size for the budget setting process in 2012/13.

The Cabinet Committee also queried the £237,490 budget provision for Grants to Voluntary Organisations. It was explained that these Grants could not be moved from the CSB to DDF as many Grants were agreed for a three-year period and therefore were not a one-off cost. It was acknowledged that working with the voluntary sector was a fundamental role for the Council, and that the Council’s Grants were generous in comparison to others, but the Council was under pressure to make savings in all areas of its budget. Other assistance could be offered by the Council to Voluntary Sector Organisations, such as accommodation, rather than funding them directly. It was agreed that Voluntary Sector Grants would be another area that would be reviewed as part of the budget setting process for 2012/13.

(b)        Corporate Support Services

The Director of Corporate Support Services reported that the original estimate for 2010/11 had been net income of £319,000,  with a probable outturn of £203,000 net income. The current estimate for 2011/12 was net income of £1.711million, due primarily to the movement of additional net income of £1.392million from the transfer of Non-Housing assets comprising shops, public houses and a petrol station to the General Fund.

The position for the individual costs centres within the Directorate, in comparison to 2010/11, was as follows:

·                     Land & Property                      £1.395million increase in net income;

·                     Other  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

(Director of Finance & ICT) To consider the attached report (FPM-028-2010/11).

The Director of Finance & ICT presented a report detailing the proposed Council Budget for 2011/12, which enabled the Council’s policy on the level of reserves to be maintained throughout the period of the Medium Term Financial Strategy, despite the proposed use of £0.25million from the reserves. The budget was based upon the assumptions that Council Tax would not increase for two years and housing rents would increase by 7.2% in 2011/12.

The Director stated that the revised Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) had assumed a 9% decrease in Government funding for 2011/12 with further decreases of 8% in 2012/13 and 2013/14. The actual reductions announced by the Government had been 15.7% in 2011/12 and 11.4% in 2012/13. In addition, the Council would be eligible for a grant equivalent to a 2.5% increase in the Council Tax if the actual Council Tax was not increased, and a New Homes Bonus if further residential development took place within the District during the year. As no details regarding the New Homes Bonus had been issued by the Government, this income had not been included within the Budget. The transfer of Concessionary Fares to the County Council had only resulted in a £20,000 loss of income for the Council.

It was proposed to reduce the target for the 2011/12 Continuing Services Budget (CSB) to £16.45million, from an initial £17.1million, following the confirmation of arrangements for the transfer of Concessionary Fares. The largest growth item was an additional £63,000 for the increase in national non-domestic rates on the Council’s buildings. A number of CSB income streams had been affected by the downturn in the Housing Market, including Local Land Charges, Building Control and Development Control. However, other income streams had exceeded expectations, including MOT income from Fleet Operations, and Licensing income. The Council’s investment income had also been adversely affected by £350,000 due to the continuing low level of interest rates.

The Director of Finance advised that, following the decision to transfer commercial property from the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) to the General Fund, the estimated £1.4million loss to the HRA would be offset by an interest payment of £300,000; this would result in a net benefit of £1.1million to the General Fund.

The use of capital receipts on non-revenue generating assets had been highlighted in the Council’s Risk Register. The Capital Programme anticipated the balance of capital receipts reducing from £21.1million to £6.5million over the next four years.

The triennial valuation of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) in March 2010 had resulted in a small reduction for the Council’s ongoing contributions, from 13.1% to 13%. Applications for the capitalisation of pension deficit payments in the sums of £1.187million for the General Fund and £557,000 for the HRA had been submitted to the Department of Communities & Local Government for 2010/11; the Secretary of State had limited directions to 38% of the amounts applied for and it was intended to charge £176,000 to the DDF for the General Fund and £82,000 to the HRA to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

(Deputy Chief Executive) To consider the attached report (FPM-023-2010/11).

Revised Appendices attached.

The Performance improvement Manager presented a report upon the adoption of the Council’s Corporate Plan 2011-15 and the Council’s Key Objectives fro 2011/12.

The Cabinet Committee was informed that the Council Plan for the period 2006/07 to 2009/10 had been the Council’s key strategic planning document, which had set out service delivery priorities over the four-year period, with strategic themes matching the Community Strategy for the District. As the Council Plan had now concluded, work had been undertaken on the development of a new strategic plan for the period 2011-15. The structure of the former Council Plan had been largely based around the Council’s Medium-Term Priorities adopted in 2002. As part of the development of the new Corporate Plan, the Cabinet had previously identified a range of new Medium-Term Aims for 2010/11 to 2013/14. It was also now necessary to adopt the Council’s Key Objectives for 2011/12, however these were not ranked in any particular order of priority.

The Leader of the Council added that much work and effort had gone into the production of the Corporate Plan as there had been many previous versions. A small amendment was agreed to page 23 of the Plan, in that the ongoing projects listed were for only part of St John’s Road in Epping and part of Langston Road in Loughton.

The Portfolio Holder for Performance Management felt that further work was required before the Key Objectives could be formally adopted. A number of the objectives were actually goals, and there appeared to be no ownership or deadlines for some of the objectives. The current total of 12 Key Objectives listed could be further reduced to approximately nine as a number of them were clearly linked and could be combined.

Further comments were made about objective 1(a), the establishment of a temporary depot at North Weald Airfield for the services currently located at Langston Road, and whether the Council would achieve value for money if the cost was in excess of £2million. The Environment Portfolio Holder stated that no firm decision had yet been made, and the comments for this objective should be revised. It was also highlighted that the proposed parking review for Debden Broadway had not been included in Objective 8,and that risk management considerations should be added to objective 9 regarding the maintenance of the Council’s sound financial position. It was also generally felt that the document should be more specific in measuring the achievements for each objective.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance & Economic Development reminded the Cabinet Committee that the Key Objectives could be further revised before they were formally adopted. The Acting Chief Executive agreed to further review the Key Objectives for 2011/12 and assured the Cabinet Committee that they would form an essential part of the Directorate Business Plans for 2011/12.

RESOLVED:

(1)        That the Council’s draft Corporate Plan for the period 2011-15 be approved, subject to an amendment on page 23 of the Plan whereby only parts of St John’s Road in Epping and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

(Deputy Chief Executive) To consider the attached report (FPM-024-2010/11).

The Performance Improvement Manager presented a report upon the review of the Key Performance Indicators adopted for 2010/11 and their retention or deletion for 2011/12.

The Performance Improvement Manager reminded the Cabinet Committee that, under the Local Government Act 1999, the Council was required to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions and services were exercised, with regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness. As part of this duty, a range of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) relevant to the Council’s activities and key objectives were adopted each year.

The Performance Improvement Manager reported that four KPIs were under review for retention or deletion in 2011/12. NI 157(c), measured the number of planning applications dealt with within eight weeks of the Council receiving the application. The speed of delivery of planning decisions had been considered an important measure of performance and had been included as a National Indicator. With the imminent abolition of the National Indicator set, this indicator was recommended for retention as a KPI in 2011/12. Local Performance Indicator (LPI) 39, Rent Arrears (Commercial & Industrial Property), and LPI 40, Occupation Rate (Commercial & Industrial Property), gave a complete picture of the performance of the Council’s commercial property portfolio and therefore were recommended for retention as KPIs in 2011/12. LPI 41, Rental Value (Commercial & Industrial Property), was not considered particularly meaningful as it was too dependent upon the total asset value of the properties, and consequently was recommended for deletion as a KPI in 2011/12.

The Director of Planning & Economic Development reminded the Cabinet Committee that it was still a statutory requirement for the Council to process planning applications within eight weeks of receiving them, and that reinstating this indicator as a KPI would aid the Council in meeting this target. The Cabinet Committee requested that some of the comments in the table accompanying the report be moderated before its final publication.

RESOLVED:

(1)        That NI 157(c), Processing of Planning Applications, be reinstated as a Key Performance Indicator in 2011/12;

(2)        That LPI 39, Rent Arrears (Commercial & Industrial Property) and LPI 40, Occupation Rate (Commercial & Industrial Property), be retained as Key Performance Indicators in 2011/12; and

(3)        That LPI 41, Rental Value (Commercial & Industrial Property), be deleted as a Key Performance Indicator in 2011/12.

Reasons for Decision:

The Council was still under a statutory obligation to process planning applications within eight weeks of receiving them. The level of rent arrears and occupation gave a good indication of the Council’s performance with its commercial and industrial properties, whilst the rental value did not as it was too heavily dependent upon the asset value.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To not reinstate NI 157(c), Processing of Planning Applications, or to retain LPI 41, Rental Value (Commercial & Industrial Property) as Key Performance Indicators in 2011/12.

(Director of Finance & ICT) To consider the attached report (FPM-025-2010/11).

The Senior Finance Officer (Risk & Insurance) presented a report concerning the review of the Corporate Risk Register and the Council’s Risk Management documents.

The Senior Finance Officer reported that the Corporate Risk Register and the Council’s Risk Management documents had been considered by both the Risk Management Group on 29November 2010 and the Corporate Governance Group on 8 December 2010. These reviews had not indentified any required amendments to the Corporate Risk Register and only some minor changes to the Council’s Risk Management documents. The Terms of Reference for the Risk Management Group had been amended to include Business Continuity Planning, whilst the Risk Management Policy Statement had had the reference to the Corporate Executive Forum removed. The Risk Management Strategy had also been updated to include Business Continuity Planning, review the provision of training and delete the reference to Brokers.

The Cabinet Committee felt that the risk related to Fraud (risk number 22) should be further reviewed, due to the expansion of the Charity and Voluntary Sector. The Corporate Governance Group was requested to investigate further and examine the different approaches that could be used to prevent fraud, before reporting back to the Cabinet Committee at its next meeting, scheduled for 21 March 2011.

RECOMMENDED:

(1)        That Risk 22, Fraud, be further investigated by the Corporate Governance Group for examination of the different approaches to the prevention of fraud and reported back to the Cabinet Committee on 21 March 2011;

(2)        That the current tolerance line on the risk matrix be considered satisfactory and not be amended;

(3)        That the Corporate Risk Register be recommended to the Cabinet for approval;

(4)        That the updated Risk Management Strategy be adopted; and

(5)        That the updated Risk Management Policy Statement be adopted; and

RESOLVED:

(6)        That the updated Terms of Reference for the Risk Management Group be noted.

Reasons for Decision:

It was essential that the Corporate Risk Register was regularly reviewed and kept relevant to the threats faced by the Council.

The annual review of the Corporate Risk Management documents ensured that the Risk Management process remained relevant and current.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To suggest the inclusion of further risks or amend the rating of existing risks if necessary.

To request further amendments to any or all of the documents.

(Director of Finance & ICT) To consider the attached report (FPM-026-2010/11).

The Assistant Director (Benefits) presented a report regarding the recovery of Housing Benefit overpayments and requested that Overpayment Officers be given the authority to negotiate the repayment of Housing Benefit sundry debts over 2 years old where all other methods of recovery had been exhausted.

The Assistant Director reported that the majority of overpayments arose either from the claimant failing to report a change in circumstances or as a result of fraud. In both these cases, the Council received a subsidy from the Government amounting to 40% of the overpayment. When overpayments had occurred, there were several recovery options available, but there were always debtors that were hard to trace, or who were on low incomes and being pursued by several different agencies for debts. There had been a number of situations recently whereby the ability to negotiate would have recovered a large proportion of the debt, but these debts were now considered irrecoverable.

The Assistant Director proposed that for debts which were over two years old and the only other option was to write the debt off, Overpayment Officers be delegated authority to negotiate with the Debtor the level of debt to be repaid. Any offer of a negotiated amount would have to be for a minimum repayment of 60% of the outstanding debt and paid at the time of the offer or the debt would revert to the full amount. This would ensure that the Council would not suffer financially, due to the Government subsidy, and any repayment over 60% would result in a profit. It was considered that the ability to negotiate the payment of old debts would result in an increase of income for the Council with fewer debts being written off.

The Assistant Director added that the majority of the debts that would be covered by the new procedure were in the sum of approximately £200. The Cabinet Committee were in general agreement with the proposals and requested an update report in 12 months time on the results of the implementation of the policy.

RECOMMENDED:

(1)        That Overpayment Officers be delegated authority to negotiate with debtors to clear their Housing Benefit Overpayment debt to the Council in the following circumstances:

(a)        the debt had been outstanding for two or more years;

(b)        all recovery options had been attempted and the only other option was to write the debt off;

(c)        any negotiated sum with the debtor to be a minimum of 60% of the outstanding debt; and

(c)        any offer of a negotiated sum to be paid at the time of the agreement by the debtor or the debt would revert to the full amount; and

(2)        That  a progress report upon the results of the implementation of the policy above be presented to the Cabinet Committee at its meeting in March 2012.

Reasons for Decision:

To increase the recovery rates for debts which might otherwise ultimately be written off.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To not allow the Overpayment Officers to negotiate the level  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

(Director of Finance & ICT) To consider the attached report (FPM-027-2010/11).

The Assistant Director (Revenues) presented a report upon the introduction of Credit Card payments.

The Assistant Director stated that credit card payments were currently not accepted by the Council for the payment of bills such as Council Tax or Housing Rents. The current position had been agreed in 2002 due to the relatively high transaction costs for processing Credit Card payments, and concern over whether, legally, these costs could be passed onto customers for payments of statutory bills such as Council Tax. In addition, payments made by Credit Cards could encourage people to borrow money on their credit card and incur high interest charges. The legal position was ambiguous as there had not been a test case, and the Council’s Legal Services had confirmed that this was an uncertain area of the law at the current time. The Cabinet was requested to consider whether credit card payments should now be accepted and whether a surcharge of 1.6% should be applied to the credit card payment by the customer to cover the transaction cost incurred by the Council. There would also be a cost of £11,010 to implement the necessary module to process any surcharges across all the Council’s systems of payments.

In response to questions from the Members present, the Assistant Director added that the quote of £11,010 to implement the further module required for the Capita system was disappointing and further discussion would take place with the supplier. Devices that allowed payments to be made at the doorstep would be useful, especially in recovering outstanding debts, however these were still being tested and were not yet available. The 1.6% surcharge was lower than the previous contract – which was 2.1% - and could not be amended during the current contract. If the proposal was agreed then any surcharge liable would be charged to the customer in future.

The Cabinet Committee was concerned about the consequence for the Council if the proposals for credit card payments were implemented, but the application of surcharges was subsequently ruled unlawful. It was felt that the proposals should be deferred to the Cabinet with the Council’s Solicitor in attendance to clarify the legal position.

RESOLVED:

(1)        That the proposals for introducing credit card payments be deferred to a future meeting of the Cabinet when the Council’s Solicitor was in attendance to advise upon the legal position for the application of surcharges.

Reasons for Decision:

The decision to implement payment by credit card should not be made until the Council’s Solicitor was in attendance to advise upon the legality of surcharges being applied to customers, to cover the transaction charge.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To not introduce payment by credit card, or to not apply the transaction surcharge to the customer.

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.

There was no other urgent business for the Cabinet Committee to consider.