Agenda and minutes

(Assistant to the Chief Executive)  To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

The Panel noted that there were no substitute members.

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

In considering whether to declare a personal or a prejudicial interest under the Code of Conduct, Overview & Scrutiny members are asked pay particular attention to paragraph 11 of the Code in addition to the more familiar requirements.

This requires the declaration of a personal and prejudicial interest in any matter before an OS Committee which relates to a decision of or action by another Committee or Sub Committee of the Council, a Joint Committee or Joint Sub Committee in which the Council is involved and of which the Councillor is also a member.

Paragraph 11 does not refer to Cabinet decisions or attendance at an OS meeting purely for the purpose of answering questions or providing information on such a matter.

Pursuant to the Council Code for Members Conduct, Councillor Jon Whitehouse declared a personal interest in agenda item 10, Fees and Charges, by virtue of being a tenant of the Council for a garage. He declared that his interests were not prejudicial and that he would remain for the discussion and consideration of the item.

To consider and agree the notes from the meeting of the Panel held on 25 August 2009.

The notes from the previous meeting held on 25 August 2009 were agreed.

(Chairman/Lead Officer) The Overview and Scrutiny Committee has agreed the Terms of Reference of this Panel and associated Work Programme. This is attached. The Panel are asked at each meeting to review both documents.

The Panel considered their term of reference. Councillor Philip asked about item 8 on the terms of reference, monitoring and reviewing progress on the implementation of major ICT systems. The Director of Finance and ICT, Bob Palmer, said that a report updating on the work of the ICT Service would be brought to the next meeting of this Panel in January 2010.

(Director of Finance & ICT) To consider the attached report. This paper originally went to the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee on 5 October 2009.

The Director of Finance and ICT, Mr Bob Palmer, introduced the financial issues paper. He explained that this went to the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee in October 2009. The report is produced at the start of the budget process looking at the previous years account, highlighting any problems that the council may face in the coming years. This was useful to establish this early in the budget cycle. The Panel noted that there were difficulties this year due to the state of the economy and the uncertainty when a recovery would occur. The other uncertainty was if the Government would come forward with a comprehensive spending review, but this would not happen until after the general election.

It was noted that because of the recession less money was coming in and more was going out, making any prediction difficult. The executive summary at the beginning of the report touched on key areas of uncertainty and risks to the authority, such as: likely reductions in grant as part of the comprehensive Spending Review; effects of the credit crunch and reduced activity in the housing market; using up of capital reserves on non-revenue generating assets; pay awards; next triennial pension valuation; capitalisation of pension deficit payments; changes to the statutory concessionary fares scheme; and the customer services transformation programme.

The capital reserves were being used up on non-revenue generating assets although they played their part in generating income by earning interest. Pay awards have a dramatic effect on the council’s costs. The pay awards were lower this year than expected but may be up to 2.5% next year. As for the pension evaluation, the stock market has recovered but is still 15% below what it was in March 2007. At present if there is a pension deficit the council can apply for a capitalisation direction from the government, but it may be that the government may change this policy.

The concessionary fares scheme had proved to be a great success, but it came at a cost to authorities. So far the council has done relatively well from this and has transferred some of the costs to County level. It would be a major concern if this was removed.

There was uncertainty on how the customer services transformation programme was to be taken forward; this was elsewhere on the agenda to be discussed tonight.

There was an increase of the general fund balance over the last financial year. Other authorities were undertaking drastic cost cutting exercises. This council was looking for a £1.5 million reduction and would have the ability with its reserves, to manage this over a period of time.

Officers are assuming that the council tax increase would be set at 2.5%, balancing the service provided and the cost to the tax payers.

Councillor Angold-Stephens commented that it sounded gloomy and unpredictable, but with a predicted balance of £6 million it didn’t sound so bad, were officers being over cautious. Mr Palmer said they were being cautious as they  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

(Deputy Chief Executive) To consider the attached report.

The Performance Improvement Manager, Mr S Tautz informed the Panel that this showed the performance of the Key Performance Indicators for the first six months of this year (1 April to 30 September). The Panel noted the revised targets for the following KPIs: NI 170, NI 186, NI 188, NI 195(c), NI 195 (d), LPI 01 and LPI 05.

It was noted that 25 (43.1%) had achieved the second quarter or year-end performance target for 2009/10 and that 14 (24.1%) had not achieved the second quarter or year-end performance target for 2009/10. The improvement plans for indicators not currently meeting their targets were also attached to the report for information.

Specific issues brought to the attention of the panel were:

LPI 02(b) & (c) – Processing of Licence Applications – this had a target of 100% set for the year. But, the target had been missed for both indicators in the first quarter due to system issues. Because of this it would be impossible for the year end target to be achieved as a result of the under performance in the first quarter. It was suggested that consideration should therefore be given to the adoption of revised targets for the indicators for that performance be monitored on the basis of the second and remaining quarters of the year.

AGREED that the year end performance be monitored on the basis of the second and subsequent quotas of the year.

LPI 23(a) – Capital projects (cost) – in the last financial year there were no projects completed that fell within the definition of the indicator so that nothing meaningful could be reported. The Director of Finance and ICT considered that monitoring procedures already in place for major capital schemes were significantly robust and that this indicator added no value in terms of this process and accordingly recommended that this indicator be deleted as a KPI for the remainder of 2009/10.

Members were not happy with the indicator but thought that capital projects should be looked at in the round and reported on.

AGREED: that the Director of Finance and ICT review this indicator in light of the member’s comments and report back to the next meeting.

The Panel then went on to review the remaining indicators.

LPI 01 – The level of the Equality Framework for Local Government to which the Council conforms – noted that a peer review was to be scheduled for early in 2010.

LPI 50 – The number of elderly people participating in physical activity – Asked why this target was so low officers said that as they had been inundated by the success of the scheme and they would review the target at years end.

LPI 28 – The number of working days lost due to sickness absence – asked if there had been much impact by swine flu, the officer said that there had been no impact of swine flue at present. A paper was tabled, breaking down in percentage terms the amount of sick leave taken  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

(Deputy Chief Executive) To receive a verbal report from the Chairman of the Scrutiny Panel in relation to the consideration of the annual Value for Money Cost and Performance Analysis, by the member sub-group established at the last meeting.

Councillor Jacobs took the Panel through a short verbal report of the value for money sub-group they had considered various services to look at, but had decided that Planning was being dealt with, as was Housing which had their own Standing Panels. Duplication was to be avoided. The Sub-group had decided to look at the benefits section after they had their inspection in January 2010.

The Panel agreed that this would a valuable area to scrutinise.

            RESOLVED:

That, as a result of the consideration of the Value for Money Cost and Performance Analysis and the impending inspection to be undertaken by the Audit Commission, progress reports on the performance of the Benefits Division be made to each future meeting of the Panel.

(Director of Finance and ICT) to consider the attached report.

The Assistant Director (Accountancy), Peter Maddock, introduced the quarterly financial monitoring report for the second quarter of 2009/10. This report provided a comparison between the profiled budgets for the period ended 30 September 2009 and the actual expenditure or income as applicable.

The Panel noted that there were significant savings on salaries of £450,000 or 4.5%, due to a large part on the low pay award. There were also savings made on Building Control and with upcoming developments the account should be in surplus and contribute towards the recovery of the ongoing deficit. Investment interest levels in 2009/10 would be lower than that in the estimates and rates looked unlikely to recover much for at least two years. Income from MOTs carried out by Fleet Operations was providing an increased income significantly above budget. A surplus of around £50,000 was expected and this would benefit the General Fund. It was also noted that £314,000 for Civic Office Works was to be rephased into next year.

Councillor Whitehouse commented that it was difficult to work out the overall net effect although he understood that we were only half way through the year. Mr Maddock said that interest rates should recover; the CSB would not be as underspent as last years. This was a work in progress and we would be wiser after quarter 3.

Councillor Philip noted that Bobbingworth Tip (appendix 17) was completed but that it was difficult to track the capital programme if they did not have comparable figures. If a new project was started under the same name as an old one it should be treated as new. A 125% variance was vey large. Mr Maddock said they could expand the table and put in other columns to explain in more detail. Councillor Philip said that they needed to get it right from the beginning. Mr Durrani, Assistant Director (Engineering Services), said that the scheme went back 18 or 19 years. Unlike other schemes it needed an investigation into what remedial works needed to be carried out. Part of the problem was how the financial system worked for audit purposes. We could not just start a new scheme if the old one was not valid.  Councillor Philip said it did not allow us to track a scheme properly.

Nigel Richardson, Assistant Director (Development) commented that Development Control relied on major applications to give them a large fee. The number of planning applications was down by 100, they usually got about 200 a year.  However, the War Memorial Hospital in Ongar would be coming in a few weeks and there was still potential for recouping some of the losses.

            RESOLVED:

That the Revenue and Capital financial monitoring report for the second quarter of 2009/10 be noted.

(Director of Finance and ICT) Report to follow.

The Assistant Director (Accountancy), Peter Maddock, introduced the report on fees and charges for 2010/11. The report was to provide information on the fees and charges that the council levies and what scope if any there was to increase particular charges. As part of the annual budget process change to fees and charges need to be agreed.

The Panel noted that the council was faced with a period of considerable financial uncertainty with Revenue Support Grant settlements from 2011/12 likely to be cut in real terms. There was less freedom for Authorities wishing to raise additional revenue from fees and charges as more are subjected to cost recovery only or government direction. Against this it was felt that fees and charges should be increased by 5% where possible.

Examples of increases were schemes such as Lifewalks to be increased by 10% as this fee had remained unchanged for a number of years. The personal search fees under Land Charges was to increase from £11 to £22 from 1 January 2010 the reassessment of  the cost of carrying out full searches was currently underway, but there was not expected to be any significant changes to the level of fees as a result of this review.

Councillor Philip thanked officers for keeping the pay and display charges the same as this helped local businesses and the Council should be congratulated for doing this.

            RESOLVED:

That the Panel noted and agreed the Policy for increasing fees and charges for 2010/11, recommending a general increase of 5% to the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee.

(Deputy Chief Executive) to consider the attached report.

The Deputy Chief Executive introduced the item on the Customer Services Task and Finish Panel. The Task and Finish Panel undertook a review of the Customer Services Programme, previously explored by the council, to identify those initiatives which could have a general impact on improving access to services and response to customer enquiries.

The Task and Finish Panels final report went to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and subsequently by Cabinet in February 2009. Having accepted the recommendations in principle the cabinet asked that the following recommendations be prioritised. As this Panel has taken over the work of the Task and Finish Panel it would fall to them to consider the recommendations that had not been acted upon as yet.

The recommendations cover four areas for improvement:

• Recommendations 3 and 4, related to the creation of a single reception/customer services area at the Civic Offices.

• Recommendations 5 and 6 relate to the development and deployment of a Customer Relationship Management System, which would also meet the needs of NI 14.

• Recommendation 7 relates to reporting the findings of the Survey on the future design and content of the Forester, to Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

• Recommendations 8 and 9 relate to the establishment of a bespoke Customer Contact Centre, along the lines of “Contact Harlow”.

The Scrutiny Panel discussed the merit of each of the four points noting that the issue of the Forester had been largely dealt with and decided there were three main areas that should be concentrated on. They were:

1)                    A single reception point, although the Council’ CAA Organisational Assessment recommended that services should be improved across the district and not just concentrated in Epping. While this would be advantageous in terms of ease of access it must be viewed against the level of capital costs likely to be incurred.

2)                    Customer Relationship Management System/NI14 – there were issues about telephone handling, we currently had a poor telephone switch system. Members would like a Customer Relationship Management System but realised the council would need a common IT system and a common document management system. This may not happen at least until 2012/13.

3)                    A Customer Contact Centre – the noted that Harlow had reduced avoidable contact but had needed added resources.

Having discussed the merits of each of the improvements the members considered that more information was needed, including potential costs. They had concluded that the three top priorities were:

1)                  a better telephone system;

2)                  better interview rooms; and

3)                  taking services out to satellite offices in the district.

It was noted that an officer group on avoidable contact was collecting information at present. There was also a management group doing a similar project. Officers would bring back more information to this Panel at a future meeting so that a final decision could be made.

            RESOLVED:

That a further report giving more details on the three priority areas identified would be brought to a future meeting of this Panel.

To consider which reports are ready to be submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its next meeting.

To report back to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee with a general update on the reports considered at this meeting.

To note the forward programme of meeting dates for the Panel.

Meetings are scheduled for:

12 January 2010;

23 February 2010; and

22 April 2010

The schedule for future meetings were noted.