Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence and note any substitutions.

Members who are unable to attend this meeting must submit apologies by the end of Monday 16^th January 2023 to enable a substitute to be arranged, if applicable.

Apologies were received from Councillor Howard.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 21^st November 2022 and published on the Council’s website.

Members agreed the Minutes of the meeting held on the 23November 2022 were correct.

To receive Members’ declarations of interests in relation to any items included on the agenda for this meeting, in accordance with Waverley’s Code of Local Government Conduct.

Councillor Martin declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 7 as a Member of the Save Crown Court Car Park Action Group.

The Chairman to respond to any written questions received from members of the public in accordance with Procedure Rule 10.

The deadline for receipt of written questions is 5pm on Monday 16^th January 2023.

None received.

The Chairman to respond to any questions received from Members in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.

The deadline for receipt of written questions is 5pm on Monday 16^th of January 2023.

None received.

The Resources Overview & Scrutiny Committee is responsible for managing its work programme.

A Scrutiny Tracker has been produced to assist the Committee in monitoring the recommendations that have been agreed at its meetings. The Tracker details the latest position on the implementation of these recommendations and is attached as Part C of the work programme.

Louise Norie (Corporate Policy Manager) reminded Members that part 1 & 2 of the work programme reflected the responses to the committee’s recommendations and part 3 identified the resolutions. Part 4 of the Work Programme reflected the current agenda going forward.

Louise Norie informed the Board that recurring items had not been included in the agenda and there would be an extraordinary O&S meeting in February to discuss those items. Councillor Hyman recommended that the Resources Committee should also have access to the Executive Forward Plan.

Members agreed to the recommendation and the motion was carried

This report informs the Overview & Scrutiny Committee of the receipt of a petition from the Save Crown Court Car Park Action Group. The petition has some 4,000 signatures. The body of the petition was debated at Full Council on 13 December 2022, and in response an amended resolution was passed.

Fiona Cameron (Senior Governance Officer) presented the report to note receipt of the petition received at Full Council on 13/12/2022 by the ‘Save Crown Court Car Park Action Group’. In accordance with the Council’s Petition Scheme, a petition with 2,000-4,999 signatures would be referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

It was recommended that the Resources Overview and Scrutiny committee note the petition as the item had already been debated at Full Council.

The committee resolved to make the following recommendations to the Executive:

-        To provide a detailed Risks and Revenue Analysis for the regeneration project, to outline the timeline and cashflows.

-        To ask the Executive for a formal update of the work and timeline for taking this matter forward.

Members agreed to the recommendations.

The Capital Strategy brings together the Council’s detailed policies, procedures and plans relating to capital expenditure, capital financing and treasury management activity.  It incorporates the Treasury Management Framework, Prudential Indicators and Asset Investment Strategy.  It also gives an overview of how associated risk is managed and the implications for future financial sustainability.

The Annual Capital Strategy forms an essential part of the Council’s integrated revenue, capital, and balance sheet planning.  It aligns to the Financial Strategy, the Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP), Housing Revenue Account Business Plan and the Annual Revenue Budget as shown in the attached report.

The Strategy also provides a framework by which capital expenditure decisions are made as required by the CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities to provide good governance.

The Overview & Scrutiny Committee is asked to consider the report and agree any comments or recommendations to be passed to the Executive on the proposed recommendations to Executive and Council as set out in the report.

Peter Vickers (Executive Head of Finance and Section 151 Officer) presented the capital strategy. He noted that the Capital Strategy brought together the Council’s detailed policies, procedures and plans related to capital expenditure, capital financing and treasury management activity. He explained that it incorporated the Treasury Management Framework, Prudential Indicators and Asset Investment Strategy. It was noted that the capital strategy provided an overview of how associated risk was managed and the implications for future financial sustainability.

Councillor Heagin raised concerns about the Treasury management policy statement and pointed out that the treasure management quarterly report did not identify risk. Peter Vickers explained that within the quarterly performance indicators, the treasury management indicators were usually reported. He agreed to amend the report in response to the Councillor’s recommendation.

Councillor Martin queried where he could find the capital expenditure in relation to climate change. Peter Vickers informed the committee that the details could be found in the Capital Programme. Officer Rosie Plaistow added that when assessing capital projects, a climate change impact column is created to score and assess projects. She noted that the column could be found at Page 42 of the papers.

Councillor Mulliner queried the Second Stage Priority Scoring; and whether a project was more desirable if it required 100% external funding or no external funding. Officer Rosie Plaistow explained that the score 5 reflected where a project had secured 90-100% external funding and the score 0 was where no external funding had been secured. She noted that a higher score was more desirable as it required less engagement from Waverley borough council. Councillor Mulliner recommended the papers were amended to make the weighting clearer.

Councillor Mulliner went on to reference page 43, more specifically the direct revenue savings, the savings from efficiencies and the cost avoidance, for example paying down MRP. He asked how they were different from each other. Peter Vickers explained that direct revenue savings referred to a project that would avoid costs going forward so it would generate direct savings. He advised that savings for efficiencies were more strategic in terms of what took place in whole teams rather than individual processes. He also noted that cost avoidance was focused on capital programme rather than service delivery.

Councillor Mulliner queried the scale of the CFR in table 1.7, he expressed that it was larger than the other previous tables. It was noted that Peter Vickers would circulate a summary of the table in a spreadsheet and accept questions from Members outside of the meeting. Councillor Mulliner suggested that the writing of the documentation in section 1 was reviewed. He suggested a sub-group should be set up to meet with officers to gain a full understanding of the concepts so this could be communicated back to the Committee effectively. He advised that the task group would essentially look at the documents and agree on more simplified wording.

The Committee resolved to make the following recommendations to the Executive:

-      To simplify the wording of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

This report sets out the draft General Fund Budget for 2023/24 and Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP) ending 2026/27. The MTFP sets out the key work streams for the Council to focus on over this period which, collectively, aim to address the significant shortfall in annual budget projected.

The Overview & Scrutiny Committee is asked to consider the report and agree any comments or recommendations to be passed to the Executive on the proposed recommendations to Executive and Council as set out in the report.

Rosie Plaistow (Finance Manager) presented the General Fund Budget and Medium-Term Financial Plan 2023/34. She advised that the report detailed a number of issues brought into the 2023/24 Budget, including:

-          A 2.99% increase in Waverley’s Band D council tax charge for the next financial year

-          A general inflationary increase to fees and charges

-          A 4% increase in the weekly charge for garages

-          Details assumptions regarding inflation and mitigating inflationary cost through some of the targets set commercially.

Rosie Plaistow further explained that the Fair Funding Review had been delayed by a further year and would be carried out in line with Government Spending Review. It was noted that the funding provided by the government for the next financial year was set out in the report.

Councillors Edmunds and Hyman joined the meeting at 18:28pm due to technical difficulties and requested the incident be minuted.

During the meeting, several councillors expressed concern about the proposed budget. Councill Neale raised concerns about item 10.4, he queried why garages intended for council tenants were being rented to private residents; and if that related to tenants parking on roads and possible Electric vehicle charging concerns. Councillor Mulliner queried whether garages were mainly leased to HRA tenants or other tenants. Officer Peter Vickers stated that 75% of garages were leased to private tenants. He also explained that garages as they stand were not part of the Housing Act 85 Provision of Dwellings due to the state of repair. Peter Vickers noted that they could not be ring fenced in the HRA therefore they have to fall to the General Fund. Councillor Hyman queried the appropriation of garages from HRA to general fund. Officer Peter Vickers explained the garages were appropriated through the CFR in the treasure management strategy with a net revenue stream of £100,000 a year to the General Fund.

Councillor Heagin expressed concern that some of the financial issues attributed to COVID-19 in Annex 1 Note A, may be due to the cost-of-living crisis, such as reduced gym membership and changes in parking.

Councillor Martin asked for more information regarding savings from collaboration with Guildford Borough Council. There was an identified budgetary saving of £202,000 in 23/24 but wanted to understand the savings from the financial year and the previous financial year. He went on to request more information on staff vacancies, local costs, and income from leisure centres, as well as fluctuations in the new homes bonus and the funding guarantee grant. The Officer responded by offering to provide further information on staff vacancies and agency costs outside of the meeting. He went on to explain that the new homes bonus was driven by the performance of the council tax base itself i.e., new properties brought into use within the course of the year. He also noted that the funding guarantee grant was a late announcement from the government in response to the cost-of-living crisis, guaranteed a 3% spending power guarantee, but this was a one-off and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

This report sets out the proposed Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Business Plan, Revenue Budget and Capital Programme for 2023/24.

The Overview & Scrutiny Committee is asked to consider the report and agree any comments or recommendations to be passed to the Executive on the proposed recommendations to Executive and Council as set out in the report.

Candice Keet (Senior Accountant) introduced the item. She advised that the recommendation drawn out in the report was to:

-        Increase rents by 4%

-        Proposing to increase service charges by 4% for senior living

-        Increase fees and charges by 9% in line with inflation

Members discussed the pros and cons of different rent increase options and considered factors such as borrowing stress, inflation, and tenant impact. Councillor Martin expressed his opinion on the rent levels, he stated that he would prefer a 4% increase. He compared it to the inflation increases in the general fund and council taxes, which were going up by nearly 3%. However, he acknowledged that it was a difficult call, and he was not sure where the right balance lay.

Councillor Nicholson further added to the discussion by stating that if they could eliminate the borrowing stress, then he would consider r 4%. Councillor Edmonds also felt that with regard to the borrowing profile that the 5% increase was a reasonable option. He stated that councils had a legal obligation to keep track of borrowing. The chair asked if any other members wished to contribute, and Councillor Heagin noted that doing less than the maximum was a good thing for regulatory purposes and asked officers if there was any opportunity for advanced lobbying. She suggested that a gradual catch up should be allowed for councils who did not implement the full rent increase.

Candice Keet noted that within the papers, a proposal for additional borrowing was made in order to finance the capital program and debt repayments. She also noted that the debt repayments would be ramped up in the next few years and an additional £4.5 million would be borrowed over the next 12 years, totalling £26 million of additional borrowing based on a 4% rent increase in 2023-24. Members discussed the differences between a 4% and 5% rent increase, with the latter being preferred due to concerns about the debt profile. Members expressed concern about the impact on tenants, suggesting that a more gradual catch-up approach may be more appropriate. Overall, the committee concluded that the 4 or 5% rent increase discussion should be revisited by the Executive.

Councillor Heagin addressed the issue of rental increases and the recharge for energy costs in HRA properties in the context of the proposals. She went on to raise concerns that the recharge for energy costs for senior living accommodation was not fully recovering the energy costs, and it might be subsidising some residents to the tune of almost £300,000. Councillor Heagin questioned whether the energy costs were just for heating or the full-service charge cost and if any other groups of residents were receiving the same level of subsidy. Councillor Heagin also asked whether any senior living residents had gained anything from the energy support packages that were currently in place but likely to be less generous from April. Councillor Heagin suggested that the Executive should investigate it and that a 4% increase might  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.