To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors JW Hope MBE, TM James and R Preece.  Councillors JW Hope MBE, RC Hunt, Brig P Jones CBE and RL Mayo were not present.  Apologies had also been received from Mr P Sell. 

To receive details of Members nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the Committee.

No substitutes were present.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members.

No declarations of interest were made.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2013.

The minutes of the last meeting were received. 

Referring to minute 27 (Waste Management Contract), the Chairman reported that a number of Councillors had been on site visits to a pyrolysis plant in Avonmouth and to an energy from waste plant in Coventry.  The Chairman reported that Cabinet was due to consider the Waste Management Contract on 12 December 2013 and, therefore, it was likely that an additional General Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting would need to be scheduled in order for the Committee to be assured about the robustness of the proposals and associated figures; he added that the KPMG analysis referred to at the last meeting had not yet been released.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2013 be approved as a correct record and be signed by the Chairman.

To consider suggestions from members of the public on issues the Committee could scrutinise in the future.

(There will be no discussion of the issue at the time when the matter is raised. Consideration will be given to whether it should form part of the Committee’s work programme when compared with other competing priorities.)

Suggestions had been received from Mrs. Morawiecka in respect of the Five Year Housing Land Supply (with a response provided by the Assistant Director Economic, Environment and Cultural Services) and the Local Transport Plan.

Five-Year Housing Land Supply (FYHLS)

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mrs. Morawiecka commented that, given developments in terms of the Core Strategy and planning appeals, there was a need for information to be made available on the FYHLS.  The Assistant Director advised that: the FYHLS was a complicated issue and various methodologies could be used in the calculation; as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), every local planning authority was required to identify a deliverable FYHLS for their housing requirement; and, in Herefordshire’s case, the accuracy of the FYHLS would be tested at a planning inquiry later in the month.

The Chairman requested that a clear definition of what the Council meant by the FYHLS be prepared and circulated.  The Vice-Chairman, referring to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), suggested that an indication be given of where land blocks sat on a timeline, albeit recognising that this was a dynamic issue and would only represent a snapshot.  A Member in attendance noted the need for clarity, as messages had not been consistent between departments.

The Assistant Director agreed to circulate officers’ current assessment to all Councillors, with a caveat that a definitive statement could not be made until the outcomes of the inquiry were understood.  He added that this could explain the context of the NPPF and identify the implications of having, or not having, a FYHLS.  In response to a question from the Vice-Chairman, the Assistant Director said that officers would attempt to identify the geographic spread and the types of housing involved.  It was noted that sites could include those under construction, those with planning consent but not yet started, ‘windfall’ sites, and other land currently identified in the SHLAA which had a reasonable prospect of coming forward within a five year period.

The Chairman requested that the assessment be circulated by the end of November 2013, with a version sent to town and parish councils and to Mrs. Morawiecka for information.

Local Transport Plan

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mrs. Morawiecka drew attention to her question about the Local Transport Plan and requested that an indication be provided of when a new plan would be available.

To note questions received from the public and the items to which they relate.

(Questions are welcomed for consideration at a Scrutiny Committee meeting so long as the question is directly related to an item listed on the agenda.  If you have a question you would like to ask then please submit it no later than two working days before the meeting to the officer named on the cover of this agenda).

Six questions had been received in advance of the meeting from Mrs. Morawiecka on the item ‘Freedom of Information and Arms Length Companies - An Update’.

The questions were published on the Council’s website shortly before the meeting.  However, it was reported that responses to the questions had not yet been received from the relevant officers but would be made available at the earliest opportunity. 

In response to a question from the Vice-Chairman, the Committee was advised that the Head of Governance and the Solicitor to the Council had not been available to respond to the questions and had forwarded their apologies for this meeting. 

The Vice-Chairman commented that the meeting had been scheduled in the diary for a year in advance and requested that senior officers be mindful of the scrutiny work programme and the need to attend meetings to enable the Committee to undertake its duties effectively.  The Chairman added that, unless there were overwhelming circumstances, he considered non-attendance by senior officers to be unacceptable.  Other Members of the Committee supported this view.

A Committee Member questioned whether the meeting should proceed in the absence of senior officers but the Chairman said that there was business on the agenda that could be transacted, with other officers available to discuss particular items.

To consider the Committee’s work programme.

The Chairman invited the Vice-Chairman to review the draft work programme with the Committee.  The Vice-Chairman noted that a number of items had been identified for consideration but had not moved forward subsequently and suggested that the work programme and associated documents be tidied up, especially as Committee meetings were to be scheduled bi-monthly in the future.  The principal points arising from the discussion are summarised below.

Draft work programme

The scheduled programme, for January 2014 (Fire Service Consultation) and February 2014 (Budget), was noted.

Issues identified for consideration but not scheduled

The Chairman commented that there was a debate nationally about the role of scrutiny with academies and free schools; although they were set up as stand-alone institutions, the local authority was still responsible for safeguarding and the welfare of the children attending those schools.  Therefore, it was noted that work might be needed in this area.

Referring to budget monitoring, a Member in attendance questioned whether bi-monthly meetings were sufficient given the critical financial situation and asked whether a standing forum could be established.  In response, the Chairman reported that the Leader was in the process of making arrangements for such a group, incorporating Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees and Audit and Governance Committee.

Reviews identified for feasibility study

To update the Committee on the freedom of information report presented on 4 March 2013.

The purpose of this item was to update the Committee on the ‘Freedom of Information [FOI] and Arm’s Length Companies’ report that was received by the Committee on 4 March 2013 (minute 53 refers).  The Chairman proposed that, as no senior officer involved with this report was present, the item be deferred.  He said that Mrs. Morawiecka had consistently raised concerns about the status of arm’s length companies and invited her to identify questions and information that she considered to be outstanding.

Mrs. Morawiecka made a number of points, including:

1.       Given that the authority intended to become more of a commissioning organisation, it was considered vital that there was clarity about arm’s length companies and FOI.

2.       The Committee had not been provided with the most up-to-date information from the financial statements for the company, even though these were publicly available.  Concern was expressed that the Monitoring Officer apparently did not have access to such information, despite the nature of the questions being asked.

3.       Issues with the 4 March 2013 report had been raised at the 8 April 2013 meeting (minute 60 refers) and at the 8 June 2013 meeting (minute 5 refers), where the Monitoring Officer agreed to provide a report to a future meeting on the Council’s part in the ownership of Hereford Futures.  Mrs. Morawiecka considered that the current report was inadequate, particularly the omission of reference to the latest financial statements.

4.       The accounts for the year ended 31 March 2012 showed that the turnover for Hereford Futures was less than the grant income received from the Council.

5.       Mrs. Morawiecka said that she had a letter that indicated that Herefordshire Council had made guarantees in relation to the pension for the Chief Executive of the joint venture company.

6.       The answers to previous questions had not been made public or circulated to Councillors.

7.       There was provision for officers to be seconded to arm’s length companies and, whilst this might not be unreasonable in principle, Councillors needed to be assured that they had access to up-to-date, independent and accurate information.

8.       Guarantees were being made by Herefordshire Council that Elected Members were not aware of.  It was claimed that Hereford Futures was not a going concern almost two years’ ago but the Council had guaranteed that sufficient income would be made available to satisfy the auditors.  Mrs. Morawiecka added that this decision had been taken before any Council budget meetings.

9.       Given the financial situation, there needed to be transparency about joint venture companies.

10.     A concern was expressed that Elected Members did not have access to minutes and other information.

11.     There needed to be clarity about the liabilities for the Council in respect of private arm’s length companies and associated employees.

The Chairman thanked Mrs. Morawiecka for her comments and said that he shared concerns about the accountability of third parties and the need to safeguard public money, especially as the Council was increasingly reliant upon private companies to deliver public  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

To report the Executive’s response and action plan in respect of the report of the Task and Finish Group on Community Infrastructure Levy.

This item reported the Executive’s response to the second phase report of the Task and Finish Group on Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL); minute 17 of the 16 July 2013 Committee refers.

The Assistant Director updated the Committee on the government’s proposed reforms to CIL arising from practice experience in pathfinder authorities and a consultation that had been undertaken in April and May 2013.  The government response was published at the end of October 2013 as ‘Community Infrastructure Levy: Consultation on further Regulatory Reforms’.  It was expected that, subject to Parliamentary process, the new regulations would come into effect by the end of January 2014.  The main proposals included:

1.       In view of the changes required, local authorities would be given an extra year to continue the current policy of pooling Section 106 obligations into broader schemes (until April 2015); this was supported by 89% of respondents.

2.       Authorities would be required to strike an appropriate balance between the desirability of fund infrastructure from the levy and the potential effects of the levy on the economic viability of development across the area; supported by 86%.

3.       Authorities would be allowed to set differential rates by reference to both the intended use and the scale of development, e.g. retail development; supported by 86%.

4.       The government would require the Regulation 123 list, setting out the types of infrastructure that may be funded by CIL, to be available during the rate setting process, including at the examination; supported by 83%.

5.       Authorities would be given the flexibility to extend social housing relief to include affordable rent and discounted housing market homes; supported by 75%.

6.       As discussed at Task and Finish Group meetings, relief for self-build homes for individuals was proposed.  This was only supported by 39% of respondents but the government was intending to proceed with this, subject to a rigorous two-stage vetting process.

The Assistant Director commented that, with some of the uncertainties cleared up, this would set the scene for the next phase of work on CIL.  The Council was about to re-engage its retained consultants, to include input from the reinstated Task and Finish Group, to identify precisely the basis for their work and to capture the accepted recommendations from the group’s second phase report.  It was anticipated that the next phases of consultation would commence in the new calendar year.

The Assistant Director responded to a number of questions from the Chairman, Vice-Chairman (also Chairman of the Task and Finish Group), and other Members.   The principal points included:

a.       The ‘Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2013’ required the charging authority to pass 15 per cent of the relevant CIL receipts to the parish council for that area.  For development within an area that had a neighbourhood plan in place the authority must pass 25 per cent to the parish council for that area. 

b.       It was confirmed that the legislation permitted setting a zero CIL rate in some zones, e.g. Leominster greenfield urban extension.

c.       It was the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

To receive a presentation from the Section 151 Officer.

The Chief Officer - Finance verbally updated the Committee on the future direction of budget strategy, the key points were as follows:

1.       The Council was currently consulting on the proposed budget for 2014/15; the consultation would close on 20 December 2013.  This would inform the decisions to be made by Cabinet in January 2014 and Full Council in February 2014.

2.       Significant savings had to be made due to reductions in government grant and budget pressures in essential areas, particularly Adults Wellbeing; savings of £15m had to be made in 2014/15.

3.       Presentations had been given to Cabinet Members and Group Leaders.  Presentations had also been given to, or were scheduled for, each political group.

4.       The Chief Officer - Finance invited the Committee to identify what additional information and engagement it wanted in terms of the scrutiny of the budget process, albeit acknowledging that time was limited.

The Chairman commented that there had been substantial overspend in Adults Wellbeing for many years and, whilst recognising the on-going efforts of the Director, questioned how this could be brought under control.  In response, the Chief Officer - Finance advised:

a.       The starting point for Adults Wellbeing going forward would be the actual expenditure rather than the current budgets, to avoid any in built overspend.  Consequently, there was a higher savings target to take this into account.

b.       The authority needed to gain assurance around identified savings, with detailed delivery plans signed off by Directors.  In particular, the Chief Officer - Finance and the Director for Adults Wellbeing were working to ensure that the budget was realistic and plans were in place which were deliverable within the relevant timescales.

c.       Budget monitoring showed a downward movement for Adults Wellbeing compared to the previous position and, although a significant overspend remained, this indicated that it was going in the right direction.

d.       In response to a question about the measures being put in place to ensure that data was accurate, the Chief Officer - Finance advised that some of the finance team had been redirected to support better management information and forecasts.  He added that, ultimately, he could only make judgements based on the information put in front of him.

The Chief Officer - Finance responded to questions from Committee Members, the principal points included:

i.        Further to point a. above, with expenditure as a starting point, it was reported that the authority was retendering contracts based on prices in the market and the experience of officers, and this would inform the budget process.  Savings would be delivered through the reorganisation of structures and reductions in staffing, with a number of consultations currently underway.  Further savings would be achieved by not filling vacancies in particular areas and by reducing the use of agency staff.  It was reported that each line of savings had a plan beneath it.

ii.       The assumptions in terms of Adults Wellbeing were based on current transition rates and there was no reason to expect these to change  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

The next scheduled meeting is Monday, 6 January 2014 at 10.00am.

It was noted that the next scheduled meeting was to be held on Monday 6 January 2014.

(Note: a special meeting was subsequently arranged for 10 December 2013 in relation to the Waste Management Contract only).