To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor CA Gandy.  Apologies had also been received from the Leader of the Council, Councillor AW Johnson.

To receive details of members nominated to attend the meeting in place of a member of the committee.

Councillor EL Holton substituted for Councillor CA Gandy.

To receive any declarations of interest by members.

No declarations of interest were made.

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 27 October 2015.

The minutes of the previous meeting were received.

RESOLVED:      That the minutes of the meeting held on 27 October 2015 be approved as a correct record.

To seek the views of the general overview and scrutiny committee on the council’s corporate plan 2016-20 in order to inform cabinet’s recommendation to council.

The corporate plan key priorities had been identified in Financial planning assumptions 16/17 – 19/20 presentation and an overview of the report had been provided at the Health and social care overview and scrutiny committee held earlier in the morning.

RESOLVED:  That the draft corporate plan 2016-20 be noted.

To seek the views of the general overview and scrutiny committee on the draft medium term financial strategy (MTFS) 2016-20 and the budget proposals for 2016-17.

The Director of resources and Head of corporate finance had given a presentation for all scrutiny members on Financial planning assumptions 16/17 – 19/20 at the Health and social care overview and scrutiny committee held earlier in the morning; the minutes of that meeting can be found here.

The Director of resources, responding to questions raised at the earlier meeting but relevant to the remit of this committee, made the following points:

i.       The level of response to the Priorities and budget consultation 2016-20 was gratifying, particularly in comparison to previous years.

ii.      There were risks within the budget but it had been reviewed and re-profiled in line with the MTFS.  Whilst it was difficult to predict the pressures on demand led services, especially in children’s safeguarding, it was considered that the budget was deliverable, supported by contingency and reserves.

iii.     It was not considered appropriate to consider the question of a referendum on raising council tax above 1.9% in advance of the publication of the Comprehensive spending review (CSR) on 25 November 2015.  Nevertheless, the following observations were made: the recent consultation might not be fully representative of the overall population and how they might vote in a referendum; a referendum would be costly in terms of both running the process and in rebilling council tax (as a referendum would not be held until May 2016); it was for members to determine the level of the budget and to consider the savings proposals; there had not been a successful referendum on increasing council tax to date; a significant proportion of budget expenditure related to adults’ wellbeing and children’s safeguarding and it was questionable whether voters in general would support higher levels of taxation to protect services for a relatively small percentage of the population.

The Deputy Leader said that the consultation was important but was only one part of the information used in terms of setting the budget.  It was considered that there would be financial risks associated with a referendum and the authority needed to be mindful of the implications of further increases for low wage earners.

A committee member made a number of comments, including:

a.       The consultation had seen a tenfold increase in the number of responses and 61% supported a council tax increase above 2% to protect services and defer savings.

b.       It was felt that the administration should trust residents and honour its pledge to work as one council, adding that a significant number of respondents to the consultation were aware of the context of the council’s financial position and the potential implications for further service cuts in the future.

c.       It was recognised that there were financial costs associated with a referendum but reference was made to expenditure of over £1 million on consultants for one infrastructure project which was not yet ready for consideration by the Planning Committee.  The member said that it should be considered a ‘spend to save referendum’ and would provide an opportunity for councillors to engage with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

To provide cabinet with comments on the proposed capital programme for 2016/17 onwards for recommendation to council on 18 December 2015.

The Director of resources presented the proposed capital programme for 2016/17, noting that the programme had a key role in supporting the council’s ambitions to drive economic growth in the county and deliver more jobs and homes.  Attention was drawn to the schemes identified on page 101 of the agenda.

Responses were provided to a number of questions from committee members, the principal points included:

i.        The ‘capital strategy group’, referred to in paragraph 5, page 100 of the agenda, consisted of senior representatives from each directorate and was chaired by the Director of resources.  Responding to further questions about accountability, the Cabinet member economy and corporate services and the Cabinet member infrastructure commented on their involvement in a range of activities and discussions about individual projects and considered it appropriate for an officer group to assess capital proposals for subsequent consideration by the executive.

ii.       The Assistant director commissioning clarified that the ‘Hereford city centre transport package’ brought together the Hereford city link road and the range of complementary transport and public realm measures within one line in the schemes identified on page 101.  A committee member asked for consistency in how schemes were described and accounted for.  In response to a further question, the Head of corporate finance advised that the description given on page 106, that ‘LEP grant funded investment increasing the net social value of housing and external impact of housing development resulting in a net regeneration benefit of £82m’, had been taken from the business case but would be updated in the next iteration of the document.  The Chairman suggested that future reports would benefit from expanded explanatory notes.

iii.      The Director of resources advised that all projects included an element of contingency, with further 1% contingency across the programme.  Reference was made to the £2m identified for ‘Emergency property estate enhancement works’ which reflected the age of buildings on the estate and the backlog of maintenance.

A committee member noted that numerous schemes had been identified as ‘invest to save’ initiatives and suggested that the committee would benefit from visibility of those elements of the capital programme which had been delivered and to be assured that savings and returns on investments were being achieved.  The Director of resources referred to the examples including the purchase of green bins for recyclable waste and the capital investment in Halo Leisure run facilities across the county.  The Deputy Leader said that Cabinet already received performance reports.  In order to be as accessible to members as possible, the Chairman requested that a briefing note be prepared and circulated on this matter annually.

RESOLVED:  That the capital programme be noted and the comments of the committee be forwarded to Cabinet.

The next scheduled meeting is Monday 7 December 2015 at 2.00 pm.

The Chairman reminded members that an additional meeting was being arranged for December 2015 [Note: this meeting was subsequently withdrawn, the next scheduled meeting being 19 January 2016].