Agenda item

To agree the Panel’s report, for consideration by the Scrutiny Commission at its meeting on 10th January 2022.

The Commission will be requested to recommend the report to the Cabinet at its meeting on 10th February 2022.

A draft report of the Panel was submitted for agreement of the Panel, to then be submitted to the Scrutiny Commission on 10th January 2022 (agenda item 8 filed with these minutes).

Assisting with the consideration of this item: Strategic Director, Environmental and Corporate Services.

Summary, key points of discussion:

·         Based on the costs of the Bedford Square project having doubled, it was proposed that a small contingency be put aside for overspend on the Shepshed Project should a similar increase in costs occur.  In response, it was clarified that Bedford Square funding had increased along with costs, which had been approximately £70-80k from the Council.  It was added that every major capital project had a contingency within it.  It was further clarified that increases in costs can occur when unexpected discoveries such as wires were found when digging as it meant that companies would need to conduct work which took time and money.  In order to avoid such issues with the Shepshed Project, an approach was planned using feasibility money and work to do initial digging to ascertain what was underground before the actual budget was set.  A budget had been set as a placeholder; however, this was a substantial amount and as such it was thought that it would be enough.  The project would go through the Capital Plan amendment process.  There was contingency in the project already. but it would depend on the times when work could be undertaken.  Processes and money were in place and as such it was not thought that amendment was needed.

The Chair added that the Capital plan was not yet fully costed.

The Strategic Director, Environmental and Corporate Services suggested that the issue would be considered by the Finance and Performance Scrutiny Committee.

·         It was proposed that an exercise be undertaken to ascertain the land value of such garage land, versus the income gained per annum from garage rental. Garage land to be sold for housing either for Council builds or private builders.

The Strategic Director, Environmental and Corporate Services again suggested that the issue would be considered by the Finance and Performance Scrutiny Committee as part of the Regeneration agenda.  He further added that some reviews had already been undertaken on garage land and it was thought that 26-32 homes could potentially be delivered by redeveloping Council owned garage parking spaces for housing to meet local need across the Borough.

The Chair proposed that the issue be picked up in the next cycle of the Budget Scrutiny Panel.

The Chair further suggested that future meetings of the panel would need to make recommendations based on what was discussed in terms of financial impact, savings and income with regard to the year’s budget and put to the Scrutiny Commission to decide whether to pass them to Cabinet.

·         In response to a proposal to raise car-parking fees by 10p in order to generate income and mitigate savings to protect front-line services, it was explained that this was a complex issue as raising car-parking fees may discourage shoppers from town centres.  It was further added that car-parking fees were being considered, but through individual tariffs rather than a flat rise. Further uncertainty was expressed surrounding the extent to which parking needs would return to pre-pandemic levels.

The Strategic Director, Environmental and Corporate Services again suggested that the issue would be considered by the Finance and Performance Scrutiny Committee.

·         Regarding an observation that alternative uses could be sought for example to create carbon capture area/solar farms, helping Charnwood Borough Council to meet their carbon reduction targets, it was noted that this was outside the remit of the Budget Scrutiny Panel and again could be considered by the Finance and Performance Scrutiny Committee.

The Chair observed that there were no formal recommendations to be made from the Panel, but the following observations should be made to the Scrutiny Commission:

·                     Key risk areas included:

o   The need to deliver on 2021/22 savings, including salary increases.

o   Risks surrounding the final and future grant settlement figures,

o   The impact of the environmental bill on garden waste collection 

o   The need to monitor commercial rents.

o   Inflationary risks.

o   Contractual cost risks.

o   The impact of Omicron and the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.

o   Interest rates and the effects a rise in rates would have on the wider economy, particularly in terms of business rates and council tax collection.  Whilst treasury management would give the Council more income, borrowing would cost the Council more.

·                     Whilst not having officers in their posts created savings, it meant that services are not being delivered.

·                     The Council needed to be mindful of the financial pressures faced by its residents.

RESOLVED that a report containing the above observations be presented to the Scrutiny Commission.

Reason

To inform the Scrutiny Commission of the conclusions of the Panel for consideration.