Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr N Housden.

None.

To receive questions / statements from the public, if any.

None received.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 14^th June 2023.

Minutes of the meeting held on 14^th June 2022 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

None received.

Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of the following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest.

None declared.

To consider any petitions received from members of the public.

None received.

To consider any requests made by non-executive Members of the Council, and notified to the Monitoring Officer with seven clear working days’ notice, to include an item on the agenda of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

None received.

To consider any responses of the Council or the Cabinet to the Committee’s reports or recommendations:

·         Purchase of additional waste vehicles approved by Full Council at the June meeting.

The DSGOS noted that Council had approved the purchase of additional waste vehicles, as considered by the Committee at the June meeting.

Cllr L Shires – Portfolio Holder for Finance and Assets introduced the report and informed Members that the outturn position was better than expected with previous forecasts suggesting a £900k overspend. She referred to p30 and noted that the surplus from the previous year had been placed into the general reserve to offset the impact of inflation, but the full £616k would no longer be required as the overspend was only £261k. It was noted that £500k had been allocated for net zero initiatives, and £250k for temporary accommodation. The DFR stated that the outturn position of the capital programme showed a significant underspend, with a planned budget of £16.3m against £6.8m spent. She added that the reasons for this related to slippage and delays in awarding contracts, with funds therefore carried over.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          Cllr C Cushing referred to the business rates shortfall and asked whether this would be recovered or remain a shortfall. The DFR replied that it was a fluctuation in income that would not recovered. Cllr C Cushing stated that in this case the overspend would be £0.782m and not the lower figure quoted. He then asked whether major project costs were reforecast to account for cost variations, and referred to the Fakenham roundabout project being a prime example. The CE replied that the capital programme reflected the Council’s aspirations and ambitions but they were complex projects to deliver, and slippage could therefore be expected. He added that the retained capital budget had reasons for delays listed, and in the case of the Fakenham roundabout, the Council had pledged a financial contribution of £900k, but the works could only be scheduled during autumn and winter due to it being a primary tourism corridor. It was noted that whilst efforts had been made to progress the project, nutrient neutrality regulations had also caused delays, and whilst the Cromer Coast Protection Scheme and refurbishment of Mundesley sea defences had received funding from the EA, they had also been subject to significant cost inflation. The DFR stated that there had been limited capacity available to update cost estimates within the Finance Team, but following recruitment of additional accountants, this could be given greater attention going forward.

      ii.          Cllr L Shires stated that any estimates completed in 21-22 would be inaccurate due to the significant inflation that had occurred, and asked whether Members sought regular updates to ensure accuracy or affordability. Cllr C Cushing stated that budget monitoring reports were provided regularly throughout the year, but anything that had been costed over six months ago was likely to be inaccurate. He added that estimates had to be as accurate as possible, otherwise it would be difficult to set and monitor the capital programme with any degree of accuracy.

     iii.          Cllr V Holliday stated that £781k was not a significant improvement over the originally forecast £900k deficit, and asked how long the general reserve would last if used to regularly fund deficits of £261k. She added that an executive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Cllr L Shires – Portfolio Holder for Finance and Assets introduced the report and informed Members that it was a better and more easily understandable format. She added that the Council’s investments had benefitted from rises in interest rates, however she was aware that inflation also had a negative impact on residents. The DFR stated this was one of the most technical reports reviewed by Members as Councils were self-regulating in terms of treasury management with CIPFA guidance, which meant that reports had to contain a certain level of detail that may be difficult for some to understand. She added that an executive summary was provided on p76, which showed capital expenditure of £6.862m over the year, and any further spending was outlined. It was noted that future internal borrowing would reduce the Council’s investments and would need to be replenished. The DFR stated that whilst total investments were reported as £45m, the return of Covid grants would reduce this to £27m.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The Chairman noted that he had discussed several points with the DFR prior to the meeting, and that the executive summary should provide key points from the report, but improvements were needed to offer better understanding of the financial health of the authority.

      ii.          Cllr C Cushing referred to Covid grant returns and suggested that it may have been helpful for a note explaining this to be included in the report. The DFR stated that Link Asset Services were the Council’s new treasury management advisors, who were happy to provide training which officers could look to arrange as soon as possible. The Chairman suggested that all financial reports would benefit from good executive summaries, with the inclusion of annual trend analysis and notes to explain any significant changes.

     iii.          Cllr V Holliday praised the report format but asked why the Council was still borrowing when it had significant investments, and whether this was due to the interest rate differential. The DFR replied that borrowing was used to maintain cashflow, as there were fluctuations as a result of council tax and business rates only being collected ten months per year. She added that short-term borrowing was therefore required around the end of year to carry over until collections resumed.

    iv.          The recommendation was proposed by Cllr S Penfold and seconded by Cllr P Fisher.

RESOLVED

1.               To recommend the report to Full Council for approval.

Cllr T Adams – Council Leader introduced the report and thanked officers and Members for their help in developing the Corporate Plan (CP), that would guide the authority over the next four years. He added that there would be a change to how the CP was delivered, with annual action plans replacing the four year delivery plan, as had been used in 2019. It was suggested that this would provide agility and allow the Council to take advantage of more opportunities and shape future actions. Cllr T Adams stated that work was underway to determine new contextual performance measures, some of which may already be actively monitored by the Committee. He outlined the key themes of the CP and stated that he looked forward to working with the Council and Members to deliver the Plan over the next four years.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The Chairman stated that it was positive that the Committee were considering the CP in July, taking into account that it had not come forward until October in 2019. He added that that the previous CP had six themes, whilst the new proposal only had five, with the omission of financial sustainability as a key theme. It was suggested that the financial challenges facing the council had not gone away, and the Chairman therefore asked whether this should be given consideration for inclusion. Cllr T Adams replied that he was proud that the administration had been able to bring the CP forward so quickly, and suggested this was a benefit of a returning administration that sought to build on previous work. He added that various options had been considered for the key themes, but Cabinet Members had decided that financial sustainability had been covered throughout the CP, and would be given the necessary attention without being identified as a specific theme. It was noted that many aspects of financial sustainability would be covered under the strong and accountable Council theme, with further actions to be included within annual action plans. The Chairman accepted the points made but suggested that delivery of the wider CP would require a sure footing of financial sustainability, as had been identified in the previous Plan, and suggested that this may be a prudent item to consider going forward.

      ii.          Cllr A Brown stated that he was the only Cabinet Member that had also been on Cabinet in 2019, and noted that the administration was in a very different place at the time. He added that the Council was now in a more sustainable position and no longer needed to place as much emphasis on ensuring the financial sustainability of the authority. The Chairman noted that financial challenges were still on the horizon and may present a bigger threat now than in 2019, therefore he felt that financial sustainability should still be given greater weight within the CP.

     iii.          Cllr L Shires stated that whilst she was happy that finance was being given significant attention, financial sustainability was covered on p115, where  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

Cllr T Adams – Council Leader introduced the report and noted that many of the issues had been discussed at the previous meeting, then thanked officers for preparing the report and invited questions from Members.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          Cllr V Holliday asked whether performance benchmarking could be included alongside the performance report, in place of the contextual measures report or receive all three reports at the same meeting. She added that it would also be helpful to know whether any learning could be gained from the CIPFA nearest neighbours where they performed better than NNDC. She added that the report showed that other Councils were routinely reporting better performance than NNDC in certain areas, and there ought to be insights that could be gained from this. The CDA replied that the benchmarking report was very much owned by the Committee with Members determining which measures were reviewed, unlike regular performance monitoring of the CP. She added that the reports had been separated to avoid confusion, though this could be reconsidered again in the future if new datasets were included within the CP. Cllr T Adams stated that it was unfair to suggest that all performance was poor, as many measures showed improvement, whilst others were out of date and some datasets such as recycling were misrepresentative, given that NNDC did not collect food waste. He added that Planning performance was also exemplary, which showed that NNDC was leading the group in some aspects of performance benchmarking. Cllr V Holliday accepted that performance was improving, but suggested that there were still areas where lessons could be learnt from other Councils.

      ii.          Cllr L Shires referred to the CIPFA 8 measure of total expenditure per resident on p123, and asked when the data would be updated, as it was from over three years ago. The CDA replied that deadlines had been missed for submitting this data as it required the completion of audited annual accounts which were still delayed for many authorities. She added that under normal circumstances there was expected to be approximately one year’s delay.

     iii.          Cllr C Cushing referred to CIPFA 9a and 9b on p123, and asked why both were included as they appeared very similar. The CDA replied that it had been unclear which dataset the Committee wanted to review, but this could be reconsidered in October following the agreement of datasets used to inform the CP. Cllr T Adams noted that significantly more residents were included in dataset 9a which impacted performance. He added that the demographics of the District skewed the figure, and it may be prudent to consider a different measure of economic performance in October. Cllr V Holliday suggested that many pensioners were still economically active, and this should not be overlooked. The CE stated that whilst he accepted Cllr Holiday’s comments, the report had to take into account nationally available datasets, alongside local variances and context that would impact performance such as demographics in the case of North Norfolk. He added  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

To note the upcoming Cabinet Work Programme.

The DSGOS informed Members that there was a significant number of items on the Cabinet work programme for September, including several property reports. He added that the Debt Management report that had been deferred in July was also expected in September, as well as a Coastwise update that may also come to the O&S Committee, should it fit within the already full work programme. It was noted that the MTFS was expected in November, as it was preferable to receive this in advance of the budget in January.

RESOLVED

To note the Cabinet Work Programme.

To receive an update from the Scrutiny Officer on progress made with topics on its agreed work programme, training updates and to receive any further information which Members may have requested at a previous meeting.

       i.          The DSGOS informed Members that un update on the Planning Service Improvement Plan was expected at the next meeting, specifically on the response received from statutory consultees. He added that the six-monthly Enforcement Board update was also expected, in addition to Performance Monitoring and the Debt Management Report. It was noted that Ambulance Response Times and access to NHS Dentistry services were due for consideration in October, and efforts would be made to improve the format of Ambulance data.

      ii.          It was noted that given the number of potential items for September, some agenda management and reprioritisation may be necessary to ensure that the oversight was being applied to appropriate agenda items.

RESOLVED

To note the Committee work programme.

To pass the following resolution, if necessary:

“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph _ of Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”