Council considered the recommendation of the Cabinet on a Capital Strategy for the period 2021 to 2026.

The 2021 Strategy was very different to those that preceded it and it puts ‘front and centre’ how the Council’s new priorities of delivering affordable housing, achieving the regeneration of its town centres and ensuring a sustainable future in recognition of declaring a climate change emergency are to be delivered.

A recorded vote was conducted as requested by Councillor J. Sexton with the results as follows:

FOR (20)

Attewell, Barnard, Barratt C, Barratt R, Boughtflower, Brar, Buttar, Chandler, Gething, Harman, Harvey H, Harvey I, Islam, Leighton, Madams, McIlroy, Mitchell, Noble, Rybinski and Sider.

AGAINST (7)

Beardsmore, Fidler, Saliagopoulos, Sexton, Smith-Ainsley, Spoor and Vinson.

ABSTAIN (9)

Bateson, Doerfel, Doran J, Doran S, Dunn R, Dunn S, Grant, Lagden, and Nichols. 

Resolved to approve the Capital Strategy for 2021-2026.

The Chief Accountant introduced the report and drew the Committee’s attention to the key aspects and explained that the details of how officers had arrived at the figures stated was set out in section three. The Chief Accountant informed members that the Chief Financial Officer is satisfied that the Council have complied with the CIPFA code and legislation as set stated in section eight.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance, Councillor Buttar, was invited to address the Committee. Councillor Buttar informed the Committee the Council had listened to members views and tried to incorporate them.

In response to members questions the Deputy Chief Executive informed the Committee that a detailed breakdown of the figures by Portfolio Holder would be going to Council along with appendices containing additional information including the comparison of Council Tax with Surrey County Council and the Police and Crime Commissioner and a year-on-year breakdown.

Members expressed the view that it was not clear what would be covered by the £1 million for contingency issues relating to COVID-19 and expressed concern that as a result of COIVID-19 there had been an  increase in domestic violence and financial hardship and sought assurance that there would be provision for supporting these areas whilst noting that, as a borough council, the Council was not the lead authority for addressing domestic abuse.

The Deputy Chief Executive informed members that the Family Support team, which had expanded, did encounter domestic abuse issues with some of the families they work with and it was anticipated that other frontline staff would encounter some domestic abuse issues, but that staff did receive training and support. Members were advised that the Grants Panel had considered the range of issues generated by COVID-19 and that these issues were taken into account in the recommendations on grant allocations to Cabinet and that the report to Cabinet would be published on 16 February. The Deputy Chief Executive confirmed that the report did include the details of a grant towards the Citizens Advice Bureau and that the Council makes contributions to Surrey domestic violence support.

The Deputy Leader and portfolio holder for Community Wellbeing and Housing, Councillor Attewell, was invited to comment and confirmed that there were concerns that Housing Associations would take action against those in rent arrears when they were able to do so and that a COVID-19 Recovery Plan  was being worked on.

In response to further questions the Deputy Chief Executive explained that the residents may be eligible for Council Tax Support if their income is negatively impacted which would result in the Council receiving less council tax income. He advised that the government had provided some grant funding to cover this but if pressures were higher than anticipated this would need to be covered by the COVID-19 contingency fund.  

Members queried provision for external audit and if the risk had been legally assessed. The Deputy Chief Executive informed the Committee that the risk had not been legally assessed but that was a prudent precaution to ensure funds were available if the issue could not be resolved.

In response to members questions the Chief Accountant explained that it was generally accepted that unused contingencies could go back into the general fund once it was identified that the contingency was no longer required, and Councillors would be asked to agree any proposed spend.

A member asked the Deputy Chief Executive if he could explain the increase in staffing levels and noted that the starting point for the increase in 2016 was following a decade of funding cuts which had resulted in year-on-year salami slicing cuts resulting in a need for resilience of services to be rebuilt. Members noted that the largest element of the increase in staffing during this period related to bringing the grounds maintenance staff in house which produced an annual saving of £250,000 per annum.

One member expressed concern that by freezing the Council Tax base for one year the Council would not catch up in future years as increases would always be from a lower base and under the council tax referenda regulations the forgone increases cannot be caught up. The Deputy Chief Executive explained that had the Council imposed the maximum increase it would have equated to approximately an additional £200k towards the budget in the short term and that the impacts had been modelled as one of the seven scenarios presented with the Outline Budget at the previous month’s Committee.

In response to members concerns about the Council’s investments the Chairman advised the Committee that the issue had been raised in the past and that the Council were working with Arlingclose to review the investment portfolio but it would take time to identify appropriate investments and move away from the current investment programme.  

Members discussed the Council’s provision for Green projects and climate change and agreed that they felt there was inadequate provision and that the Council’s aspirations in this area were not sufficient.

The Deputy Chief Executive highlighted that the timetable for the Budget process this year had been particularly tight due to the lateness of the Government funding announcements as a result of COVID-19, and the Chairman highlighted that as an improvement to the Budget process the timetable had been adjusted to accommodate this Extraordinary meeting of the Committee. The Deputy Chief Executive explained that the Chief Accountant was working on bringing forward elements of the budget process next year.

The Committee resolved to recommend to Cabinet:

Recommendation 1: The Committee was concerned over the adequacy of the monies set aside for green issues and climate change, which undermines the pledge in the draft Capital Strategy that climate change is a priority and asks Cabinet to review this.

Recommendation 2: That next year the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (or Service Committees if the Council agrees to adopt the Committee System governance model at the Annual Council meeting in May) will have sight of the budget earlier in the process to enable them to be fully involved in the shaping of the final budget before it is presented to Council for approval.