| Public |
| 1 |
DECLARATION OF INTEREST
|
None submitted.
|
| 2 |
QUESTIONS AND DEPUTATIONS
|
None submitted.
|
| 3 |
MINUTES
|
The Board received the minutes of the meeting held on 4th January 2012. RESOLVED That the minutes of the meeting held on 4th January 2012 be agreed as a correct record.
|
| 4 |
MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL STRATEGY
|
The Board considered the report of the Director of Resources in respect of the updated Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS). Any comments made by the Board would be submitted to the Full Cabinet on 16th February 2012.
The MTFS is the formal written document which brings together the high level plans for both revenue and capital spending over the three year period 2012/13 to 2014/15. The main principles underpinning the Strategy are: -
• The Council will seek to maintain a suitable financial position over the course of the planning period,
• Keeping Council Tax at affordable levels with a freeze in 2012/13 and increases limited to 2.5% in 2013/14 and 2014/15,
• The deployment of the Council's limited resources to be focused towards those activities which contribute most to improved outcomes for local people, and
• The ongoing need to identify and deliver significant savings each year.
It was noted that the Strategy provided a balanced budget over the 3 year period.
The following comments/ questions were raised: -
• Members noted the use of reserves to achieve the balanced budget and questioned whether the anticipated balance of £6.826m by March 2015, was sufficient. Officers advised that maintaining this level of reserves was vital to manage the risks in the budget forecasts.
• A Member challenged the assumption of maintaining the Council tax collection rate at 99% given proposed changes to the benefits system. Officers commented that currently there is no clarity on how a local council tax benefit scheme will operate. The Council outperforms against its collection target.
• There are a number of assumptions made in the Strategy; Scrutiny should have regard to these in developing its future work plan.
• Given the financial measures contained in the Strategy, a Member sought a report to a future meeting giving an analysis of the extent of fraud within the Authority, the risk involved and the measures and activity in place to mitigate its occurrence.
• Clarity was given over the extent of consultation involved in the development of the Strategy and the Budget Framework. It was noted that a very low response had been received to the budget consultation with residents.
• Officers, in response to questions, indicated that there was still uncertainty around the workings of the business rates retention scheme but it was felt that the Council would be better off than it is through the current funding system.
RESOLVED
i) That the updated Medium Term Financial Strategy be supported, and
ii) That the Board receive a report to a future meeting giving an analysis of the extent of fraud within the Authority, the risk involved and the measures and activity in place to mitigate its occurrence.
|
| 5 |
BUDGET FRAMEWORK - 2012/13
|
The Board considered the report of the Director of Resources relating to the Budget Framework 2012/13. The report submitted for the Board's consideration the savings proposals identified by the corporate Budget Strategy Group, that had been raised at a Members' Seminar in December 2011 and elements considered by each of the Scrutiny Boards in January 2012. It was noted that the proposals achieved a balanced budget for 2012/13, with a net pressure of £0.9m in 2013/14 and a net saving of £0.8m in 2014/15. It was confirmed that the grant settlement had been finalised at £50.802m.
Information was given in the report relating to the New Homes Bonus, Business Rates retention, Budget risks and Fees and Charges.
A response to the budget proposals from the Unions had been submitted to Officers during the day and this was made available to Members. Officers commented that Unions had been engaged as part of the budget process and their response raised issues that would be too complex to deal with during this meeting but that such detail can be addressed when individual budget proposals go through the decision making processes. It was clear from the response that there were some misunderstandings over certain proposals, for example an assumption in one that significant redundancies would be involved whereas the saving would most likely be achieved through natural turnover. Officers would arrange for a response to be sent to the Unions.
The report also included extracts from the minutes of the Scrutiny Board meetings of their consideration of the budget proposals and whilst questions had been raised and further work suggested, no recommendations had be made to amend the budget proposals.
The following comments/ questions were raised: -
• Officers were congratulated in having achieved a balanced budget
• The Scrutiny Boards' questions would be picked up by the Directorate concerned and considered as part of the decision making process to implement savings.
• A Member referred to the minute from the Neighbourhood Services Scrutiny Board and contended that the minute did not adequately portray the concern that had been expressed in the meeting over item H8 on the introduction of new car parking management/ charging initiatives, in particular the impact that this may have on local businesses. The Chairman of that Board commented that whilst the minute did not record everything that was raised during that debate, it did record that the Board had raised concerns over the proposals and that further work would be needed before any decision is made. Members were reminded that if a savings proposal did not go ahead, an alternative saving would need to be suggested to achieve a balanced budget.
RESOLVED
i) That the detail contained in the report be noted, and
ii) That the budget proposals and fees and charges be supported
|
| 6 |
HIGH SPEED 2 UPDATE - GOVERNMENT DECISION AND NEXT STEPS
|
The Board considered the report of the Director for Places giving an update with regard to the High Speed 2 proposals. The report advised the Board of the Government's decision in January 2012 to progress the proposal, the changes made to the route within the Borough and the future work programme. The Board was asked to consider the Council's involvement in the process and whether it wished to establish a Panel to oversee progress and report back to the Board as necessary. An e-mail and enclosures from the independently formed Solihull High Speed Rail Consultative Committee had been circulated to Members which argued that the Committee was best placed represent community interests in engagement with HS2 Ltd and suggested that the Council should support this approach by providing an independent chairman and secretariat. The Chairman had also received an e-mail from a local resident and read from it, supporting the role and aims of the Consultative Committee looking to; -
-
protect the way of life and enjoyment of those residents along the route,
-
mitigate the potentially huge detrimental effect on the local environment,
-
protect the value of domestic and business premises affected by the HS2 route, and
-
where mitigation measures fail, compensation is calculated on the basis of actual financial loss and loss due to noise or amenity.
In support of the report Officers indicated: -
-
Need to focus on the impact in Solihull and the engagement that will take place in mitigating that impact.
-
Confirmation received today that HS2 Ltd would shortly looking the access the site of the proposed route fir detailed survey work
-
HS2 is a government not Solihull MBC proposal, so the Council, like any other interested party, would look to engage at all appropriate levels in representing the interests of the Borough and its residents.
-
That there was no local authority representation on HS2 Ltd's proposed National Environment Forum.
-
HS2 Ltd propose a Planning Forum covering those parts of the line that pass through Solihull and Birmingham.
-
HS2 Ltd was understood to be planning four Community Forums in respect of the line impacting on Solihull, namely Burtons Green; Balsall Common, Hampton in Arden, Berkswell; Interchange Station and Chelmsley Wood; Castle Bromwich and Bromford. Officers were seeking confirmation around the administration of these forums but it was expected that they would be fronted and resourced by HS2 Ltd.
-
It was recognised that there would be considerable work in responding to the technical and environmental matters for which there was no specific budget to fund any substantial one off expenditure that may be required.
-
Officers commented that the Consultative Committee had been set up independently and whilst the initiative was to be applauded the Council had not engaged with it earlier , as it was seen as being premature until HS2 Ltd's intentions over community engagement was clearer. As it currently stood the Consultative Committee was not representative of all affected communities.
The following comments/ questions were raised: -
-
The Chairman referred to the potential mistrust between HS2 and local community groups and suggested that the Council might act to ameliorate that. Officers considered any mistrust to be unfortunate. However, the Council itself is clear as to its own role including that of civic leadership and input into the proposed community forums. The reason for suggesting the proposed Panel under OSMB was to be able to respond quickly as issues arose.
-
A Member concurred with earlier comments that the Consultative Committee was not representative of all affected communities and he was concerned from the minutes of the last Consultative Committee showed a named person as a representative of the Council but he was not a Member of the Council. Officers advised that they would be meeting with representatives of the Consultative Committee next week, and this point would be clarified.
-
A Member was disappointed that so few changes had been made to the proposed line and he used Chelmsley Wood as a case in point in arguing that the impact on local residents could be ameliorated fairly easily by "putting a lid" on the cutting running through that area.
-
In viewing the process to be followed, a Member commented on the greatest opportunity to influence any change to the proposals would be at the Select Committee stages of the Hybrid Bill.
-
With the possibility of damage to the existing highway network during the construction phase the Council needed to be clear as to their condition prior to works commencing.
-
A Member cautioned that the most critical stage would be the consultation on the Environmental Impact Assessment and suggested that this Board should hold a full Scrutiny day(s) taking evidence in that regard. Officers referred to the programme and advise that consultation would take place in Spring 2012 over blight proposals and Spring 2013 on the Environmental Statement.
-
It was noted that although a community group was suggested for the area of the Interchange Station, given that the impact of this would be felt across the Borough it is likely that it would feature in discussion at the Planning Forum.
-
Although there was general support for the suggested Panel, initially there was a preference for the whole Board being engaged, although if urgent matters required consideration there was the option of using the OSMB Pre-agenda Group.
RESOLVED i) That the report be received and the engagement process be noted, ii) That the whole Board oversee progress as necessary or in urgency the Pre-agenda Group, and iii) That the Board allocate time in its work plan in Spring 2012 and 2013 in respect of blight and the Environment Statement consultations respectively.
|
| 7 |
RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
|
The Board considered the presentation and briefing paper from the Head of Governance Services relating to the Risk Management Framework. Following the presentation the following comments/ questions were raised: -
-
Officers advised that in the event of a major incident the Council's response was likely to be governed through the Business Continuity Plan and/or Emergency Plan although some improvisation may be necessary depending on the issue. These plans are reviewed and tested on a regular basis. The difference between these Plans and those used when an evacuation occurs was explained.
-
Officers explained the mechanisms in place to ensure that staff are made aware of the procedure to be followed in an evacuation. Staff are also encouraged to report unsafe issues/ practices. The Health & Safety reporting process was explained.
RESOLVED That the presentation be received.
|
| 8 |
SOLIHULL PARTNERSHIP FUNDING
|
The Board considered the report of the Director of Resources and Head of Partnership Commissioning relating to the Local Area Agreement Reward Money. The report appraised Members of the financial management arrangements for the Reward Grant and commitments to date. Of the £2.603m Reward Grant, £1.766m remained unallocated. The Board was asked to consider whether it wished to receive further reports on the outcomes from the approved projects. The following comments/ questions were raised: -
-
Officers advised that the Council was the accountable body for the Reward Grant but the monies had been earned by the Partners. There had been broad agreement that the monies should be used to fund transformational activity instead of simply being distributed to those organisations that had achieved the Reward Grant. It would be unreasonable for that monies to be used to offset the Council's budget pressures.
-
Officers explained further how the £70k was being spent on dealing with youth unemployment. Initially a team within the Council was being funded until December 2012 but the aim was to have wider engagement with partners to explore further opportunities for collaborative working.
-
Bids for the allocation of the remaining monies were welcome on initiatives focused on the Partnership's priorities of youth unemployment, domestic abuse and challenging families.
-
The Board supported a Member comment that the Council needed to review the outcomes derived from these projects and therefore requested a report on them at the appropriate time.
RESOLVED i) That the report be received and its content noted, and ii) That the Board receives outcome reports on the three priority areas.
|
| 9 |
MEETING START TIMES
|
Following the trial of earlier start times for its meetings, the Board was asked to consider what it wished to do for the meetings that remained in this Municipal Year. Members were reminded of the Council decision that Committees, Boards etc. were able to vary the normal start time of 6 pm so long as all the Members on that body were in agreement. RESOLVED That the remaining two meetings start at 4.30 pm with a break for refreshments dependent upon the size of the agenda.
|
| The meeting is likely not to be open to the public during discussion of the following items because the reports contain exempt information as defined in Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972. |
| 10 |
TRAINING FACILITIES
|
|