The Committee received a monitoring report that detailed the financial outturn position of the Council at the end of Quarter 2 for 2017-18 compared to budget, and service performance against targets. This included the Quarter 2 position for the:

• General Fund (GF) Revenue Budget Position
• Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Budget Position
• GF and HRA Capital Programme Performance
• Savings
• Progress delivering Council Growth Priorities, including Mayoral Priority Growth
• Forecast use of Reserves
• S106, CIL and Capital Receipts Income
• Council Tax and Business Rates Income
• Debtors & Creditors
• Treasury Management Activities
• Pension Fund Investments Position

The questions and comments from Members on the report may be summarised as follows:

The Committee:

• Noted that in July 2016 the Cabinet had approved £1.1m for the Council to work with a strategic partner to deliver change in its services.  To assist in the delivery of a diverse range of proposals the Council undertook to identify a strategic partner who would support the Council in all aspects of the delivery of those proposals.  The procurement exercise was won by Grant Thornton LLP and the three year contract had annual break points, however a number of projects came forward faster than anticipated so it had been necessary to undertake decisions using the urgency provisions;
• Asked for clarification on whether the Grant Thornton Contract went to the Best Value Board;
• Requested to receive clarification on how the Council (i) assesses which wards/sub-wards are the most in need; and (ii) monitors that the money from the planning charge or Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) goes to where there is the greatest need?
• Wanted to know how is an evidence-base used to inform expenditure of CIL funding?
• If a full capital programme will be developed to inform expenditure over 10-15 years?
• Noted that the Government’s reinvigoration of the Right to Buy system in April 2012, has led to a significant increase in the number of right to buy applications. Key elements of the policy were the increase of the maximum discount available to tenants and a change to the previous Right to Buy capital receipt pooling arrangements whereby now local authorities can retain receipts for replacement housing – provided they can sign up to an agreement with Government that they will limit the use of the net Right to Buy receipts to 30% of the cost of the replacement.  The Authority has therefore entered an agreement with the Government to allow it to retain a proportion of Right to Buy receipts to be spent on replacement social housing, with the following conditions:  (i) Retained ‘one for one’ receipts cannot fund more than 30% of total spend (ii) Receipts cannot be used in conjunction with funding from the GLA/HCA; (iii) Receipts must be spent within three years or be returned with interest; and (iv) Receipts cannot be given to a body in which the local authority has a controlling interest.  Although, the authority may use the receipts to grant fund another body, such as a Registered Provider (RP)
• Noted that the Planning Obligation funding (s106) used to mitigate the impact of development in planning terms can be spent on a range of projects. Currently, such projects are developed by the responsible Directorates and approvals are sought in accordance with the Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Framework (IDF) that had been approved by the Mayor in Cabinet in October, 2016;
• Noted that at 30th September 2017, a total of £92.6 million was held in the s106 account.  In addition to these s106 balances, interest of £1.2 million had now been accrued to the account.  It was also noted that in some circumstances such monies can be used for other schemes with the agreement of the developer’s.
• Stated that it would wish to be provided with information to OSC and include analysis in next monetary report on why there is a 26% underspend of the Disabled Facilities Grant.?  In response it was noted that such monies need to be utilised as this has a direct impact on the lives’ of residents and more information should be made available to scrutiny;
• Wanted to know what is being done to support the move from Acute to Community Care and how this reflects the budget planning?  In response it was noted that in the budget process consideration is given to looking at expenditure profiles and if any areas need to be addressed e.g. Looking at the needs within Adults Services and the measures that have been put in place and looking at the Better Care Fund;
• The Committee commented that the use of agency staff is an issue that LBTH have struggled to address so why can consideration not be given to the use of fixed term cover instead?  In reply it was noted that whilst it is the intention to reduce the numbers of agency staff there are times when LBTH urgently needs the right skill sets or to use of consultants as LBTH needs a specific skill set but only for a fixed period.

ACTIONS:

The Committee asked:

1. To be provided with an analysis in the next monetary report on why there is a 26% underspend of the Disabled Facilities Grant.?
2. For clarification on whether the Grant Thornton Contract went to the Best Value Board?
3. Clarify how the Council assesses which wards/sub-wards are the most in need and monitors that the money from CIL funding goes to right people?
4. How is the evidence-base used to inform expenditure of CIL funding?
5.  Will a full capital programme be developed to inform expenditure over 10-15 years?