To receive notice of any business not on the agenda which in the opinion of the Chair, by reason of special circumstances, be considered as a matter of urgency.
Minutes:
The Chair explained that the Sub-Committee would be asking questions on the Financial Performance Report - Month 4 (July 2022) that had been reported to Cabinet on 21st September 2022 as separate financial reporting on the Sustainable Communities, Regeneration and Economic Recovery (SCRER) and Housing directorates had not been provided. Discussions with the Chair of Scrutiny & Overview and the relevant Corporate Directors would be held to agree a way forward on financial reporting to the Sub-Committee in future.
The Chair asked about the possible projected overspend of up to £19 million, noting that a large part of this referred to the SCRER department, and asked for this to be explained. The Corporate Director for SCRER explained that at month four, the department was projecting an overspend of £15.14 million; this related to under recovered income and largely to the various income streams that made up traffic moving and parking income. These included parking, civil enforcement, parking suspensions, controlled parking zones and new/planned Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) schemes.
There had been downturns in income due to changes in behaviours as a result of the economy, post-COVID society and reduced enforcement. It was noted that reduced enforcement was due to both a decline in offences and difficulties in recruiting to civil enforcement officer posts. There had also been delays for the implementation of Healthy Neighbourhoods and School Streets schemes.
The remaining areas of the budget related to under recovery of income in building control and development management, due to a downturn in activity. There were less planning applications and pre-application advice sought which had also effected the budget.
The Chair raised budget pressures from the provision of Special Education Needs (SEN) Transport and was informed that this had seen increased demand, and that there were additional pressures from contract inflation. Negotiations with providers were ongoing and a reserve was built into the budget to address contract inflation, and this may be used in future to cover some of this pressure.
The Corporate Director addressed the Private Sector Landlord Licensing Scheme and explained that this had been budgeted to achieve significant income but had been rejected by the Secretary of State due to the lack of a Housing Policy, but that work to address this was ongoing. The Sub-Committee noted these schemes were meant to be cost-neutral and asked why this had led to budget pressure. Members heard that the resources for Private Sector Housing had been scaled back.
The Sub-Committee asked about the income of the Planning Department and the Corporate Director of SCRER responded that the department’s budget was made up entirely of income and so an under recovery of income was the result of reduced numbers of planning applications. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration explained that there were different levels of fee income depending on the size of applications; householder applications had increased, and major applications had fallen leading to reduced income for the department. Pre-application and Planning Performance Agreements were discretionary fee generating services provided by the department and were responsible for significant income and these had fallen in line with the number of major applications. National factors had contributed to this with a downturn in major applications since the pandemic. Planning Performance Agreements Fees had previously allowed the department to take on additional agency staff, but as these fees had been reduced, it was no longer possible to continue this at the same level.
The Sub-Committee asked whether refurbishment of buildings would be greener than new major applications. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration responded that there had been increased conversations with developers about reuse, but these usually still required an application. In Croydon, there was still a large amount of poorly utilised land and often comprehensive redevelopment was better as it led to buildings that met modern building standards and were more energy efficient. It was highlighted that all applications needed to be determined on their own merits.
The Chair asked about the Deficit Recovery Plan and why so little of this related directly to the SCRER department. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that all directorates were working on deficit recovery but, that as nearly 80% of the SCRER budget was income, measures to mitigate under recovered income needed to be investigated; as the net general fund budget was so small it made deficit recovery more difficult for the SCRER department. On the General Fund, it was explained that the spend was low at this point in the year as the lead in time for Capital Programmes was longer, but nearly the full budget was predicted to be spent by the end of the financial year. It was expected that whilst some Capital Programmes may start this year, they may carry on and be reprofiled into the next financial year.
On Housing, the Chair asked about the inability to recover Housing Benefit and it was explained that there were two parts to Housing Benefit, and one of these covered Supported Exempt Accommodation which came with higher costs which were not subsidised by the government. Members heard that demands on this were increasing and a project group on this was looking to develop a long-term solution for the Council.
On the Capital Programme, the Chair noted the reduction in the target for Housing Revenue Account spend and the Interim Head of Tenancy & Resident Engagement explained that the programme was being reviewed which had led to a slowdown in delivery. This was due to capacity at the Council, longer lead in times and the need to review the programme to ensure it was targeted in the right ways. Members heard that there would be a slow down on the Capital Spend towards the end of the year against the original budget. The Chair expressed disappointment that these funds would not be spent and noted that this was a year-on-year trend. The Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for Homes responded that there would be a focus on spending this money wisely and ensuring data and stock condition information was correct.