Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Councillor Pratt.  Councillor Marlene Haworth acted as a substitute on behalf of Councillor Pratt.

Apologies were also received from Co-optees Ian Ormerod, Bernard Dawson and Gareth Molineux.

No declarations of interest or dispensations were declared at the meeting.

To submit the Minutes of the Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on Thursday 26^th November 2020 for approval as a correct record.

Recommended                     -   That the Minutes be received and approved as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 26^th November 2020 were submitted for approval as a correct record.

Resolved                          -    That the Minutes be received and approved as a correct record.

To consider the three year projections of income and spending for the Council ahead of formulating 2021/22 Revenue and Capital Budgets.

Recommended                     -   That consideration be given to the report.

The Portfolio Holder for Resources (Councillor Plummer) submitted a report giving the Council’s Medium Term Financial Position for 2021/22 to 2023/24.  The Strategy was attached to the report and sets out the three year projections of income and spending for the Council ahead of formulating its 2021/22 Revenue and Capital Budgets. 

Appendix 1 of the Strategy set out a standard mode. Further scenarios were provided in Appendix 2 with a pessimistic model and Appendix 3 detailing an optimistic model.

The figures in Appendix 1 however remained the current best estimate of the likely financial position over the next three years.  The report addressed the following aspects and had been submitted to Cabinet on 10^th February 2021:-

·         Introduction

·         Objectives

·         Elements of the Medium Term Financial Strategy

·         Service Planning to Support Overall Strategy

·         Integrated Resource Planning with Service Plans

·         Background Information

·         Financial Analysis 2020/21 to 2022/23

·         Resources

·         Government Grant

·         Business Rates

·         Council Tax

·         Expected loss of income

·         Changes in Costs

·         Growth

·         Reserves

·         Other Assumptions

·         Equality Impact Assessment

·         Scenarios

·         Robustness of Forecast

·         Overall Net Position

Three advanced questions had been submitted for this agenda item and responses provided by Councillor Joyce Plummer, Portfolio Holder for Resources, were summarised as follows:

·         In light of the pandemic and other factors, how confident were they that the business rates, forecast in the report, of £4.3 million would be reached? – Predictions were more difficult than in the past but if the economy did not recover quickly figures could be lower and may have to be amended. 

·         What impacts would Brexit have over the period of the MTFS? – The Council does not purchase many goods from abroad but it would be a matter of monitoring the impact on cost and service.  She pointed out that it was still too early to say how the UK will fair outside the EU but if things go well the economy will thrive to benefit the Council but if they do not the Council will have to look at other revenues to support the Council to reduce expenditure and reduce services. 

·         Reference to the possibility of abandoning the Fair Funding review and where this may leave the Council in terms of financial support from Central Government – if this was abandoned altogether it would be expected that the Government would provide revenue support.  Only removing revenue support slowly would allow the Council to achieve a surplus.  

Resolved                               -   That the contents of the report be noted.

To consider the Council’s policy and objectives with respect to treasury management, to explain how it will achieve its objectives and manage its activities; and investment strategy for 2021/22.

Recommended                     -   That consideration be given to the report.

The Portfolio Holder for Resources submitted a report setting out the Council’s policy and objectives with respect to treasury management, to explain how it would achieve its objectives and manage its activities and to agree an investment strategy for 2021/22. 

Appendix 1 detailed the minimum revenue provision policy statement 2021/22. Appendix 2 provided information of the treasury management policy statement 2021/22 and appendix 3 was the HBC Treasury Management Practices 2021/22.

The report addressed the following aspects and had been submitted to Cabinet on 10^th February 2021:-

·         Prudential Code and Prudential Indicators

·         Capital Expenditure and Capital Financing Requirement

·         Estimated Capital Expenditure

·         Minimum Revenue Provision

·         Affordability Prudential Indicators

·         Treasury Management Strategy 2021/22 – 2023/24

·         External Debt Overall Limits

·         External v Internal Borrowing

·         Limits on Activity

·         Debt Rescheduling

·         Investment Strategy

·         Treasury Management Practices (TMP)

·         Policy on the Use of External Service Providers

·         Treasury Management Strategy In-Year and Year End Reporting

Two advanced questions had been submitted for this agenda item and responses provided by Councillor Joyce Plummer, Portfolio Holder for Resources, were summarised as follows:

·         Suppliers of financial services are predominantly London based, could these be brought closer to home and employ more locally based businesses? – the Portfolio Holder reported that the services required are specialised and most are based in London but that they do use more local services when they can.  One supplier is based in Manchester.

·         Why are non-Cabinet members not advised on capital schemes and could the Member Approval Process for Capital Schemes be adapted to do this? – the Portfolio Holder reported that all non-viable projects were screened out by the Service Head before submission in the Council process in place.  If after approval if any project became unviable the Capital Project reports to Cabinet would indicate that the project had been terminated with an explanation on the reasons why. 

Resolved                               -   That the contents of the report be noted.

To consider the proposals for the 2021/22 General Fund Revenue Budget which also provides an overview of key issues arising from the Medium Term Financial Strategy.

Recommended                     -   That consideration be given to the report.

The Portfolio Holder for Resources submitted a report setting out proposals for the 2021/22 General Fund Revenue Budget which also provided an overview of key issues which had arisen from the Medium Term Financial Strategy. 

The 2021/22 Revenue Budget required a net expenditure of £11,227,000 under the budget proposals detailed in appendices 1 and 2.

There would be a 2% Council Tax increase for Hyndburn residents.  This would mean an extra £5.01 per year for a Band D property.  Altham Parish Council had set a separate precept for its activities and there was no increase on its charge. 

Business rates income was expected to be the same as last year although this may fluctuate. Additional costs falling on the Council due to Covid-19 would be funded by the Government who had provided two one off Covid grants for 2021/22.  Financial monitoring would take place to ascertain if this would be enough but it was anticipated that the Council would be able to cope with the additional financial pressures. 

The following information was attached to the report, which had been submitted to Cabinet on 10^th February 2021:- 

·         Appendix 1  -  Initial Outline Budget 2021/22

·         Appendix 2  -  Revenue Budget 2021/22

·         Appendix 3  -  Savings Requirements and Proposals 2021/22

·         Appendix 4  -  Hyndburn Borough Council Tax Increase 2021/22 by Property Band

·         Appendix 5  -  Overall Change in Council Tax 2021/22

·         Appendix 6  -  Altham Parish Precept 2021/22 by Property Valuation Band

Three advanced questions had been submitted for this agenda item and responses provided by Councillor Joyce Plummer, Portfolio Holder for Resources, were summarised as follows:

·         Most of the revenue budget is funded by Council Tax and Business Rate collections.  Is there concern that we won’t achieve the forecast rates this year due to the pandemic and other factors? – There had been a significant drop in revenue from Council Tax and Business Rates.  This would be monitored closely during the year and performance reported back to Cabinet.  If figures were lower than expected they may need to make adjustments to spending plans and to protect the overall financial position.

·         A request was made for details of how they would continue to reduce carbon emissions and energy costs – the Council is looking to introduce a new air handling in energy system into Hyndburn Sports Centre and make improvements to energy consumption at Scaitcliffe House and the Cemetery.  This would reduce carbon emissions and lower energy bills.

·         Are the Covid grants expected to be received next year enough to cover the expected costs/loss of income to the Council? – As indicated in the report it is difficult to tell how much additional spend will be required, how much income the Council will lose or how long the pandemic will last.  It is not clear if the Government will make more money available.  They would monitor spends as the year progresses.

Resolved                               -   That the contents of the report be noted and supported.

To consider the Council’s Capital investment priorities for 2021/22.

Recommended                     -   That consideration be given to the report.

The Portfolio Holder for Resources submitted a report relating to the Council’s capital investment priorities for 2021/22 and asked Cabinet on the 10^th February 2021 to recommend to the Council a capital programme for approval at its meeting on 25^th February 2021, having regard to key linkages between the management of the Council’s capital and revenue resources. 

A Capital Programme for 2021/22 of £2,314,511 gross was attached to the report in Appendix 1. 

The programme was funded by new anticipated direct external grants of £995,897 and £1,318,618 of new investment from the Council’s resources. 

Seven advanced questions had been submitted for this agenda item and responses provided by Councillor Joyce Plummer, Portfolio Holder for Resources, were summarised as follows:

·         What is the rationale behind the Scaitcliffe House reception refurbishment? – The onset of the pandemic changed working practices to ensure risks of infection were minimised.  More services are online or telephone based and other Council building receptions have been closed so Scaitcliffe House is the main public access point for customers.  The aim of the programme is to streamline services providing a reception area fit for the future taking into consideration security, service provision, access for people with disability, greater use of technology and an area that would reduce risk of infection and could be easily cleaned.  Work would aim to be completed by 2021-22 and disruption would be minimised to customers.  Decarbonisation fund resources may also support some of the required work. 

·         Why is the Council paying for the Lyndon Park Highway improvements – should this not be Lancashire County Council as the highway authority? – This is not for roads on the new Estate, the bid is for contractual costs towards the Lyndon project and for the Council share of recently completed highway improvements.  As part of the project the Council entered into a promotion and land development agreement in 2016 with Riley Development Ltd. setting out contractal terms for all parties which stipulated that the Council and Riley share all football playing field developments and related development applications including planning obligations for highways improvements.     

·         What is the Council’s policy on recycling old tech equipment and is there an opportunity to donate Council laptops etc. to local schools? – Council technology is used until end of life or until they can no longer receive security updates.  Staff and Councillors are consulted to see if stock can then be repurposed for reuse to appropriate organisations. 

·         Are we likely to spend the full allocation on Disabled Facilities Grants and have we spent the full allocation in the previous two years? – expected spend is down this year due to Covid-19.  People have been reluctant to allow access into their homes as well as difficulties in getting contractors to work.  She provided figures for old and new funding but pointed out that there was plenty of funding available for requests to grants. 

·         Is the budget for Christmas decorations included in the contract with Lancashire County Council? – the capital  ...  view the full minutes text for item 138.

The Opposition Group (Conservative Party) will be invited to table any budget proposals for 2021/22 for consideration by the Committee prior to the Full Council meeting on Thursday, 25^th February 2021.

Recommended                     -   That consideration be given to any budget proposals submitted by the Opposition Group.

The Leader of the Opposition (Conservative Group), Councillor Marlene Haworth reported that no alternative proposals for the Council’s 2021/22 Budget would be submitted but were looking at some recommendations which would be submitted to Full Council and distributed to Councillors before this meeting.

Resolved                               -   That no budget proposals were submitted to the Committee by the Opposition (Conservative Group) be noted.

The Leader of the Council to receive representations and questions from members of the public and individual Members of the Council on the budget.

Three Councillors had submitted questions relating to the Council budget, to the Committee. 

Councillor Josh Allen submitted the following questions in respect of:

·         The budget set aside for events on the town square compared to previous years and how much would be allocated to Amazing Accrington?

·         Money allocated to the Council from the Government for Covid related expenses to date, and how much more the Council estimated it would need?

·         If the Council would be supporting the ‘Shop Local’ campaign and if so, how much funding would be allocated?

·         How much money had been allocated for the removal of the outside market and if this was considered still sufficient due to the current climate?

The Leader responded as follows:

The expanded events programme in the Town Centre had been supported by one-off funding and some of this budget remained to be used for this year’s events, should these still be able to go ahead.  The success of the project would determine future funding but as Covid had largely prevented any fair consideration, the project would be given further evaluation this year.  There was no specific allocation of budget to Amazing Accrington.  The Council was looking at ways of helping to boost the Town Centre and regenerate Hyndburn by liaising with businesses and business groups. Further information and plans for a way forward would be reported to Cabinet.

In respect of Covid related expenses the Council had received or been promised over £42 million of funding.  The Council were also expecting more funds to arrive by the end of the year.  Most had been ear marked to local businesses and residents and he outlined the types of activities financed.  He pointed out that the Council had also lost income as a result of the pandemic and that they were unsure how much more they would receive or need.  He indicated that the Government Budget announcement in March would be important.

The Council would aimed to support all the high street and retail sector in numerous ways and would be talking to those involved to find out how best to do this.  Shop Local campaign would feature in these discussions.

Funding for the project to remove the outside market was still considered sufficient to go ahead at an appropriate time.

Councillor Jeff Scales submitted the following question and comments referring to:

·         A number of townships, like Rishton, not benefiting from any investment from the capital budget despite strong projects being put forward by Councillors.  He requested that the Leader and Cabinet gave consideration to these suggestions and possibly revisit some ideas.  He referred to an inequality in the current strategy and if consideration could be given to a change of approach.    

The Leader responded as follows:

The Council sets its priorities each year for its capital budget and through a cycle, usually determined by what is needed by replacement.  Done on a priority basis with a limited budget.  He referred to reductions in capital budget over the recent years.  He pointed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 140.

The Chair referred to the need to submit a summary of the discussions held and decisions reached during the meeting of the Committee to full Council on the 25^th February 2021.

Resolved                               -   That Council be requested to note the following resolutions of the Committee:-

                                                   (1)     That the contents of the following reports be noted:-

                                                   -Medium Term Financial Strategy 2020/21 to 2023/24

                                                   -Prudential Indicators and Treasury Management & Investment Strategy 2020/21 to 2023/24

                                                   -General Fund Revenue Budget 2020/21

                                                   -General Fund Capital Programme 2020/21

                                                   (2)     That the Committee thanks the Leader of the Council, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Leader of the Opposition for their participation in the scrutiny meeting and debate.

                                                   (3)     That the HBC Deputy Chief Executive and all other Officers involved, be commended for their work in producing the budget.

                                                   (4)     That having reviewed and debated the budget submitted, the contents of the revenue and capital budget reports be supported as outlined.