Agenda and draft minutes

There were no apologies for absence, declarations of interest or dispensations declared at the meeting.

The Minutes of the last meeting of the Resources Overview & Scrutiny Committee held on 15^th October 2024 were submitted for approval as a correct record.

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

The Minutes of the last meeting of the Resources Overview & Scrutiny Committee held on 15^th October 2024, were submitted for approval as a correct record.

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

To receive a verbal update from the Chair regarding any relative matters previously submitted to Committee, Cabinet or Full Council. 

The Chair informed Committee that a report seeking approval of the appointments of two new co-optees (Christine Heys and Eddie O’Brien), which were recommended at the last Committee, would be submitted to Full Council on 16^th January 2025.

To update Committee on the Council’s Capital Monitoring.  The report sets out the latest phasing of the programme including the latest estimates of available resources and any additions or changes in forecast outturn since the last monitoring position was presented to the Cabinet on 24^th July 2024.

Recommended       -          That progress on capital expenditure to date and comments be noted.

The Head of Finance submitted a report to provide an update for the Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the Council’s Capital Programme Monitoring.  It set out the latest phasing of the programme including the latest estimate of available resources and any additions or changes in forecast outturn since the last monitoring position was presented to the Cabinet on 24^th July 2024.

The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Resources, Councillor Vanessa Alexander, presented the report to Committee.

Members of the Committee had submitted a number of questions in advance of the meeting:

1.   Disabled Facilities Grants - why is there slippage from one financial year to another, when the allocation to the Council is made annually from the Government via Lancashire County Council?

2.   Capital Receipts – Which Council assets are proposed for selling to meet its target of £1.555m from Capital receipts?

3.   Operational Buildings – an amount of £267,000 had been included for the Oswaldtwistle Civic Theatre Refurbishment works but to date none of this money has been spent although the Council has commissioned works.  The Friends of the Civic have been informed that between £2m - £3m will be needed to make the building compliant with Health and Safety standards.  What is the Council’s position on this?

Responses were given to the above questions as follows:

1.      The Council aimed to spend all of its Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) allocation.  The amount shown in the accounts was money owed back to Lancashire County Council but still sat in the accounts.  It would, eventually, be clawed back. 

2.      The Council assets listed for sale, are publicly available on the Council’s website.  It was pointed out that the value of the assets listed would more than meet the value of £1.555m to achieve all its required financing from capital receipts.

3.      The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Resources reported that the building required a structural survey so that they could ascertain the extent of improvements works and repairs required on the building.  She referred to Cabinet’s commitment in getting the building up and running again. 

Members of the Committee expressed concern about the extent of the problems of the Theatre and requested that a copy of the report was circulated to Members. 

The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Resources explained that Cabinet Members had met with the Theatre Trust and had been advised that they would be pushing to place the Theatre on the Risk Register. 

Mr. O’Kane referred to Mercer House and asked for progress report.  Councillor Alexander reported that good progress was being made on the building.  She explained that there were still some issues to sort out but had potential tenants for the building.

Councillor Addison referred to onerous lease terms and conditions on many public buildings, putting off many organisations from using the buildings and asked if this was an issue being considered.  Councillor Alexander reported that Labour had a commitment to not making leases too difficult to comply with.

Resolved                      (1)    That a progress report on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 207.

To inform the Committee of the financial spending of the Council up to the end of September 2024 for the financial year 2024/25 and the forecast impact on the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy for 2024/25 and 2026/27.

Recommended       -          That the report and comments be noted.

The Head of Finance submitted a report to inform the Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee of the financial spending of the Council up to the end of September 2024 for the financial year 2024/25 and the forecast impact on the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy for 2024/25 to 2026/27.

The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Resources, Councillor Alexander, presented the report to Committee.

Members of the Committee submitted the following questions in advance to the meeting:

1.           Why was there an underspend due to ‘savings from staffing vacancies’ and why is this regarded as a positive?

2.           Hyndburn Leisure – What was the nature of the £850,000 support to Hyndburn Leisure (forecast overspend)?

Responses were provided to the questions as follows:

1.           Councillor Alexander responded that she had experienced austerity times as an employee and understood the detrimental effect of staff having to cover more than one role.  She explained that savings from staffing had come from employee pay which had fallen behind that of the private sector resulting in difficulties for recruitment and vacancies remaining open. 

Debate referred to a decrease of income into the Council, due to various factors, which had resulted in challenges for recruiting staff.

2.           The Cabinet Portfolio Holder, Councillor Alexander explained that the £850k support shown in the accounts, was general subsidy support for Hyndburn Leisure.  She reported that a Leisure Review report was being produced but also pointed out that several things would be happening which may affect outcomes including the possible establishment of Unitary authorities across Lancashire.

Members were keen for a report on the Leisure Review to be presented to the Committee.  They were informed that the item was scheduled in the work programme for the March meeting.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

To provide Overview and Scrutiny with an overview of the Council Tax Support (CTS) Scheme and the Councils approach to the administration of this scheme.

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

The Head of Benefits, Revenues and Customer Contact submitted a report to provide Overview & Scrutiny Committee with an overview of the Council Tax Support (CTS) Scheme and the Councils approach to the administration of this scheme. 

He reported that Council Tax support provided financial support to low incomes and was paid directly.   He explained that each Council devised their own schemes following the abolition of Council Tax Benefit by the Welfare Reform Act.   All English Local Authorities were instructed to prepare and implement a local scheme to replace Council Tax Benefit and to do so with 90% of the funding previously awarded.  Council Tax Support was funded by a cash-limited grant, 10% lower than the 2011/2012 Council Tax Benefit spend.  After consultation with the public in 2012 the scheme was approved to pay a minimum of 20% of their Council tax liability.  No working age claimant would be entitled to have 100% of their Council Tax liability met through Council Tax Support from 2013.  Following a further public consultation in 2016, Council approved that all claimants of working age would have to pay a minimum of 30% of their Council Tax liability from April 2017.

The following question was submitted in advance of the meeting:

1.    Why does HBC have a scheme that requires residents to pay a higher rate than other local councils?

A response to the questions was given as follows:

The Head of Benefits, Revenues and Customer Contact reported that there had been Welfare reforms in 2012 when Council Tax Benefit had been abolished and English local authorities had been instructed to implement a local scheme to replace this and to do so with 90% of the funding previously awarded.  Council Tax Benefit had been demand-led whereas Council Tax Support was a cash-limited grant.  The Committee was informed that Council had to make a decision on whether there was an increase in Council Tax for all residents or a lower percentage rate of support for those on low incomes. 

Councillor Clements expressed concern about the low rate of Council Tax Support that working age claimants could claim in Hyndburn, particularly in comparison with that provided by other local authorities.

Cabinet Portfolio Holder, Councillor Alexander, explained that Hyndburn Council had received the worst rate of Government funding of all borough councils in the country.  She referred to the current Government’s commitment to providing a deprivation grant and that the Council would know how much Government funding they would receive before Christmas.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

To provide Overview and Scrutiny with an overview of the Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) Scheme and the Councils approach to the administration of this scheme.

Recommended       -          That the report and comments be noted.

The Head of Benefits, Revenues and Customer Care submitted a report to provide the Overview and Scrutiny Committee with an overview of the Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) Scheme and the Councils approach to the administration of this scheme. 

He reported that DHPs provided financial support towards housing costs and were paid by the Council when they were satisfied that the applicant needed further financial assistance with housing costs and who were also in receipt of either Universal Credit or Housing Benefit.  Hyndburn’s DHP Policy was based on the Discretionary Financial Assistance Regulations and on guidance provided by the Department of Works and Pensions. 

Councillor Allen referred to page 42 of the report and requested an explanation as to why there had been less funding awarded in recent years.  The Head of Benefits, Revenues and Customer Care reported that there was no clear reason for this but could be linked to the length of funding or less people being in need of this funding.  He pointed out that this grant was advertised regularly.

Resolved  - That the report be noted.

To present to Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee the draft versions of:

       i.          The evidence base document supporting the need for an Article 4 Direction that would remove permitted development rights for houses in multiple occupation in 9 wards in Hyndburn (Appendix 1) and;

      ii.          Supplementary Planning Guidance on Houses in Multiple Occupation that would be used to help determine planning applications for Houses in Multiple Occupation (Appendix 2), and;

To seek the observations of Resources, Overview and Scrutiny on the proposed Article 4 Direction, the Evidence Base (Appendix 1) and Policy on Houses in Multiple Occupation (Appendix 2).

A verbal update will be provided to Resources, Overview and Scrutiny on the outcome of the Cabinet meeting on 4^th December 2024. 

Recommended      (1)  That the approach proposed in the report be supported and comments noted; and

                                (2) That the verbal update to the Committee on the outcome of the proposals submitted to Cabinet on 4^th December, be noted.            

The Chief Planning and Transportation Officer submitted a report to the Committee presenting the draft versions of:

i.              The evidence base document supporting the need for an Article 4 Direction that would remove permitted development rights for houses in multiple occupation in 9 wards in Hyndburn; and

ii.             Supplementary Planning Guidance on Houses in Multiple Occupation that would be used to help determine planning applications for Houses in Multiple Occupation; and

2.   To seek the observations of Resources Overview & Scrutiny Committee on the proposed Article 4 Direction, the Evidence Base and Policy on Houses in Multiple Occupation;

3.   To inform Committee that due to there being a close timing of Cabinet (4^th December) and the Resources Overview & Scrutiny Committee (10^th December) and, consequently, due to a report being submitted to Cabinet first, there would be a verbal update provided for the Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the outcome of the Cabinet meeting on 4^th December.

Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning, Councillor Munsif Dad, alongside Chief Planning & Transport Officer, Simon Prideaux and Planning Officer, Shanshan Chen, presented the report outlining the draft policy.  They informed Committee that:

·         the policy would be implemented in 9 wards across the borough and gave details of the evidence base used to support the need for an Article 4 Direction. 

·         the Article 4 Direction was non-immediate and would remove permitted development rights in 9 wards for small HMOs

·         the same report contained the evidence base for this approach and the proposed policy framework that would be consulted upon. 

·         the Council had a much better knowledge of number and location of HMOs in the borough which would enable them to monitor the situation more closely in the future.

·         It would also apply to planning applications for the change of use from Use Class C3 to large HMOs in the whole Local Authority area. 

·         Guidance would not apply retrospectively to existing HMOs.  

·         Once the Article 4 Direction had been put into place it would be fairly quick to add any further wards, should it be required. 

·         There would be a six week consultation on the proposed documents and Article 4 Direction.

·         The document would need to go before the Secretary of State, demonstrating the importance of supporting evidence needing to be robust, and could take up to a year to be implemented.

·         Committee was informed that the Government saw the Article 4 Direction as an exception rather than the rule.

The Planning Officer gave details of the amount of work and the challenges of collecting the required data for the evidence base.  She explained that only 9 wards had been included in the policy as the evidence collected had highlighted these wards. 

The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transportation, Councillor Munsif Dad, along with the Chief Planning and Transportation Officer and Planning Officer gave responses to the following questions submitted in advance to the meeting:

1.      Would SERCO houses remain outside the scope of Article 4 Direction?

No, all properties would be included.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 211.