Minutes:
Officers provided
Members with the context for the Environment Directorate’s draft budget
proposals. Officers reported that the provisional Local Government settlement
for 2018/19 for the authority was £20m less than the previous year. Officers
stated that the Environment Directorate’s budget was £32.710m at present and
was currently 11.9% of the local authority’s overall budget. Officers continued
by stating that since 2009/10 the Directorate had contributed £18m towards the
authority’s deficit and was expected to contribute an additional £2m in the
current financial year. Officers added that over 400 members of staff had left
the Directorate within the last seven years, with 200 leaving under the Early
Retirement/Voluntary Redundancy (ER/VR) scheme during financial years 2013/14
and 2014/15.
Officers referred to
proposal ENV706 regarding the generation of income through asset sponsorship.
Officers informed Members that the additional £75k target identified in the current
Financial Forward Plan had been deferred, but was likely to be achieved during
the next financial year now that the contract with Immediate Solutions had been
extended.
Officers elaborated on
proposal ENV804 regarding staff redundancies and the deletion of posts across
the directorate. Officers stated that these savings would be achieved by
considering ER/VR applications and by utilising existing staff in different
ways.
Officers updated Members
on proposal ENV805 regarding the reduction of staff within the Planning
Department. Officers reported that a couple of enquiries had been received from
staff with regard to the ER/VR scheme. Officers continued by stating that
losing experienced staff through the ER/VR scheme would put pressure on the
service area, and a re-structure may help to alleviate the problem.
Officers referred to
proposal ENV806 regarding the increase to the rent for workshops, industrial
units and business centres. Officers acknowledged that some businesses may
already be facing financial difficulty and a rent increase may affect some
businesses more than others. Officers assured Members that the authority would
try to work with businesses where possible. Officers continued by stating that
due to the financial pressures placed on the authority a slight rent increase
was necessary.
Officers conceded that the list of proposals brought forward for the
next financial year were not as extensive as in previous years as it was
becoming increasingly difficult each year to identify savings. Despite this,
officers informed Members that other items and proposals would be brought to
future scrutiny committee meetings such as the cleaning review, public
conveniences review and a joint review with the Social Services Health and
Housing Directorate to look at aspects of commissioning.
Members queried how much interest had been expressed so far in relation
to asset sponsorship (proposal ENV706). Officers informed Members that the
authority worked with an external provider called Immediate Solutions in order
to attract businesses who would be interested in asset sponsorship. Officers
continued by stating that Immediate Solutions received a percentage fee for
every sponsorship deal that they gained for the authority. Officers conceded
that sponsorship had tailed off towards the end of this year. Officers
explained that the company received a fixed financial penalty fee if they were
not actively marketing for sponsorship for the authority. Officers stated that
as part of the new extended contract the authority received a more lucrative
fixed rate for each sponsorship deal. Officers confirmed that sponsorship
opportunities were offered to businesses for assets such as signs on
roundabouts, signs when entering villages and towns, and signs on lighting
columns. Officers stated that it was important not to provide too much visual
clutter in any one place, particularly for motorists where they could be
distracted from the road. Officers added that advertising on bridges was not
offered to businesses as citizens regularly covered bridges with bed sheets for
various occasions, and there were also concerns that banners could fall onto
cars passing beneath which could cause an accident.
Members enquired as to how businesses were
able to apply to the authority to sponsor an asset. Officers informed Members
that businesses could contact the authority directly to apply. Officers stated
that the Economic Development Department provided a price list for all the
different assets within the borough and would then put businesses in touch with Immediate
Solutions who would offer them a sponsorship opportunity based on their budget. Officers continued by explaining that assets
were priced based on how busy a particular area was and the footfall.
Members queried how many staff were likely to
be made redundant or have their posts deleted in relation to proposal ENV804.
Officers confirmed that it was likely that the directorate would lose more than
one member of staff as previously indicated in order to meet the £30k target.
Officers continued by stating that they were unable to lose more than one post
within the Planning Department due to large developments anticipated in the
near future.
Members questioned in relation to proposal ENV805 whether job sharing would
be an option within the Planning Department to assist with pressures. Officers
stated that job sharing and part-time working did not suit the requirements of
the service. Officers added that a re-structure within the service would be the
preferred approach to fill a post that was lost through ER/VR. Members referred to previous items brought
before the committee where planning application targets had been exceeded, and
questioned whether the loss of a senior member of staff could detrimentally
affect the service. Officers responded by stating that the service could
sustain the loss of one experienced member of staff, but any more would disrupt
the service.
Members queried in relation to proposal ENV806 whether businesses making
large profits should be charged more for rent. Members continued by questioning
whether the authority could view the accounts of businesses occupying
workshops, industrial units and business centres across the authority and set
the rent based on their profits. Members raised concerns over the potential
difficulty that some businesses could experience as a result of a rent
increase, while there were other businesses that were thriving and capable of
paying a higher rate of rent.
Officers stated that the process for charging for rentals had been
reviewed and agreed over three years ago. Officers explained that the authority
did not have the capacity to view the accounts of businesses. Officers
continued by stating that the authority tried to keep rent at a fair and
standard rate where possible. Officers added that the authority worked closely
with businesses that were facing financial difficulty and would always look at
a business’ long term prospects. Officers commented that when businesses were
unable to pay the rent it usually indicated that there was a far more
significant underlying issue with the business, as the rent was only a small
part of the business’ outgoing costs.
Members enquired whether there was a waiting list for workshops,
industrial units and business centres. Officers confirmed that there was a
waiting list. Officers stated that the Business Development Team provided
assistance in filling the units. Officers explained that they were keen to
accommodate business where possible due to the contribution that businesses
make to the local economy.
Supporting documents: