Agenda item

The Committee is invited to note the progress on the recovery action plans, the efficiency review and the Future Services Framework and make comments to Cabinet.

That the Committee notes that: the Housing and Community; the Planning, Health and Environmental Protection; and the Organisational Recovery Groups have completed the majority of their actions and should be discontinued after their next meeting.

That the Committee recommends to Cabinet the formation of an Economic Development Panel.

That the Committee recommends to Cabinet that Cabinet recommends to Council that the Local Council Tax Support grant of £160k for additional Hardship payments, which is no longer required, is reallocated towards the Council’s budget deficit – see para 5.3.

Mrs Shepherd reminded the Committee that it had recommended to Cabinet that it should support the four thematic recovery plans:

·         Community and Housing;

·         Economic;

·         Planning, Health and Environmental Protection;

·         Organisational.

Mrs Shepherd drew the Committees attention to the report in which the key achievements to date were highlighted, together with new work, and changes in milestones.  Detailed action plans and progress to date were also included within the report. 

Mrs Shepherd reported that a vast amount of work had been undertaken over the last year to support communities, businesses and the Council, recover from Covid-19 and concluded that most of the actions had been completed.  It had been the intention for the Recovery Groups to be time limited, with the majority of the actions within the Housing and Community, Organisational and the Planning, Health and Environmental Protection recovery plans having been completed or at an advanced stage of progress.  Therefore, it was considered that three of the four Groups had substantially fulfilled their purpose and should conclude with a final meeting. Progress on the remaining actions within the Planning, Health and Environmental Protection could be reported to DPIP and Environment Panel as appropriate.

Mrs Shepherd confirmed that the Economic Recovery Group still had a number of major projects and actions to oversee. The impact of COVID-19 on the Chichester economy was difficult to assess at the present time and was also likely to change.  The Government plans for economic recovery were also awaited and it was therefore recommended that a politically balanced Economic Development Panel was formed to continue to oversee the Economic Recovery Action Plan and to advise Cabinet on economic strategy and policy.  The full ‘terms of reference’ and membership were to be agreed at July meeting of the Cabinet.

Mrs Shepherd added that the Governance Review Working Group would be reviewing the operational model for the Council and further consider, maximising councillor involvement in decision making, and build upon the consensual working experienced in the recovery groups. This group would make recommendations to Council regarding whether in addition to the Economic Development Panel, there was merit in establishing further Panels. 

Mrs Shepherd commented that she was proud of what staff had achieved during the pandemic and the Annual Report which would be delivered later in the year would illustrate that performance had been extremely good.

Mr Ward gave a precis of the current financial position and reported that last year he had attended Corporate Governance and Audit Committee and had predicted the Council would be facing a deficit of £8m but the Government had provided extensive support through specific grants, a general Covid-19 emergency support grant and the Sales, Fees and Charges compensation scheme for authorities which were significantly affected by loss of income. 

Mr Ward reported that the financial figures for last year were not yet finalised but it was likely that the deficit would be well below the estimated £8m figure.  With regards to the future financial position it was currently uncertain with £2m of reserves used to balance the budget, and it was unknown as to how income streams would emerge from lockdown, but car park income had recovered well.  There may be further impacts from future lockdown measures and therefore uncertainties continued, and much was unknown for example as to how the leisure industry would recover and what the Council may be required to provide to the leisure operator. 

There had only been a one year settlement for the year and a further spending review was awaited towards the end of the year.  The Government had again delayed the fair funding review which would distribute/redistribute funding across the local authority sector and this may not be received until 2023.  New cost pressures were also emerging and in the Queen’s speech the Environment Bill was mentioned which would mandate separate food waste collection and potentially require garden waste to be collected free of charge.  There may however be some additional funding, but how much was currently unknown and whether the new services would be funded or not, but Mr Ward was pleased to report that efficiency savings were on target to achieve £932k of savings against a budgeted target of £747k. 

Mr Ward explained that a pay freeze for the year had been expected, but a 1.5% increase had been offered and currently rejected by the Unions which could produce a further cost pressure.

Mr Ward also the drew the Committees attention to the final recommendation on the report to recommend to Cabinet the repurposing of the Local Council Tax Support grant of £160k which was no longer required and reallocated this towards the 2021/22 deficit.

Mrs Lishman joined the meeting.

Officers responded to Members’ questions and comments:

·         With regards to the ‘40%’ progress figure for establishing longer term solutions for rough sleepers, Mrs Rudziak confirmed she believed the figure to be incorrect and that the report to cabinet regarding the allocations scheme revisions had been completed and therefore this matter should be shown as ‘green’.  On the matter of the potential capital or revenue cost of £2.8m to establish longer terms solutions for rough sleepers, Mrs Rudziak explained that £0.5m had been received from the Government jointly with Stonepillow from ‘Next Steps’ funding. The Council had allocated an additional £100k to extend The Lodge and purchase the property which had previously been leased within the city which would be providing longer-term accommodation for rough sleepers.  The £2.8m cited in the report was specifically for Freeland Close.

·         As to whether the Housing First initiative will continue, whereby a person was housed before other support was provided, Mrs Rudziak, agreed it was much easier to provide support for other issues once a person had an address.  In terms of the future, jointly with Stonepillow funding had been secured from the Government Rough Sleeper Initiative fund and the £300K grant would enable a continuing of the current level of support for in-reach and outreach work although the latter was now diminishing with only three people now sleeping on the streets.  This funding was given out on an annual basis, so it is difficult to plan and therefore providing this as a longer term grant was being considered by MHCLG and the Council was working closely with government on this issue.

·         With regards to furlough ending and the cap on evictions being lifted, Mrs Rudziak agreed this was concern for the Council, but other support was in place and time between the stages of eviction had been extended.  The backlog at the courts would also slow the impact to a more manageable pace.  The Council was working with West Sussex County Council and other districts and boroughs at the Strategic Housing Group and plans had been put in place and additional funding secured to establish various initiatives.  Housing officers would provide support at the Courts to help in negotiations with landlords.  Additional funding had been requested for Discretionary Housing Payments and a Homelessness Prevention fund was also in place.  There had also been a focus on supporting people out of temporary accommodation and engagement with partners who had concerns that an individual may become homeless, to encourage early contact with the Council.

·         On the matter of whether those people from Bognor Regis currently housed in Selsey would become the responsibility of the Council, Mrs Rudziak confirmed that for various reasons people were often placed outside of the district but the responsibility was retained by the district housing the person, regardless of the location.

·         With regards to other ideas to boost income streams, having previously been heavily reliant on car parking, Mrs Shepherd responded that the Governance Review was a group which should focus on informing Council of which panels may be required.  The reason for the Economic Recovery group becoming a panel was due to the volume of work necessary in relation for example to the Southern Gateway project, high streets and commercial activities.  It would be appropriate to await the outcomes of the Governance Review, and one of the Terms of Reference was how to engage Members earlier in the decision making process, and whether other panels should be formed.

The Chairman commented that he strongly endorsed 3.3 of the recommendations, and requested that the ‘terms of reference’ were made available to OSC at the earliest opportunity.  The Chairman added he would welcome regeneration projects highlighted in the ‘terms of reference’ and seeking new income streams would be justified, particularly with car parking likely to become a reduced element of income. 

The Chairman sought clarification with regards to the Babynov company and Mrs Hotchkiss responded that this was a French based company and the estates teams had been working with the company on their relocation to Terminus Road.  Many investment projects were long-term projects and commercially sensitive, therefore information could not be released early. 

The Chairman expressed concern regarding the challenges of the high street and the need to be proactive and the necessity of group to focus on this issue.  

Officers responded to Members’ further questions and comments:

·         On the question of Economic Development Panel to be both geographically as well as politically balanced, Mrs Shepherd responded that it would be a decision made by Cabinet and Mrs Lintill confirmed the intention would be for both a geographical and politically balanced group.

·         With regards to the future of East Pallant House, Mr Mildred confirmed that work on this matter was on-going and the decision was made last year to defer the decision for twelve months as it was necessary to understand future work patterns, related to workspace, the needs of customers and organisational requirements and impacts of flexible working, before coming to conclusions.

·         Mr Mildred also explained the Gigabyte project was an action under the Recovery group which had a number of elements including rural areas, and vouchers to secure better internet connections.  Work was taking place with a company called City Fibre who were rolling out connections for the whole of Chichester city, Stockbridge and Fishbourne from August 2021, with Tangmere to follow and would be based in a Council unit at Ravenna Point.  This would also have a positive impact on attracting businesses to the area.

The Chairman commented on the importance of supporting viticulture and viniculture.  He also sought clarification on the progress of reviewing the ‘red card’ planning procedure and scheme of delegation.  The Chairman further commented that during Covid-19 letters to residents regarding planning applications had ceased, which was of concern to residents and urged officers reintroduce this administration.  Mr Frost responded that on the review of the ‘red card’ procedure and scheme of delegation, at the last meeting of the recovery group a paper had been provided with a constructive discussion taking place.  A report would now be produced setting out the relative merits of individual letters to neighbours, versus site notices to be presented initially to the Planning Committee for consideration.  

The Chairman invited Mrs Purnell to provide her additional recommendation:

This Committee would like to express its thanks to all of the officers at Chichester District Council for their outstanding work carried out during these unforeseen times.

The Chairman seconded the proposal.

RESOLVED

That the Committee note the progress on the recovery action plans, the efficiency review and the Future Services Framework and make comments to Cabinet.

That the Committee notes that the Housing and Community; the  Planning, Health and Environmental Protection; and the Organisational  Recovery Groups have completed the majority of their actions and should be discontinued after their next meeting.

That the Committee recommends to Cabinet the formation of an Economic Development Panel.

That the Committee recommends to Cabinet that Cabinet recommends to Council that the Local Council Tax Support grant of £160k for additional Hardship payments, which is no longer required, is reallocated towards the Council’s budget deficit 21/22.

That the Committee would like to express its thanks to all of the officers at Chichester District Council for their outstanding work carried out during these unforeseen times.

The Chairman also expressed his thanks to all Councillors for their work during the pandemic.