Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from the following members:

Councillor Farooki;

Councillor Kup.

To receive any declarations of interest. Members are advised to consider the advice contained within the Declaration of Interest advice attached to this Agenda. If a Member declares an interest, they should complete the Declaration of Interest Form

Councillors Wing and Will Scobie sought advice from officers on whether they had to declare an interest on the fees and charges item. However they were both advised that there was no need to make such a declaration.

Councillor Bright, Chair of the Youth Services Provision Working Party gave an update of the activities of the sub group and said that they had held a number of meetings and had also administered survey questionnaires to young people, youth workers, TDC Officers and TDC Councillors. The sub group was now drafting the report that they hoped to present to the 11 March Panel meeting.

Members noted the report.

Councilor Yates introduced the budget items and have an overall view on the reports that were on the Panel agenda and made the following comments:

·  All councils in Kent were increasing council tax to the maximum;

·  The General Fund Budget was a compassionate budget that also aimed at making residents feel safe and providing clean streets;

·  Cabinet was extremely proud of the Council’s current housing programme;

·  There was now a dedicated graffiti cleansing team set up;

·  With regards to HRA; Although 2.7% rent increases were being proposed, these would be covered by universal credit and benefit allowances;

·  There was also a Hardship Fund that could be used to support those households that were struggling.

Members asked questions and made comments as follows:

·  What were the reasons for the voids increases?

·  Was the Council not holding a separate Full Council budget meeting this year?

·  Some Members felt excluded by the process used this time around. Members could have suggested recommendations like the Council introducing another free bulky waste collection;

·  With regards to the graffiti budget; was there going to be any allocation for education and safe spaces for graffiti;

·  With the further provision for temporary accommodation, was the Council getting value for money?

·  With regards the Hardship Fund; how could residents access this fund?

·  Other Members said that they did not they did not have any concerns with the budget process used this year as they managed to have a meeting with the Finance team;

·  They further said that it would have been even better if ward councillors could bring suggestions about what they would like to see in the budget. The extra graffiti funding was an impressive addition to the budget;

·  The budget proposals could also include setting aside an additional budget for bulky waste and offer one or two free collections a year. That proposal could be worked against the current costs for tackling fly tipping;

·  Why was the CCTV control room being replaced?

·  Could officers consider conducting ward walks, as these were a good approach to determining issues affecting some areas in the district? Ward walks were used in Ramsgate which led to KCC resurfacing some of the roads in Ramsgate;

·  Would the replacement of CCTVs mean additional cameras across the district?

·  There was a camera that was damaged through an accident in Broadstairs that should have been replaced. Would this be replaced?

·  There was not much infrastructure on HRA land in the budget, like an allocation for parks. Why was this the case?

·  Members welcomed the budget allocations for the car parks.

Councillor Yates, Chris Blundell, Director of Corporate Services, Mike Humber, Director of Environment and Matt Sanham, Head of Finance and Procurement responded as follows:

·  A written response would be forwarded to Members regarding the reasons for the voids increases;

·  Previously there used to be a Fees and Charges Cabinet Advisory Group was not the case this time around;

·  With regards to graffiti; it was about setting up resources for cleaning graffiti;

·  There was also a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

Matt Sanham, Head of Finance and Procurement introduced the report and made the following comments:

·  This report seeks approval of the 2025/26 Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget and associated capital programme;

·  A review of the Council’s HRA reserves for both revenue and capital was included. The report further set out the assumed housing rent increases to assist in funding the budget;

·  Next year’s HRA budget was underpinned by a 2.7% increase in rents next year, representing CPI (as at September) + 1%. The majority of which would be covered by increased benefit or Universal Credit payments to Council’s tenants;

·  Based on the proposed increase across the whole stock, the average rent was £107.39, this was an average increase of £5.28p per property per week;

·  This rent increase was needed to continue to drive the HRA to a balanced and sustainable financial position, and also to finance the Council’s ambitious house building programme and housing investment plan. Officers were pleased to report that there were no rents that were above the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rent;

·  Last year in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, a Hardship Fund was created and this remained in place, seeing £30k being allocated to assist those tenants on a low income who may be struggling to meet the rent or associated service charges levied;

·  The Panel was requested to consider the content of this report and the recommendation being made to Cabinet.

Members asked questions and made comments as follows:

• Was the £1million reserve the standard amount across councils or it was at the discretion of S151 Officer?
• Why was the disabled adaptations budget static?
• When would residents start to see a reduction in heating costs?
• When would the waking watch service end?
• The waking watch service had been of great benefit to tenants and it would be sad to see it end.

Matt Sanham and Chris Blundell, Director of Corporate Services responded as follows:

• The £1million reserve was at the discretion of S151 Officer. However the advice was also provided by Finance team and S151 Officer would review the general risk profile before making such a determination;
• It was also important for the Council to work towards getting back into a surplus position;
• Recharge: As charges increased, there was additional charges to the HRA;
• The Disabled Facility Grant was an externally funded facility and the Council had no control over the amounts that were allocated to this Fund;
• Reduction on heating costs: The programme on cladding and insulation was still on-going. Residents would not witness any savings for another two years or so. However once the insulation programme ended, the heating performance of these properties would improve, which would see a drop in heating costs;
• Waking watch service was also linked to these insulation refurbishment programme;
• Inflation was not where it was 24 months ago. Officers were confident that the budget being proposed would be adequate.

Members noted the report.

Matt Sanham, Head of Finance and Procurement introduced the report and made the following comments:

·  This report sets out the proposed fees and charges that will subsequently be presented to Council on 27 February for approval;

·  A review of fees and charges had been completed as part of the 2025/26 budget setting process;

·  The review of fees and charges commenced in the early summer and proposed fees and charges were based on a broad 2% increase, which was expected to generate additional income of around £250k;

·  But with a proposal to enable £100k to be distributed to allow areas that were in a deficit to pause their budgets to avoid setting targets that were not achievable;

·  So overall, a net contribution of £150k had been factored into the budget as a result. This excluded items such as On Street Parking, Selective Licensing, and Housing HRA;

·  The report summarised the main proposed changes to fees and charges, with the details set out in annex 1;

·  Given the need to balance the budget, locally generated sources of income such as fees and charges remained as important as ever;

·  It was important the council organised itself and invests in ways that maximised that income, whilst balancing this with managing the impact on residents and service users;

·  The Panel was requested to consider the content of this report and the recommendation being made to Cabinet.

Members asked questions and made comments as follows:

·  Fees and charges were destroying town centres due to high parking charges which were preventing parking in town centres. This was now affecting businesses in town centres;

·  Thirty minutes of free parking was not available to residents in Ramsgate. Could this be looked into as a matter of urgency?

·  The Council should look into a free parking option for limited time in town centres across the district;

·  The Council should be commended for increasing charging for parking at the rate of the inflationary increases;

·  Charges for community events had not been increased, which was also commendable;

·  How was the Council going to publicise bulky waste collection?

·  Was the Council going to charge more for events that would be held on Saturdays?

Councillor Yates and Chris Blundell, Director of Corporate Services responded as follows:

• The Parking Strategy would be looking at some of the issues that the Panel raised;
• If the increases were not proposed, there would be a need to subsidise the impact of parking on the overall Council budget;
• Free short term parking was something that the Strategy would be looking at. However any proposals from the Strategy would take some time to implement;
• One of the quickest wins from the Parking Strategy was free parking;
• There was a proposal for some limited free parking in some roads;
• The Portfolio Holder offered to meet with councillors and officers before the February Cabinet to discuss specific issues in the fees and charges report;
• Charging extra for Saturday events: Event charges were always cost recovery;
• Bulky Waste: Having a comms plan was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

Chris Blundell introduced the report and made the following comments:

• The budget balanced with a number of services aligned properly;
• An amount had been taken from the reserves in order to find the re-alignment;
• Reserves were in a much better position than before. However they were still low and some work was needed to improve the reserves;
• S151 Officer was going to produce a Section 25 report that would detail a bit more on the state of the reserves.

Members asked questions and made comments as follows:

·  There were big capital expenditures like Manston. However this was in the context that Thanet District Council would no longer exist in two to three years’ time. Was this a worthwhile investment?

·  The re-organisation was now going to take four to five years now that Kent County Council was no longer going to be considered for the Priority Devolution Programme. Conducting financial forecasting was most likely a very difficult exercise for the Finance team?

·  One member said that they were concerned about capital programme slippage;

·  Budget Strategy: Building income stream through property rentals. What volume of income was coming into the Council?

·  Council Borrow: Other Councils were borrowing £1,000 per tax payer. Was TDC being too cautious?

·  Was the development of the Marina Car Park in the budget?

·  It was important to be alert to when it was appropriate to borrow?

·  Another member welcomed the investment being proposed in the public realm. They hoped that the Council would consult the youth including the Youth Cafe before the money was used;

·  It was also worth noting proposals for upgrading the camera system in the Council Chamber.

Councillor Yates, Chris Blundell, Mike Humber and Matt Sanham responded as follows:

·  The Council would still be providing services across the district regardless of the current re-organisation taking place in local government;

·  Any decisions on large projects would be key decisions and would therefore be reported to the Overview & Scrutiny Panel and Cabinet;

·  In all the decisions being made by the Council, the context of the current re-organisation would always be factored in such decisions;

·  The local government finance system was being reviewed and a new system would be introduced;

·  Business rates: The Council might lose this grant which a payment for the council tax collection that Thanet District Council used to collect on behalf of Kent County Council;

·  It was important to note that the Path Finder Fund like most funds had its own conditions to be fulfilled;

·  Margate Digital: Some works had started to come up in the high street in Margate;

·  Some planning applications for the major Path Finder Projects would be going to the Planning Committee soon. The main contractor had been appointed. A project updated would be provided to Members;

·  By nature capital programmes experience slippages;

·  Budget assumptions were also made around rent reviews. There was a continuous effort for the development of rent income for the Council;

·  The Estates team was recruiting on the premises that rental income would increase;

·  Council Borrowing:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

Ashley Jackson, Head of Housing and Planning introduced the report and made the following comments:

·  The Overview and Scrutiny Panel was being asked to consider and comment on the contents of the report and the recommendation made to cabinet;

·  There were two minor amendments that needed to be made to the table (section 3, page 7) in the published Local Development Scheme (LDS). These amendments did not affect the list of documents identified in the LDS; the scope of the documents; or the overall timetable:

1.  Biodiversity Strategy: As a result of some delays in obtaining some critical species data, this work will now continue through the next year, so the Biodiversity Strategy should be included in the list of tasks identified for March 2025 - December 2025;

2.  Design Code: As a result of changing Government guidance in relation to the preparation of Design Codes, the references to different “phases” should be removed. This is likely to be a much more continuous process than previously envisaged.

Mr Craig Solly addressed the Panel.

Members asked questions and made comments as follows:

·  Members welcomed the updates to the Local Development Scheme;

·  They also welcomed the extension of the period for meeting biodiversity targets;

·  Some villages were facing pressures. There was therefore a need to challenge the instructions from government, citing Thanet’s unique circumstances, that Thanet is an area of significant deprivation and its location;

·  During the previous Local Plan update, some sites were put forward for consideration as housing development areas. Were these sites still being considered?

·  There should be additional infrastructure where housing development was being proposed;

·  Too many houses were being built in the wrong locations and of the wrong type across the district. There seemed to be no consideration for the impact of such development on the local area;

·  There did not seem to be any consideration that Thanet was a peninsula;

·  How could the Local Plan be made to be fit for purpose and represent the interests of the local people?

·  Could the Panel be provided with the figure for all the housing plans that had been approved to date?

·  Was the government likely going to change the formula for calculating housing numbers after the local councils’ re-organisation?

Ashley Jackson responded as follows:

• Officers were going to confirm whether the sites that were put forward for housing development during the Local Plan review were still up for consideration;
• Officers were going to provide a written response to the question on whether the government would change the formula for calculating housing numbers after the re-organisation.

Members noted the report.

Matt Sanham, Head of Finance and Procurement introduced the report and made the following comments:

·  This report was required to be considered by Council in accordance with the CIPFA Code of Practice on Treasury Management;

·  It covers the capital spending, financing plans and our treasury strategy, backed by prudential indicators and limits;

·  The report also included for noting and comments the Council’s Minimum Revenue Provision policy, capital strategy, investment strategy and non-treasury investments report for the next financial year;

·  The Panel was requested to consider the content of this report and the recommendation being made to Cabinet.

Members noted the report.

Members noted the report.