Agenda and minutes

Mrs D. Taylor CC in remote attendance - Acting Leader and Lead Member for Regulatory Services

Mr L. Breckon CC – Lead Member for Resources

Mr J. Poland CC – Lead Member for Transformation and support for Resources

Mrs P. Posnett CC – Lead Member for Communities and Staff Relations

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 November 2024 were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 34.

The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5).

There were no urgent items for consideration.

The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to declare any interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting.

All Members of the Commission who were also members of district councils declared an ‘Other Registerable Interest’ in the Medium Term Financial Strategy (minutes 50 to 54 refer).

There were no declarations of the party whip.

The Chief Executive reported that no petitions had been received under Standing Order 35.

Mrs D. Taylor CC, the Acting Leader of the Council, and Mr L. Breckon CC, Lead Member for Resources, have been invited to attend for this and all other MTFS related items below.

The Commission considered a report of the Director of Corporate Resources which provided information on the proposed 2025/26 – 2028/29 Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) as it related to Corporate and Central items.  The report also provided an update on changes to funding and other issues arising since the publication of the draft MTFS and provided details of a number of strategies and policies related to the MTFS.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 8’ is filed with these minutes.

The Chairman welcomed the Acting Leader of the Council, Mrs D. Taylor CC (in remote attendance), and Cabinet Lead Member for Resources, Mr L. Brecon CC, to the meeting for this item.

In presenting the report the Director commented that the Council faced uncontrollable pressures which would lead to significant savings having to be made despite the Council having sought to recover the maximum amount of council tax possible as permitted by the Government.  Next year, the MTFS was predicated on the need to use some of the Council’s reserves to balance the budget.  Thereafter the deficit was forecast to grow significantly to £95m as a result of service demand and inflationary pressures, despite significant work and savings having been made in previous years across all service areas.

The Director emphasised that the main determinants for the Council’s future financial health very much rested with the Government and its approach to things like local government funding reform, SEND funding reform and the national living wage.  There were a growing number of authorities now needing additional Government support.  The Council would continue to prioritise its financial resilience, however, the Director emphasised that it was difficult to predict the future direction of the Council in the longer term given the level of uncertainties faced.

Arising from discussion, the following points were made:

Revenue Budget and Growth

(i)           Members expressed significant concern at the growing level of challenges faced by the Council.  A member commented that it would be impossible given limits on the Council’s ability to generate income, that this would cover its forecasted expenditure, particularly taking account of rising levels of growth in the demand for services, increasing costs and national insurance, and pay and price inflation. 

(ii)         It was suggested that uncertainty around future Government funding had made planning for this MTFS particularly difficult.  It was noted that the Government was undertaking a spending review which would be concluded in June. Following this, it was thought the Government would be able to provide greater clarity around future funding streams.  This should also be accompanied by reforms to the local government finance system, a consultation already having been launched on this issue. 

(iii)        Members questioned what other approaches the Government might take to address pressures on local government finances. The Director reported that there appeared to be some acknowledgement that service standard reforms would be needed, as well as the removal of the cap on council tax, both of which would help to enable councils to become more self-sustainable. 

(iv)       The Lead Member was challenged about what the Cabinet’s strategy would be to address the budget deficit.  The Lead Member confirmed that consideration had and would continue to be given to service delivery methods, and the level of service provided. It was acknowledged that lower level services were already being provided in Leicestershire at a cheaper cost due to its low funding position.  However, the Councils performance had always demonstrated that these were delivered effectively and efficiently and to a good standard.  Further the Council had secured specialist external support from organisations like Newton Europe that would continue to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

In addition to the Acting Leader and the Lead Member for Resources, the following Lead Members have been invited to attend for this item:

Mrs Posnett (Lead Member for Communities and Staff Relations)

Mr Pain (Lead Member for Minerals and Waste)

The Commission considered a joint report of the Chief Executive and the Director of Corporate Resources which provided information on the proposed 2025/26 – 2028/29 Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) as it related to the Chief Executive’s Department.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 9’ is filed with these minutes.

In addition to the Acting Leader and the Lead Member for Resources, the Chairman welcomed the Lead Member for Community and Staff Relations, Mrs P. Posnett CC, to the meeting.

Arising from discussion and questions, the following points were made:

(i)               A Member commented that work arising from local government reorganisation would mainly fall within the remit of the Chief Executive’s Department and queried why additional growth to cover that work had not been sought in the current MTFS.  It was acknowledged that this could not be accommodated entirely within existing resources.  However, when the position became clearer on the Council’s proposed approach, discussions would be held with the Director of Corporate Resources regarding what additional resources would be required.

(ii)              A Member queried what outcomes had been delivered by the Growth Service and Business Intelligence Service and asked, given the cost of those services, whether any savings could be identified in those areas.   It was noted that a whole review of this service area was taking place and that further savings identified from that would be presented as part of the next iteration of the MTFS.  So far, a saving of £95,000 had been accounted for.

(iii)            The Council allowed trade union representatives to use some facilities at County Hall as part of the recognition agreement and ongoing arrangements with recognised trade unions.

RESOLVED:

(a)  That the report and information now provided be noted;

(b)  That the comments now made be submitted to the Cabinet for consideration at its meeting on 7^th February 2025.

Mr L. Breckon CC, Lead Member for Resources, and Mr J. Poland CC, Lead Member for Transformation and in support of Resources, have been invited to attend for this item.

The Commission considered a report of the Director of Corporate Resources which provided information on the proposed 2025/26 – 2028/29 MTFS as it related to the Corporate Resources Department.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 10’ is filed with these minutes.

In addition to the Acting Leader and the Lead Member for Resources, the Chairman welcomed the Lead Member for Transformation and in support of Resources, to the meeting.

Arising from discussion and questions, the following points arose:

(i)               A Member commented on the allocation of capital resources to the Investing in Leicestershire Programme and questioned if this was appropriate given the financial pressures faced.  The Director provided reassurance that investment in the Programme would not be made unless this was supported by a sound business case and was expected to generate a revenue income stream in line with the Strategy. The IILP had been positive, generating income to support the delivery of other Council services for a number of years, reducing the level of savings needing to be made, and provided support for local businesses.

(ii)              Beaumanor Hall was expected to generate a reduced loss this year.  It was acknowledged that significant work had been undertaken to build a more sustainable business from the property but that this continued to be difficult.  A Member challenged why the property costs for Beaumanor Hall were not shown against the revenue income it generated suggesting that this did not provide a transparent view of how well this traded service was operating.  It was noted that services were presented in the budget based upon responsibility which allowed central overheads to be seen clearly.  When decision making was made this information would be brought together for a holistic view to be taken.

(iii)            A member commented on the difficulty some residents had getting through to officers and challenged whether this was as a result of the Ways of Working programme. The Director advised that feedback from a recent staff survey suggested that productivity had increased significantly following the introduction of hybrid working, but that work was ongoing to improve the capture of data to support this view. 

(iv)            It was noted that the Council had not made a decision to mandate officers come into the officer for a set number of days per week like some other organisations had chosen to do.  Instead, the Council supported managers to determine the appropriate level of flexibility that best met the needs of their service area.  They were considered best able to determine when performance management, objectives and targets were not being met and how to address this.

(v)             The Director commented that hybrid working stemmed from the Covid 19 pandemic which forced home working upon a range of organisations to ensure these could continue to operate during that difficult period.  Since then, all organisations have been adapting to a more flexible working approach.  How well this worked varied depending on the needs of the business.  The Director provided reassurance that the Council was seeing unprecedented growth at a time when staff resources had been reduced,  but that despite this performance was being retained which indicated that productivity was good amongst staff.  The Lead Member emphasised that hybrid working was now expected by employees and that offering this helped to improve recruitment and staff retention.

(vi)            The Council’s Customer Programme sought to improve the customer experience when contacting the Council.  Improvements had been made but it was acknowledged that some areas of difficulty were still being worked on.  For example, focus was now being given to reducing failure demand contacts, automated responses being provided where  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

The purpose of this item is to enable consideration of the responses of the following Overview and Scrutiny Committees to their respective areas of the Medium Term Financial Strategy:

·        Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (meeting held on 15 January 2025)

·        Highway and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee (meeting held on 16 January 2025)

·        Adults and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee (meeting held on 20 January 2025)

·        Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee (meeting held on 21 January 2025)

·        Environment and Climate Change Overview and Scrutiny Committee (22 January 2025)

The Commission considered extracts from the minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings held to consider the Medium Term Financial Strategy 2025/26 – 2028/29 so far as this related to the County Council departments.  A copy of the minute extracts from each meeting is filed with these minutes.

RESOLVED:

That the comment made by each of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees be submitted to the Cabinet for consideration at its meeting on 7^th February 2025.

The Commission considered a report of the Director of Corporate Resources which sought members views on the revised Investing in Leicestershire Programme (IILP) Portfolio Management Strategy 2025 – 2029 which sets out the proposed approach to future asset management and investment.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda item 12’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion, the following points arose:

(i)               The refreshed Plan continued to seek to ensure the Council made the best use of its property assets and generated a good revenue return to support the delivery of wider services.

(ii)              A new Rural Strategy was being developed to ensure that the estate had a clear direction and supported the County Council’s wider objectives.  This would be presented to the Commission at a future meeting for consideration.

(iii)            Members were assured that an inspection programme was in place and would be detailed in the new Rural Strategy.  A full inspection would usually be carried out once a year with periodic visits carried out on an ad hoc basis as necessary.  The Director reported that advice had been sought from external land agents regarding the timing of inspections.  They had recommended that these continue annually, advising that quarterly inspections would be unusual and expensive and risked being intrusive to tenants.  It was noted that a balance needed to be struck between the Council’s right to seek to protect its assets and a tenant’s right to the quite enjoyment of what was their family home and place of business.

(iv)            Delays in the delivery of IILP projects had less of an impact than other capital projects as any rise in costs would usually be recovered through increased rental income. Future costs could also be mitigated against as projects to build industrial units would not be commenced until future tenants had been secured.

(v)             Members were reassured that all projects within the IILP were subject to a detailed business case first being agreed.  Thereafter delivery against that business case would be monitored throughout the life of the project, with a detailed appraisal then carried out 12 months after completion.

RESOLVED:

(a)  That the update now provided on the refreshed Investing in Leicestershire Programme Portfolio Management Strategy 2025 – 2029be noted;

(b)  That the comments of the Scrutiny Commission be submitted to the Cabinet for consideration at its meeting on 7^th February 2025.

Mike Denby, Director of Inward Investment and Place Marketing for Leicester and Leicestershire, will attend for this item.

The Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive which provided an update on the work of the Place Marketing Team for Leicester and Leicestershire.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 13’ is filed with these minutes.

The Chairman welcomed Mr Mike Denby, Director of Inward Investment and Place Marketing for Leicester and Leicestershire, who attended for this item.

Arising from discussion, the following points were made:

(i)               Discussions were held every eight weeks with City Council, Rutland Council and district council colleagues regarding tourism campaigns being run or proposed, to ensure the events being promoted were complementary, or that these were coordinated, and a place-based approach was being adopted.

(ii)              The Team worked closely with district councils with equivalent services. Often the Place Marketing Team either supported district councils with their existing campaigns or directed local and rural businesses to them to ensure a joined-up approach.  District tourism representatives worked closely with the Team and identified those campaigns which they were able to work on collaboratively.

(iii)            The Place Marketing Team provided a link between the public and private sector.  The work of the Team included identifying sites for future business tenants seeking to relocate or expand in the area, facilitating discussions with agents, training providers, and other supporting businesses and public sector organisations.  The level of input from the Team varied depending on the support required by each business.  For those already located in the area this might be minimal compared to the support provided to new businesses coming to Leicestershire.

(iv)            Discussions were held with prospective businesses looking to locate within the region to promote why Leicestershire would be the right place for them or, if they chose elsewhere the reasons for this so that any barriers identified could be addressed where possible.

(v)             Most campaigns were promoted on the organisations website and on social media.  However, physical guides were printed off and circulated or could be made available on request.  The website provided links to other organisations, therefore providing a central point of information and contact.

(vi)            The County Council would not be sending a representative to the MIPIM event to be held in March this year.  When attending previously this had been on behalf of both the County and City Councils who provided directions regarding those projects they would like to see promoted.  Members noted that last year the City Council had sought the promotion of a list of key assets and following discussions held at MIPIM a £5m deal had been secured in respect of one of those assets.

RESOLVED:

That the update now provided be noted.

The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled to take place on Monday,

10 March 2025.

RESOLVED:

It was noted that the next meeting of the Commission would be held on 10 March 2025 at 10.00am.