Meeting Details

RESOLVED

That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 23 September 2019 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

RESOLVED

That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 5 November 2019 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Cabinet received report ES/0203 by the Leader of the Council and  the Assistant Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources which set out an updated Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) for the Council as at November 2019.    

The Leader, prior to presentation of the report, thanked the Assistant Cabinet Member with responsibility for Finance,  and the Finance Team, for all of their hard work in  preparing the report particularly, he stated, in these  challenging times.    

The Assistant Cabinet Member stated that the MTFS provided a baseline forecast of income and expenditure and looked at the overall financial climate, including public finances and the local government financial environment.  The report sets out the current assumptions made in identifying resources for the MTFS.  The key feature of the updated MTFS was that with the announcement of a one-year only Government Spending Round and Local Government Settlement for 2020/21, significant reforms to the Local Government Finance System had now been delayed. 

The MTFS attached as Appendix A had been revised for updates including those resulting from the 2018/19 outturn position of the predecessor Councils; budget monitoring forecasts; budget review meetings; and the Local Government Finance Settlement technical consultation.  The draft MTFS would be continually revised with updates including those resulting from further budget monitoring forecasts; the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement, and the emerging replacement for the East Suffolk Business Plan.

The Assistant Cabinet Member advised that Sections 2 and 3 of the MTFS provided some background on the current economic outlook.  Section 4 covered the current local government finance position and the current forecast position on the Council’s major income streams for 2020/21.

A technical consultation on the 2020/21 Local Government Finance Settlement was issued on 3rd October 2019.   As well as deferring reforms to the system, the proposal for 2020/21 was essentially to roll forward the 2019/20 Settlement with relevant uplifts for inflation.  Consequently, the Council was likely to receive Revenue Support Grant and Rural Services Delivery Grant around the current levels.  Partly offsetting these elements, the allocations for New Homes Bonus (NHB) for 2020/21 would also be for one year only for 2020/21, rather than for four years.  The Government would consult further on incentives to promote housing growth, and indications were that NHB may not continue beyond 2020/21 in its present form.  Only business rates pilots in the original “devolution” areas would go ahead in 2020/21, with all other pilots cancelled.

Financially, the most significant issue for the Council arising from this was that it would benefit from an additional year under the current business rates regime.  The MTFS went into the position on Business Rates in some detail and illustrated the volatility associated with the current system.  The position currently forecast for 2020/21 was significantly better than the scenario previously forecast for next year, which has now been deferred until 2021/22 onwards.  Business rates estimates would be revised during December and January when the NNDR1 estimated business rates return needed to be completed for the Government.

Council tax continued to be a stable income stream, and the Council tax base continued to exhibit growth of just over 1% per year. The technical consultation indicated a referendum limit of 2% or £5, as in previous years, and an increase of £4.95 had been included in the updated MTFS forecasts.

In the technical consultation, the position on New Homes Bonus (NHB) was the least positive area, with an allocation of one year only in 2020/21, with no “legacy” payments relating to this allocation – under the current arrangements the allocation would have been paid for an additional three years. 

The Assistant Cabinet Member drew Members' attention to tables 5.1 and 5.2 and advised that they shew the summary updated MTFS position and all key movements.  The local government finance position for 2020/21, particularly the delays on business rate reforms, now indicated that the Council could be in a balanced budget position in 2020/21, including the ability to contribute to reserves and continue to progress projects and initiatives.  However, this favourable one-off position needed to be balanced against an uncertain position from 2021/22 onwards, and the continuation of significant underlying budget gaps.

Section 5 of the MTFS also outlined the key assumptions used in formulation the Council’s Budget.  A range of key areas, especially Partnerships, still needed to be reviewed before the budget was presented to Cabinet in January 2020 and finalised in February 2020.    

Section 6 summarised the position on the Council’s Reserves and Balances, taking into account both the outturn positions of Waveney and Suffolk Coastal, and the latest forecasts in the MTFS. Table 6.10 summaries reserves and balances by purpose, project, and initiatives.

Finally, the Assistant Cabinet Member advised that section 7 summarised the latest update of the General Fund Capital Programme, which would be the subject of a separate report in January 2020.    

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Environment referred to the Council's investments and asked if they were ethical and matched the values of  the Council.  In  response, the Assistant Cabinet  Member stated that there were multi asset investments; he said  that he could not  guarantee that the Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Environment would support all of them,  it  should  be remembered that the  reason for these investments was to  raise the best possible rate of interest so that all portfolios could spend accordingly.  However, he stated, the Council  did have  the ability, following  any  concerns raised by the Council's advisers, to change  them.  

The Cabinet  Member  with responsibility for Housing  referred to the possible increase in Council Tax and thought  that the Council had no  choice in this  matter; he felt that  it  would  be prudent for Cabinet to make  this  recommendation to Full Council.  The  Leader  agreed, stating that it was the  right thing  to do.  The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Customer Services and Operational Partnerships  added that the Council provided good value to its taxpayers and always took decisions  that were  well  thought  through.  

The Assistant Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community  Health asked  how  the pension scheme  would be supported.  The Chief Finance Officer stated that the local government pension scheme fund for East Suffolk, that the Council's fund, was 98% funded as at 31 March.  However, since that date the actuaries have confirmed that the Council's pension fund is now 100% funded.  Therefore,  from a local government pension scheme contributions perspective, the Council would reduce its contributions and there would be a saving to the Council over the next three years. 

Councillor Elliott stated that ethical investments were ethical and this did not mean that they had a lesser financial return; in fact, he said, during the banking crisis a lot of the banks came out of it really well.  Councillor Elliott asked that the assumption was not made that ethical investment was not a good financial investment; it was both, he said.  

Councillor Elliott referred to the demise of the New Homes Bonus, over the next two years, and asked what impact this would have on the Council's enabling communities budgets and community partnerships.   The Leader gave an assurance that there would be no impact, saying that both were already fully funded.   

Councillor Elliott referred to one of  the Council's largest areas of operational expenditure being via the Norse partnership; he asked if  any work  had been done in respect of the potential financial savings of bringing  the work back in  house at the  end of the contract.  The Leader responded, stating that the Council  had started work on a review of  the Norse contract per se; he said the the contract end was approximately two years away and so now was  the right  time to start to  examine, not only the  Norse contract, but all contracts that were coming to an  end.  The remit of that work was  to fully understand exactly what Norse delivered and to  ensure the level  and  quality of service was meeting the needs of the new Council and to ensure what was being delivered was value for money.   The Leader made it clear that value for  money was not always about money,  it was about  whether that was the  best way to deliver the services, cheapest was not always the  best.  

Councillor Byatt referred to income to  the Council's pension  fund and asked how much the Council  depended on its external investments.  The Chief Finance Officer responded, stating  that the Suffolk pension scheme had  its own Board and the Council employed fund managers; the purpose of the fund managers was to  maximise return; it was very different, he said, to how he would manage the Council's investments; that was what would pay individual pensions.     

In response to Councillor Byatt asking if the Council invested in fossil fuel and tobacco companies, it was confirmed that it did; it also invested in the FTSE 100 etc; it tried to stay as ethical as it could.  

Councillor Byatt stated that ethical could be about the green agenda but he stated that there were a lot of green energy initiatives happening too; he asked if the Council was going to ensure that it got its slice of that, if it had not already.  The Leader responded, referring to investments in green energy, and stated that the Council was looking at every investment that it could potentially make to improve the income for the Council so that it could deliver more.  He added, however, that it was not just about money, it was about the right thing  to do, so there were a number of options being looked at both  through economic development and through the green agenda. 

RESOLVED

1 That the draft Medium Term Financial Strategy attached as Appendix A.

2 That Members and Officers develop proposals to set a balanced budget for 2020/21 and beyond.

At this point, having declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, Councillor Rudd left the  meeting.  

Cabinet received report ES/0204 by the Deputy Leader and Cabinet  Member with responsibility for Economic Development, who reported that on 14 September 2019, following a bid submitted by East Suffolk Council, “London Road” Lowestoft was announced as one of 69 successful high streets to move onto the next stage of Historic England’s High Street Heritage Action Zone Programme.  The confirmation and funding was on an ‘in principle’ basis following the successful design and submission of a Delivery Plan to Historic England by 20 December 2019.  The report requested that Cabinet granted delegated authority to the Head of  Economic Development and Regeneration, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Regeneration, and Heads of Finance and Legal, to agree the submission of the London Road High Street Heritage Action Zone Delivery Plan.  The Delivery Plan set out the project management and governance structure in which the outputs would be managed and monitored; the resources required from East Suffolk Council in both financial and staff time; and the specific projects and timetable for the four-year programme. 

The Delivery Plan also included details of the proposed grant funding allocation required from Historic England, profiled for the duration of the four-year programme.  The Council  had yet to receive written confirmation of the grant funding, as this was subject to the Delivery Plan being approved by Historic England in January 2020.   The match-funding required from East Suffolk Council was £66,750 Year 1, £84,877 Year 2, £36,059 Year 3 and £151,052 in Year 4, totalling £338,738. 2.  The report requested that Cabinet recommended to Full Council that approval of the requested match-funding contribution for the programme be given.

Additional staff resource was required in Planning and Coastal Management for both the existing North Lowestoft Heritage Action Zone and the London Road High Street Heritage Action Zone to provide an Area Planning Officer (0.5FTE) and a design and Conservation Officer (0.5FTE).  The report requested that Cabinet recommended to Full Council that approval be given to the provision of additional budget to provide for extra, fixed-term resource to effectively deliver both Heritage Action Zone’s.  The amount requested was £181,238 for the two roles, based on starting point of Grade 7, including on-costs over the 4 year period.  Additional staff would not be recruited until the funding was confirmed by Historic England. 

The Cabinet  Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management applauded the  good partnership  work that had taken  place; he  emphasised the need to truly value  the assets in Lowestoft.  He also  highlighted the additional staffing requirements in the Planning and Coastal Management Service.       

The Assistant Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health  welcomed the proposals within the report; he asked if there  would be outcomes that could be measured.  The Deputy Leader, in  his response, stated that he  was Chairman of the North Lowestoft Heritage Action Zone Board,  and  the Board would be tracking progress.    

Councillor Byatt  stated that  he was delighted at the proposals within  the report; he applauded the involvement  of  Lowestoft Town Council.  Councillor Byatt asked if  there would be any  objection to ward members contributing to the  board meetings.   The Leader emphasised the importance of ward members having  the ability to input into the work; the Head of Economic Development and  Regeneration added that  there  were and  would continue to be a number of engagement mechanisms, as well as sitting on the Board.    

Councillor Byatt referred to the Community Partnership Board and asked if there would be interaction between boards; it  was confirmed  by the  Deputy Leader that there would be; he said  it would be vital and  it  was right that everything that was happening in Lowestoft,  and  there was a lot, was considered.  The Deputy Leader stated the  need to ensure  that work took  place at a speed that would meet  the  ambition of  Lowestoft.  The Strategic Director stated that the Towns Fund and the High Street Fund had provided a real opportunity to progress this  further; however,  he  said, it was right to pause  briefly to  ensure that  the  structures were right; this inclusive piece of work  was taking place now.  The Leader agreed and stated that it was important  that  everybody worked together;  that way, he said,  there would  be a much more rounded result.  What  was encouraging for him, he  stated was the positive  relationship  that  East Suffolk Council  was forging with Lowestoft Town Council.  

In conclusion, Councillor Byatt asked if Lowestoft Rising should have a place on  the Board; it was confirmed that Lowestoft Rising was fully involved, and was having an  input into  the review that was taking place.  

RESOLVED

 
1. That authority be delegated  to the Head of Economic Development & Regeneration, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Economic Development & Regeneration, and Heads of Finance and Legal to agree the submission of the ‘London Road’ High Street Heritage Action Zone Delivery Plan.  The deadline for submission of the final plan to Historic England is 20th December 2019. The Plan will then be assessed by Historic England during January 2020, with a final decision on the programme and official, written confirmation of the funding expected soon after. 

2. That approval of the requested match-funding contribution for the programme be recommended to Full Council. The match-funding required from East Suffolk Council is £66,750 Year 1, £84,877 Year 2, £36,059 Year 3 and £151,052 in Year 4, totalling £338,738. 

3. That approval of additional resource in Planning and Coastal Management to provide an additional Area Planning Officer (0.5 FTE) and Design & Conservation Officer (0.5 TE), totalling £181,283 over four years, which will cover both the existing North Lowestoft Heritage Action Zone and the ‘London Road’ High Street Heritage Action Zone be recommended to Full Council.             

Councillor Rudd returned to the meeting.  

Cabinet received report ES/0206 by the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing who reported that  the Council was a stock holding authority owning nearly 4,500 units of housing which was the largest asset the Council owned,  valued last year at £525m.   This Housing Asset Management Strategy was important in ensuring that the Council planned for the future with these valuable assets that housed a large number of households in the East Suffolk  community.  The Strategy was closely aligned with the Housing Revenue Account  Business Plan that was approved last year by Cabinet.

The Cabinet  Member reported that  the Strategy considered the current stock portfolio and provided information on Environmental Sustainability under one heading, outlining the actions the Housing Team had taken over the years to make  the stock energy efficient, as well as stating what was planned for the future to meet the Council’s environmental objectives.

The Strategy went on to look at the Council's achievements, outlined the financial position and the investment in the stock, discussed  new build programme and redevelopments and, not least, the role of tenant engagement. The document finally laid out the Council's  priorities for the life of the Strategy and the linked actions were clearly stated at the end to ensure accountability and transparency. 

The Cabinet Member for Housing reported that an Equality Impact Assessment had been completed and the Council's investment positively contributed a range of defined groups with no detrimental impact being identified.

The Leader, on  behalf of Cabinet, gave thanks for  the  work in producing the Strategy, he particularly referred to the ambitions of the Council in  respect of the green agenda.      

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Environment thanked the Cabinet Member with responsibility for  Housing, and officers, for  the work in producing the Strategy; particularly the environmental aspects.  He stated that he  thought it  was critical that the Council was environmentally friendly in providing the  housing and also in  helping  tenants to make the  right  decisions.  He also commented  that it was a clear indication that East Suffolk Council not only talked about the environment, it was doing positive and practical things too.  The Cabinet  Member  with responsibility for  Housing, in  response, said that officers were very proud that they were the best Council for  the green  credentials that it  had; that work would,  he stated, be kept up.     

Councillor Elliott stated that he welcomed the emphasis within the Strategy on the  green  credential and he  welcomed  the  section on passive house standards; he stated that houses were not built to the standards that were suitable for the 21st century  currently.  Councillor Elliott felt that it  was a shame  that the Planning  system could not enforce that all new housing was built to  high environmental standards and he  added that the Council should do all that  it could in this regard.  Councillor Elliott felt it was important that the Council invested in the highest standards of passive housing, or  equivalent standards, so that houses were built that did not need retro fitting in a few years time.   

The Head of Housing replied, saying that a Housing Development Strategy would be coming forward to Cabinet in January 2020 which would cover new build and new development; she also stated that the Housing  and  Planning service areas were in discussion regarding potential supplementary planning guidance around this to encourage all new housing in the district to be built to better standards.  Also, there were live projects under consideration where the Council was actively seeking  specialist architects who could give advice.  The Leader felt  it was incumbent on all members to promote this message throughout the district.   

Following a question from Councillor Elliott regarding land acquisitions, it was confirmed that this would be covered more in the forthcoming Development Strategy.    

Councillor Byatt  asked what progress was being made with the asset review of  the whole of East Suffolk; he also stated that the Council should  be looking to  its brownfield sites being used first of all, and also to encourage private landlords to bring their properties onto the  market;  he was  worried, he said, that there was a dearth of council housing  stock, particularly in the south  of East Suffolk.  

The  Leader confirmed that the asset review was now complete and, as such, the Council  had a list of all assets that  it possessed.  Regarding Councillor Byatt's comments about a dearth of stock in the  south of the district, the Leader reminded members that Suffolk Coastal District Council, when  it was in existence,  had transferred its housing to a housing association and therefore had more relationships with social  housing providers.  This did not mean, he said, that there was a lack of housing in  the south.   The Leader stated that the Council  did  need to look at opportunities to spread the council owned properties right across the area.  Regarding Councillor Byatt's comments in respect of  private landlords bringing their  properties to the  market, the  Leader agreed and added that one of the ways that the Council could  encourage   them to invest and bring  empty properties back into  use and improve their  assets was through the regeneration of local areas.    

The Cabinet Member with  responsibility for Housing advised members that East Suffolk Council  had been bidding for houses in the south,  but it had to bid against the registered providers in the area and so it was not always successful.

The Strategic Director reported that,  through its Housing Revenue  Account,  the Council  had  the ability to influence on a number of  fronts; he added that he would be going to Planning Committee with sites in the future.  He also said that the Council was intervening on empty properties and was looking to bid for Section 106 properties in a way which complimented the market; not to compete,  but to bring something extra.      

The Head of Housing, commenting on single occupants, said  that this was definitely a pressure for the Council and there were incentives available for people to  downsize; this was an ongoing piece of work.  The Council was looking at all ways possible to add to  its housing stock.  

RESOLVED

That the Housing Asset Management Strategy 2019-2024, attached as Appendix A, be approved.

RESOLVED

That under Section 100(a)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.