a)    To receive an opening statement from the Executive Director of Place and any other relevant officers.

b)    To hear from any registered speakers if appropriate.

c)     Panel to then discuss the Draft Budget 2023/24 items that fall under the Place Directorate only.

d)    Panel to make any recommendations to Cabinet.

 

Please note: As communicated in advance of the meeting, non-panel members will be unable to ask questions of officers during the meeting. Please liaise with representatives on the panel.

Andrew Durrant, Executive Director of Place Services, gave a presentation on highlighting the budget of 2023/24 relating to Place Overview and Scrutiny. He explained that the report presented pressures and mitigating savings to enable the Council to balance its budget in 2023/24. It was understood that there would be financial challenges, including the recovery from the Covid pandemic, high inflation, increasing interest rates and demographic growth all impacting on the Borough’s residents. This also had an impact on both teh Borough’s revenue costs and capital costs (cost of borrowing).

 

Andrew Durrant also noted that RBWM had a low council tax rate which was more acute in comparison to other local councils, also low budget levels (although building these back).

 

Andrew Durrant also mentioned that there were in-year budget pressures (partially caused by Covid). In response, he stated that he was working with Heads of Service and teams to mitigate these pressures.

 

Andrew Durrant also pointed out that approximately over 80% of funding from Council Tax was spent on approximately over 80% on individual services.

 

Andrew Durrant then informed that there was a government funding announcement which included:

·       Council Tax policy (3 +2) % (1% increase = approx. £830,000)

·       New social care grants.

·       One more year of New Homes Bonus (but no legacy payments)

·       Consolidation of a number of grants

·       Reductions in services grant to fund some of other commitments

 

This meant that RBWM was in an improved position with additional funding over and above what was included in current draft budget. Looking forward, Andrew Durrant stated that reserve levels would be reviewed as well as prepare for future challenges.

 

Andrew Durrant then discussed the Place Service Budget setting approach. In terms of approach to resource prioritisation, these included

·       Taking a strategic and collaborative view across Place Service in 3-5 years

·       Maintaining essential and statutory services (underpinned by ‘quality’)

·       Prioritise in setting the Corporate Plan goals

·       Focus on Strategic Placemaking and Economic Growth

·       Opportunities to promote Health and Wellbeing (e.g. Active Travel and enhancing facilities)

·       Partnership delivery models key and area to explore

·       Areas to maximise commercial activity and income generation opportunities

·       Address system failure, improve process and unblock issues

 

Andrew Durrant then raised some financial risks and issues:

·       Place Change Programme presented opportunities but also some challenges

·       Historic contracts and renewals

·       Post-pandemic behavioural change and recovery (e.g. Covid grant reduction)

·       Economic outlook

 

Andrew Durrant then explained other opportunities which were being explored. These included the Berkshire Deal to open up new funding opportunities, better alignment of services and leadership with Corporate Plan Priorities, and strategic relationships with business and growth sector organisations.

 

Andrew Durrant then discussed the Place Service savings (accounting for £1.943 million) and growth (accounting for £1.731 million) from various sections.

 

In response to Councillor Singh wishing to have a copy of the slides, Andrew Durrant mentioned that he could circulate the slides to panel members after the meeting.

 

To conclude, Andrew Durrant then displayed the key dates:

·       Online Engagement (launched on 13^th December 2022) had closed on 24^th January 2023.

·       Cabinet to consider engagement feedback and propose budget on 9^th February 2023.

·       Full Council to discuss the budget on 22^nd February 2023

 

With agreement from the panel, the Chairman invited the public speaker to address the panel. They had three minutes to do so.

 

Mr Hinton stated that he was speaking on behalf of the RBWM Climate Emergency Coalition. While it was acknowledged that the Council was experiencing increasing costs and needed to budget accordingly, he argued that this was not the time to reduce the overall budget made available to deliver upon the commitments set out in the Council's own Environment and Climate Strategy, and the Corporate Plan's priority to tackle climate change and its consequences. He stated the Council is behind schedule with 3 of its 4 key Environment and Climate change objectives and with fully establishing the Climate Partnership. Therefore, he conveyed, there was a very strong argument for investment and acceleration.

 

Mr Hinton said that the Council were only considering the obvious climate related budget items, rather than the impact each budget item had on the climate and/or environment. For example, in recruitment, what provisions will be made to reduce emissions associated with the position through home working and/or use of public transport?

 

Regarding the draft budget, Mr Hinton stated that the proposed budget would reduce £180,000 in spending on delivering on its Environment and Climate Strategy, whereby funding would come from the carbon offsetting and biodiversity net gain fund (s106 payments). The s106 payments were meant to remedy damage caused by development, and were in addition to, not instead of, projects delivered through the Climate Partnership and/or the Council.

 

Mr Hinton concluded by asking the Panel what they had done to secure additional powers and resources from government to avoid a significant overall reduction in funds allocated to one of the Council's top three priorities.

 

Chris Joyce, Head of Infrastructure Sustainability and Economic Growth, stated that the Council was on track to meet its commitments relating to its own emissions, but also admitted that there were some challenges around meeting targets for the overall Borough emissions. He also stated that there were no reductions on the amount of money going into projects and teams in the budget proposals. Regarding external funding and money from government, there had been some success in acquiring £4-5 million to help the Council deliver on its climate commitments.

 

Chris Joyce then explained that, rather than being seen as a cut, he was making best use of the grant funding the Council had to grow the team and ensure that they had the right resources to deliver its objectives.

 

Andrew Durrant added that he and his team were working with its contract operators to look into carbon reduction as well as investigating and trialling methods in reducing environmental harm, such as road works. In addition, future contracts would have requirements on environmental friendliness.

 

(Councillor Brar entered the meeting at 6:10pm)

 

In terms of staff, Andrew Durrant explained that flexible and agile working would continue as well as looked into further. He also added that public transport would be further promoted.

 

Referring to the Climate Partnership funding (PLA17S in the report), where there was a proposed £100,000 saving and the finance was to be derived from the Carbon Offsetting, Biodiversity fund and S106 payments, Councillor Reynolds asked if these funds were already in place to replace funding directly. Andrew Durrant confirmed this.

 

Councillor Reynolds then asked if S106 payments would limit the amount of funds for other projects. Chris Joyce replied that the Carbon Offsetting fund was a s106 Payment fund, collected to reduce carbon emissions in the Borough. He also stated that the commitment to give £250,000 to climate partnership for three years would continue.

 

Councillor Reynolds then asked if this meant there were specific project limitations on that funding or would that funding be able to be used in anyway as per the original planned partnership funding. Chris Joyce replied that this was based on the business plan with the Climate Partnership Board. He stated that the funding was very much used for the intended purpose.

 

Regarding the Climate Partnership Fund and the money being used from s106 payments, Councillor Reynolds then asked if residents would not expect s106 payments to be spent on projects rather than running the Climate Partnership. Chris Joyce replied that he had worked with the Climate Partnership Board to identify their business plan for the next 3 years in terms of funding. The Carbon Offsetting fund (part of the s106 payments) would only fund projects rather than the general running of the Climate Partnership. There was nothing preventing in investing in more projects which reduce carbon emissions across the Borough identified with the Climate Partnership.

 

The Panel then discussed the Draft Budget 2023/24 items that fall under the Place Directorate by going through the list of budget items in the report.

 

The Panel discussed Line-by-Line Review (PLA01S).

 

Councillor Walters asked if rising interest rates had been factored in. Adele Taylor, Executive Director of Resources, replied that had interest rates and inflations had been factored in the overall draft budget in the medium term.

 

Councillor Hunt asked why there was a high saving for a Line-by-Line Review. Andrew Durrant replied that this was made up of a variety of different aspects. Having had a look at some consultancy costs, some of these had been removed for the next financial year as consultancy costs were usually large but often one-off. The Place Directorate had looked into how this could be invested within the organisation, such as project management support. Adele Taylor explained that the Line-by-Line Review was annual exercise because there were usually changes for next year’s budget. She added that the biggest change to Line-by-Line savings for the draft budget was the National Insurance (NI) changes, whereby employers and employees were to be charged additional Health and Social care NI, but this was no longer required. Thus, this was removed from every Directorate budget in 2023-24.

 

Councillor Davey commented that the Line-by-Line lacked detailed information in the report and stated that he was better informed during a meeting with officers in which he shadowed. He asked if there could be an informal meeting before the Place O&S meeting so that Panel members could be better informed on items in future. Adele Taylor replied that the Line-by-Line Review was hundreds of pages long due to having to go through every cost centre and account code.

 

Councillor Singh asked how much of £376,000 would go to staff public transport as there appeared to be a reduction. Adele Taylor replied that the sections (including staff public transport) under the £376,000 funding were areas where there had been a budget but there had been no spending over a number of years. She explained that there was a reduction in staff public transport was because of factors like changes such as more online meetings.

 

The Panel then moved onto discussing PLA02S (Infrastructure, Sustainability and Transport). Councillor Reynolds asked if there was a guarantee that in-house teams would be successfully recruited as well as why there was a struggle to recruit them. Chris Joyce replied that the recently recruited Highways Development Control Officer had recently started. He added that the reason that recruitment had not been done before was because the previous Transport and Infrastructure Team was originally an outsourced service and therefore it was being paid through a contract. By bringing the Team in-house, some money was able to be saved.

 

Councillor Walters asked if recruitment for an in-house team would result in the curtailment of employing individuals outside of the Council. Andrew Durrant replied that it would not. He elaborated that the Place Directorate may have a different approach with contracts going forward, such as looking at different functions that were currently within contracted services transiting into in-house in the future, and therefore, providing some additional resource within the service teams directly rather than being within contracted teams.

 

On PLA03S (Public Transport Subsidies), Councillor Brar asked why the S106 contribution was a one-off. Adele Taylor replied that the sum of money was only received once and therefore it could only be spent once. She explained that the sum of money would go in for one year and then get reversed back out in the following year because it was a one-off grant.

 

Councillor Davey asked if Public Transport Subsidies was a special project that was being funded out of S106 funding or a standard service which was being funded out of S106 funding. Chris Joyce replied that S106 funding was financing the services that RBWM were currently supporting but the alternative choice was to reduce the service and then refund the service using section 106. In effect, if this money was not put into the budget, then RBWM would then fund a lesser public transport service; but then the following day, RBWM would then put section 106 to restart up one of the bus services it supported.

 

Councillor Davey believed that S106 was for when there was an expansion and services were needed to support this. Therefore, he asked if there were issues with an existing service, would RBWM need to look into that service. Chris Joyce replied that the Transport Team were doing and that this was helping to maintain services for people whilst the Team undertake the more detailed review.

 

The Panel had no questions or comments for PLA4S (Sustainability team projects) and PLA5S (Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace income). The Panel then discussed PLA06S (Operational changes in parks).

 

Councillor Reynolds had some concerns over the closure of park gates and the suggestion of utilising volunteers. He asked if there had been considerations on the potential saving from this proposal being balanced against potential expenditure in the future resulting from and social behaviour vandalism, such as replanting trees which vandals had damaged. He also asked if the parks referred to in the report included cemeteries. Alysse Strachan, Head of Neighbourhood Services, confirmed that the balance of costs was considered. She added that it would not be all parks, and that there would be a place-by-place consideration whereby key parks which had a high volume of anti-social behaviour would be looked into. This would be done through a risk assessment with partners, such as Thames Valley Police. She also confirmed that this may also include the closing of cemetery gates.

 

Councillor Singh had some concerns on the provision of public conveniences (public toilet) and asked if an EQIA assessment had taken place as some public toilets had been removed. Alysse Strachan replied that a full-scale review of all public toilets in the Borough (rather than just in parks) would take place. She confirmed that an EQIA assessment had been completed but this would be updated as the project progressed in case there were any alternative options, such as parishes or other partners which may take on operational use of public conveniences. Therefore, this may not involve the removal of public toilets or charging for them.

 

The Panel then discussed the budget items relating to parking: PLA07S (Review of parking enforcement near schools), PLA08S (Parking Subsidies) and PLA09S (Charging opportunities for car parking). The Chairman declared some of these items would be discussed in Part II.

 

Councillor Reynolds requested to raise a point regarding PLA07S in Part II of the meeting. The Chairman accepted this.

 

On saving £67,000 for parking subsides, Councillor Davey asked what these subsides were or whether this was generic subsidies. Alysse Strachan replied this was made up of various subsidies that RBWM provided for parking across the Borough. A large chunk of parking subsidies was the free Christmas parking for residents, costing around £50,000 per year to deliver. The alternative arrangement introduced this year where public transport provision was made in conjunction with the resident’s parking discount had proved successful. The introduction of the resident discount scheme meant there was a negated need for this because residents could access free parking in the town centres. In addition, RBWM sometimes received requests from event organisers and therefore provide subsidised parking for events. The event organisers will be advised that they need to factor in parking costs into their plans.

 

On PLA09S, Councillor Singh asked if free parking on Sundays had been dropped. Adele Taylor replied this report was a draft budget and that Cabinet may make some changes before the final budget. At that stage, this was still in draft budget. In response, Councillor Singh then asked if there were any financial calculation in terms of budgetary arrangements on this direction. Adele Taylor replied that the draft budget to be sent to Cabinet would have full financial implications in it. She added that any changes Cabinet would potentially make would have to be fully costed and the draft budget would have to be fully balanced.

 

The Panel then moved onto PLA10S (Cashless Parking expansion). Parish Councillor Pat McDonald, Co-Optee, was reluctant about the use of cashless parking and asked if cash parking could continue in Maidenhead.

 

Councillor Reynolds asked if there was any additional cost with RingGo to the Council. Alysse Strachan replied that any costs were offset by the maintenance the Council had to pay for the maintenance of pay and display machines as well as facilitate cash collections.

 

Councillor Walters supported the idea of retaining cash parking due to an ageing population in the Borough and asked if this could be retained. Alysse Strachan responded that trends were showing that more people were taking up the cashless option which was why the Borough was moving in this direction. Though, with EQI element, cash parking still needed to be considered with different groups of people and the preference in payment method. She also stated that the cash parking option would not be fully removed and were looking at different options. Councillor Davey commented that EQI assessment did mentioned elderly people and therefore payment preferences for certain people had to be considered.

 

Councillor Reynolds asked if there was a proposal to remove parking machines from some of car parks and would that leave any of current car parks with no parking machines. Alysse Strachan said this could be a potential; but this would be a location-by-location basis whereby a couple of machines would be retained if there was no cash payment option nearby for residents. Though there was already a program of removing pay-and-display machines across the Borough.

 

Moving onto PLA11S (Income opportunities across Neighbourhood Services), Councillor Brar asked if the pavement licencing and cleansing and valeting services (as mentioned in the item) was going ahead. Alysse Strachan advised the project had not started yet because approval to go forward with this was pending; but any commercial opportunities with the assets that the Borough had were being looked at. Councillor Brar asked if residents were being consulted on this. Alysse Strachan said that there would a wide range of consultations.

 

Councillor Luxton asked how the Council received money from, for example, private car washers, such as would a fee be charged. Alysse Strachan replied that this was in development, but it may be in the form of a concession contract in which the Council would charge a management fee or received a percentage of the income.

 

Councillor Reynolds asked for reassurance that management enforcement would not involve enforcement such as management officers penalising children for a lemonade stand or a jumble sale. Alysse Strachan reassured this would not happen. Councillor Reynolds later followed up by asking what safeguards were put in place to ensure that young enterprising people were not being penalised as well as the grey area on what would be considered acceptable and unacceptable. Andrew Durrant acknowledged that there could be pitfalls and that the approach to the program would need to be considered before being introduced.

 

Regarding licences for private trainers using parks, Councillor Singh asked if this encompassed organised exercises and events and thus the individuals arranging this would be charged. Andrew Durrant replied that this was one of several areas that was listed and identified to achieve the £50,000 worth of savings that the Place Service were committed to. An approach he suggested for the Council was to work more in partnership with the likes of personal trainers to see, for example, if there could be discounted concessions or to continue their free but commercial activity in exchange for some free to access community-led provision in which RBWM could then expand its activity program and health and wellbeing program. Andrew Durrant also stated that while the Council should consider the licensing arrangements for those individuals going forward, it should also equally and ideally engage and work with individuals which were providing activity in public spaces and to see how it could work with them to allow them to continue but to benefit the wider community.

 

Councillor Brar asked if the boat hire in Maidenhead through concession contract was related to the Maidenhead waterways or the River Thames. Alysse Strachan reiterated that she was looking at all the assets that the Borough possessed as well as the commercial opportunities that it could explore.

 

The Panel moved onto PLA12S (Waste operational changes). Councillor Shelim asked what was meant by waste transfer station opening times, such as whether this meant shorter opening times. Alysse Strachan confirmed this, explaining that there were different summer and winter opening hours. As such, RBWM had been looking at the option to have its winter opening hours reflected in the summer opening hours, in which they would be open for shorter. Despite this, as part of that work, RBWM would do investigations on the demand on when residents would want to use the tip.

 

Councillor Luxton asked what was meant by ‘re-use "shop"’. Alysse Strachan explained that sometime residents bring items to the tip which can be reused. Therefore, the staff on site would look to see what items were reusable, like bikes or chairs, they collect that equipment and then sell them to other residents who visited the site.

 

Councillor Singh asked if upcycling shops were considered which could be placed in the town centre as well as how the staffing and management would be organised. Alysse Strachan responded that some details were yet to be decided, but she was open to pop-up shops. If this had potential successful, then these suggestions could be explored.

 

Moving onto PLA13S (Place Service Transformation Programme), Councillor Walters asked what this meant. Andrew Durrant explained that it was intended in the long-term to achieve a better alignment of the services in recent times, functions and staffing resource across the Place Service. Some of these changes included the creation of Neighbourhood Services, with a realignment of some functions, and Chris Joyce's Infrastructure Sustainability and Economic Growth Service. Collectively, the directorate leadership team had identified aspects where the Place Service could be more effective in its contract management as well as where it could deliver higher quality of standard to RBWM residents. It was often about identifying areas of real expertise and specialism that could be better aligned and avoid any fragmentation. It was hoped that this would promote efficiency and reductions in costs.

 

Councillor Davey asked if the contract work was being done by the Legal Team. Andrew Durrant replied that while the Legal Team was separate from the Place Service, they provide legal support in re-procurement of contracts alongside separate financial and HR support from other teams or services.

 

The Panel then discussed PLA14S (Contract efficiencies). Councillor Brar asked if there was an attempt to bring the services mentioned (Highways, Waste Disposal, Parking enforcement, grounds maintenance) in-house. Alysse Strachan replied that it was not an objective to bring all the services in-house, though potentially with some of them. For example, the re-procuring of highways contracts potentially had elements which may be better delivered in-house.

 

The Panel moved onto PLA15S (Parish council & Commercial Partnership). Councillor Luxton asked if the Borough Council controlled the flow of money to Parish Councils as well as what it was being spent on. Adele Taylor replied that the parish precepts were for Parish Councils and the Borough collected and delivered this to the Councils on their behalf as part of the Council tax collection. As Parish Councils were their own separate and sovereign bodies, the Borough Council had no control over where this money was spent. Unlike RBWM, which had a referendum limit of 4.99% on Council tax, Parish Councils were not limited by this. Another difference was that there was an un-parish element, which was limited to by the referendum limit, which covered costs in areas which were not under the jurisdiction of a Parish Council.

 

Councillor Brar asked if PLA15S was asking Parish Councils to take in services from the Borough. Andrew Durrant replied that this budget line was part of the Council looking into how to better work with parishes in the future. Through discussions with parishes, Andrew Durrant stated that there were potential opportunities and that some parishes were keen to have further discussion to ensure cooperation. In addition, commercial opportunities were also considered, such as supporting community service. Community wardens were also discussed with parishes.

 

Councillor Brar then asked if Borough funding would be provided for the services in which Parish Councils may take on. Andrew Durrant replied that this was still under consideration and discussion. In addition, there needed to be an analysis of the assets as well as the divisions of responsibility in the parishes to understand where the opportunities exist. One objective for the future was to ensure that officers were identified so they could do that type of work.

 

(Councillor Clark left the meeting at 7:59pm)

 

The Chairman asked if the Council knew Parish Councils individual reserves and a cumulative figure of their reserves. Adele Taylor reiterated that Parish Councils were their own separate sovereign bodies, and therefore it was up to them to determine what their reserves were.

 

The Panel then moved onto PLA16S (Economic Growth Team). Councillor Reynolds asked if town centre events (such as Christmas light switch on) were at risk with this budget line. Chris Joyce replied that most of those big events were financed through sponsorship and organised by partners, while the budget was for minor events which may be organised. Therefore. The events were not at risk. Coming back, Councillor Reynolds then asked what smaller events were at risk in not being arranged. Chris Joyce said he would need to come back to the question, but he reassured that major events like Christmas lights were not under threat.

 

Councillor Shelim asked for explanation regarding Guildhall and business rates in the budget line. Chris Joyce explained that the tourist information centre was previously based in the shopping centre and was paying rent and business rates. As part of the process to bring the tourist information centre into the Guildhall and share the space with the museum, the rent was taken out of the budget, and this had identified that there was also a business rate cost that had previously not appeared in the budget and now could because it was now within an RBWM building.

 

The Panel then discussed PLA17S (Climate Partnership funding). Councillor Reynolds asked if the budget would keep RBWM on its annual carbon budget and successfully achieve its annual carbon budget production. Chris Joyce replied that forecasts for the Council carbon emissions showed that it was on track to meet its target and there was nothing in the budget proposals which would make achieving these carbon targets harder. Though some other potential risks may exist, such as securing government funding.

 

In reference to a Table 3 (under 4.17: Development Contributions) in the report, Councillor Davey commented that there were no S106 and CIL contributions for biodiversity, despite biodiversity being discussed. Chris Joyce stated this did not mean there would not be any spending on biodiversity. The table was referring to the fact that there was no S106 contributions to biodiversity at the moment, though S106 contributions may be collected to support biodiversity in future.

 

The Panel then moved onto PLA18S (Planning Performance Agreements). Councillor Reynolds asked for an elaboration on the budget line. Adrien Waite, Head of Planning, explained that a planning performance agreement was when RBWM entered into an agreement with a developer to process a free application advice or a planning application to try and meet particular time scales. These were often associated with funding agreements which RBWM negotiate on a on a bespoke basis. They could provide extra resource such as specialist external consultants or contract planners. As part of the budget, the Planning Team was looking to change some of its pre-application charging structure but there were also a lot of larger developments in the pipeline due to the adoption of the Borough Local Plan. Overall, this budget line was highlighting that there was the opportunity for more discussions with developers particularly on larger sites and to try and increase revenue to fund those activities.

 

Councillor Reynolds responded that this sounded like a “planning application fast lane” in which developers could grant RBWM extra cash to get applications through quicker. Adrien Waite responded that this was not the case, explaining that this did not change how planning applications were handled. Rather, this changed how it would be dealt with and the way it would be funded as well as bring in additional resources. He also explained that these planning performance agreements would mostly be used for larger developments.

 

Councillor Reynold was still sceptical with the idea. Adele Taylor stated that planning performance agreements were used in multiple local authorities. She stated that these agreements were to ensure the right skills and resources were acquired in a timely manner when doing planning applications. She stated that this was supporting the efficient use of RBWM resources for individual applications and minor applications by utilising funding like this to support major ones. This was about individuals who would pay for the increase in use of resources.

 

The Panel had no comments or questions on PLA19S (Planning Application fee), PLA01G (Leisure Centre rent concession income) and PLA02G Public transport subsidies

 

On PLA03G (Tree Maintenance and Inspections), Councillor Davey asked if the full year impact of £454,000 in the budget line encompassed tree planting by the Tree Team or whether it included tree maintenance. Andrew Durrant replied that this encompassed tree inspection and maintenance and not the re-planting of trees, though tree planting schemes had been investigated. He added that there had been increased pressures relating to trees, such fallen trees caused by extreme weather.

 

The Panel had no comments on PLA04G (Section 81 works extra resource) and PLA05G (Highways and Streetworks software).

 

On PLA06G (Parking Income season tickets), in reference to Table 6: Fees and Charges Income in the report, Councillor Davey asked for an explanation for the income growth from £10.3 million to £11.5 million. Adele Taylor explained that the table illustrated the totality of the income and that the overall income budget for parking services would be £11.5 million (an 11.6% average increase). She also added that the table reflected the changing demand and behaviour in certain areas.

 

The Panel had no comments regarding PLA07G (Car Parks).

 

On PLA08G (Fly Tipping), Councillor Davey asked if there was an organisation who would be providing most of the funding. Alysse Strachan replied that the existing contract which RBWM had underestimated the volume of fly tipping in the Borough, therefore the Borough had to pay for anything above the threshold.

 

The Panel had no comments regarding PLA09G (Tivoli Contract) and PLA10G (Burials income reversal).

 

Councillor Davey requested to look at different approach on discussing the budget items, arguing that discussing the items in a less formal chat would give Panel members a chance to discuss and ask questions. Adele Taylor replied that the budget process was made extremely difficult due to a tight timescale from central government; namely late notification of information and policy decisions from central government which therefore caused work around balancing budget to be done right up until the draft budget was to be presented to Cabinet. She added that if it were not for the restrictions from central government, then RBWM officers could have looked at different ways to brief councillors.

 

Adele Taylor also stated that a review would be arranged on how things could be done differently. She also explained that it was the remit of the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel to consider the budget because the budget should not have been separated into single elements because it was about the totality of the funding, elaborating that if the budget was viewed separately, the budget as a whole would not be reviewed. They could however involve other panels but it was their remit to consider the whole budget.

 

The Panel had no recommendations to Cabinet. Therefore, the Panel moved the meeting into Part II.

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the motion to exclude the public for the remainder of the meeting be approved.

 

After some discussion on the nature of the proposals in Part II, two motions were proposed.

 

Councillor Luxton proposed the motion that Cabinet explore all the schools in the Borough which require funding for school crossing patrols (SCPs). This was seconded by Councillor Shelim.

 

A named vote was taken.

 

The result was 5 in favour, 2 against and 2 abstain, so the motion passed.

 

AGREED: That Cabinet explore all the schools in the Borough which require funding for school crossing patrols (SCPs).

 

Councillor Reynolds proposed the motion that Cabinet review budget line PLA07S (Review of parking enforcement near schools). Seconded by Councillor Singh.

 

The result was 4 in favour and 5 against, so the motion fell.