The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Resources gave a brief overview of his areas of responsibility and work programme.  He reported that he had first stood for election and joined the Council in 2003 because he was annoyed by Council Tax increases.  Since then he was proud to say that he had reduced expenditure by £8 million and staffing by 240.  Unfortunately due to reduced central government grants he had not been able to reduce Council Tax, however he now believed the Council was living ‘within its means’. 

The Chairman asked whether there was any significant issue that would keep the Portfolio Holder up at night.  He advised that there was not as there was always a solution to be found and time to find it in.  Unknowns were the biggest frustrations, for example the amount of government grant to be received next year, but that was why there was a ten year budget.

A Member commented that the ten year budget was a useful implement but seemed to include an optimistic figure of of Council Tax rise of 3% in later years and queried whether this was realistic.  The Portfolio Holder advised that this was an assumption currently included which does not have to be achieved by solely increasing Council Tax, but also by increasing the number of properties paying Council Tax.  He was also looking at increasing income streams,  increasing the number of car parking spaces available was just one example of what could possibly be done  In response to a question regarding whether money could be saved in discretionary service areas, he responded that that was a question for Members. 

A Member queried whether she should receive a reply to a letter she had sent the Portfolio Holder in May, he advised that he believed the officer he had passed he query to had responded.  The Chief Finance Officer added that he thought a response had been provided to the Member concerned but would check and ensure the Member was updated.

A Member asked why the Monitoring Officer was investigating setting up a local trading company and asked for expansion on the ideas behind this.  He advised that it was being investigated in order to explore possibilities; such as looking into the concept of starting a local bank, purchasing property to rent or develop, and reviewing the best use of the assets currently held.

The Vice Chairman asked what ideas there were for the £2.1 million from the M&S development.  The Portfolio Holder advised that he had suggested investment in White Oak Leisure Centre but had received a negative response so far, however this was due to be considered at the Finance & Resources Advisory Committee in January 2014 – to which all members of the Scrutiny Committee were welcome to attend.  He advised that he had more income generating projects that the money could be used for but he was reluctant to put it before Members as they were merely ideas that needed to be tested.

A Member expressed concern at the Portfolio Holder not being worried, and asked whether he could estimate the proportion out of the £2.1 million that related to lost car parking from the flats development.  The Portfolio Holder did not off hand. 

Another Member asked what was his vision to minimise the cost of assets.  The Portfolio Holder replied that one of the problems was that the district only had 7% of land that could be developed as the rest was greenbelt.  There needed to be a discussion as to what could be taken out of greenbelt.  As much use as possible had been made of the Argyle Road Offices and perhaps in the future moving somewhere smaller may be considered but he had yet to see anything suitable.  The Member was pleased to hear his reply and asked for support of the New Ash Green Neighbourhood Plan which proposed taking land out of greenbelt.  The Portfolio Holder stated that he would not disagree with that approach.

A Member commented that future problems were being made by freezing council tax and taking the central government offer. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Resources agreed, but added that council tax had not been frozen the past two years, in fact it had been raised as close to the cap as possible. 

A Member queried that the Portfolio Holder had mentioned increasing income from car parking, but then had also commented on car parks as being underperforming assets.  The Portfolio Holder clarified his position by confirmed that large car parks took up a large amount of land, he would prefer maximisation of car parking to be achieved by tiered parking on smaller plots.