Agenda item

Questions to the Portfolio Holder for Policy & Performance

Minutes:

The Portfolio Holder for Policy & Performance explained that the focus of his Portfolio would be to get the Council to a position where it could become self-sufficient. Connected with the move to self-sufficiency was improving the customer’s and the resident’s experience in meeting the Council’s services, particularly being able to lead them to online services. The Portfolio Holder responded to Members’ questions.

 

The Chairman asked what the Portfolio Holder considered to be the most significant risks within his Portfolio. The first was the risk of doing nothing, as the drive for self sufficiency was the result of balancing those risks against failing to act. The second was that staffing had reduced as the Council had tried to reduce its core costs. Reduced staffing led to a risk of a lack of capacity. The Chairman further asked about the sustainability of the District Council looking forwards. The Portfolio Holder advised that the Council’s 10-year budget meant it was ahead of neighbours in adapting to the reduced funding. The Council continued to explore partnership working with those other Local Authorities who had an appetite for it and with whom it would work best.

 

The Vice Chairman asked what his expectations were for the Government Revenue Support Grant to the Council in the next year. He responded that the Council was working with an assumption of £1.5million but the Autumn Statement would likely see a further reduction. He hoped to get to the point where the Council was not dependent upon the grant in its core budget. The next phase would be to then reduce dependence on the New Homes Bonus.

 

The Portfolio Holder was asked what further projects the Council intended in the move to self-sufficiency. He confirmed that following the purchases the Council was a third of the way to the revenue stream intended. The market was now approaching the Council with properties as it was respected as a purchaser. The Council was continuing with work on the Buckhurst and Bradbourne car parks and was considering options for the one behind the former Farmers’ Pub site.

 

Asked about the Council Offices, he said that he wanted to get to the point where the Argyle Road offices were not costing the Council money. They had already been successful in bringing others into the building who were paying a market rent. The building was flexible  but presented challenges in terms of energy efficiency. The swimming pools were particularly poor for energy efficiency.

 

A Member enquired whether the property investment would continue to provide returns during a recession. The Portfolio Holder explained that the Head of Economic Development & Property was looking for a mixed portfolio of properties. In some cases the Council would also see a return as a developer and in some cases would retain the value as freeholder. Empty properties had been built into the model.

 

Another Member asked whether it was risky to borrow money to invest in property. The Portfolio Holder advised that money had not yet been borrowed, but instead been redirected from the Council’s investments which were receiving less than 1% return. Property investment had to, and was returning 6%.

 

A Member sought clarification from the Portfolio Holder on the reductions in the numbers of staff. He said that reductions had mostly been at the senior manager level but these cuts has also then filtered down. An example was the partnership working with Dartford Borough Council which had produced efficiencies.

 

 

Back to top