The report provided the Committee with a summary of Council performance and through the exceptions report detailed all ‘Red’ performance indicators for the period to the end of September 2011.

In response to Member questions, the Head of Environmental and Operational Services advised that the price of diesel was an ongoing concern and he was not yet aware of the outcome of the debate in the House of Commons that day with regards to a proposed 3p/litre increase in fuel duty from January 2012.  As it stood, by year end the cost  for diesel could be up to £40,000 above budget.  There had been a budget presumption with regards to the charges imposed by SITA and Thames Water for trade waste and cesspool emptying disposal but they had increased their prices above budget levels after the budget was set.  Operationally, SITA and Thames Water were both local, and Thames Water offered a preferential rate as the disposal point is located at the depot.  Another trade waste disposal option sometimes used was Greatness Quarry, but it was a landfill site and the council’s trade waste collection vehicles were not designed to tip on landfill.  It also operated a 3 tonne minimum disposal.

Members asked why a higher increase in the cost of diesel had not been factored into the budget.  The Head of Environmental and Operational Services reported that when setting his budget he had to factor in the price of diesel as it stood at that time in order to match the overall target for the trading accounts. Cabinet had agreed that diesel costs would be identified as a budget pressure, rather than a growth item.  He was required to balance his budget and would have to find savings elsewhere.  Members were concerned about this approach and felt that Cabinet should be asked to change their views on this.  The Chief Executive explained that it was necessary to do this because of the relationship between Central Government and local authorities in respect of budget setting and expenditure control.  In effect, local authorities were financially controlled on their estimated expenditure, rather than actual expenditure at the end of the year.  This meant that if a potential price increase was factored into the budget at the beginning of the year resulting in a projected overspend, then cuts in other services would have to be made immediately.  However, if the budget was set on costs as they stood, this would provide time for savings/underspend to be identified elsewhere, negating the need for cuts and further job losses.  It was a risk, but did mean that there was a certain degree of flexibility and opportunity to find savings elsewhere and prevented the need to make unnecessary cuts.  If budget holders were not able to find efficiency savings this would be reported to Members.  However Heads of Service all generally helped each other out and this was all monitored very carefully by the Finance Advisory Board and Cabinet.  The Committee noted that the approach to budget-setting and control had been the practice for a number of years, and in each of these years, the end of year position (“outturn”) had been at or slightly below the estimates.

In response to Members’ queries on Revenues and Benefits performance, the Head of Finance and Human Resources advised that it was too early to tell whether the new measures introduced were making any significant impact.  Recruiting qualified assessors was still a problem due to uncertainties and possible changes to legislation.  Not as many were training as assessors and many were going on to other careers.  Recruitment for apprentices was currently carried out via Kent County Council but it was hoped in the next round it would be possible to meet with prospective candidates and talk to them earlier in the process.  Additional resources were used in the summer and had a positive impact on the backlog, however it was still at a high level so some extra staffing was still being used.  Members felt that it was clear more staff were required to meet the increasing workload.  It was also noted that despite the increased workload due to the current climate, the administration grant was being reduced by £40,000.  Cabinet was expected to make representations concerning this.  Members wished to make their own concerns clear to Cabinet and bring to their attention the increased workload and future need to give proper consideration for further staff.

Members noted that despite a very significant improvement, the Performance Indicator for the number of missed green waste collection complaints would likely remain red.  Members congratulated the Head of Environmental and Operational Services and his Team for agreeing to the Christmas collections and extra days, which was appreciated by many residents. 

            ACTION 1: For the purposes of black and white printing, Officers to               investigate a better way of identifying the traffic light colours in      grayscale.

            Resolved:      That:

            (a)       the contents of the report be noted;  and

            (b)       areas of concerns listed above with regards to the increase in                      cost of diesel, and the problems facing Housing Benefits, be                          referred to Cabinet.