Agenda item

To consider the Special Items and Capital Bids for the 2021-24 Medium Term Financial Plan

The Committee considered a report, set out in agenda pages 23 to 116 and supplementary agenda pages 3 to 66, which detailed the special item and Capital bids to be included within the proposed 2021-24 Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP)

 

Parry Batth (Executive Member for Environment and Leisure), John Kaiser (Executive Member for Finance and Housing), Charles Margetts (Executive Member for Health, Wellbeing, and Adult Services), UllaKarin Clark (Executive Member for Children’s Services), Pauline Jorgensen (Executive Member for Highways and Transport), Graham Ebers (Deputy Chief Executive – Director of Corporate Services), Chris Traill (Director of Place and Growth), Nigel Bailey (Interim Assistant Director – Housing & Place Commissioning), Mark Cupit (Assistant Director Delivery & Infrastructure: Place and Growth), and Andy Glencross (Assistant Director – Highways & Transport) attended the meeting to answer Member queries.

 

Charles Margetts stated that if noting changed, Adult Services would see a year on year growth in costs of approximately 4%. As such, a demand management special item was crucial to provide a better service for service users and to reduce costs by being more proactive rather than reactive, for example getting involved in a case earlier to avoid immediate crisis care. Charles added that a further special item included funding to provide a mental health nurse to meet the statutory start term needs related to Covid-19 (C-19). Regarding capital bids, Charles stated that these included a bid for a new elderly person’s dementia care home to be situated within the Borough.

 

During the ensuing discussions relating to Adult’s Services, Members raised the following points and queries:

 

·           Relating to bid ASC 8, relating to demand management, what year on year saving could be expected? Executive Member response – Approximate savings of £1m per year could be expected going forward. The special item was to fund staff on short term contracts in order to set up the new system. This would require a cultural shift and change on the front end of the service, as more planned care would be delivered going forward with a more manageable workload for staff.

 

·           Relating to bid ASC 9, relating to the hiring of a mental health professional, what ages would the service users be approximately? Executive Member response – This post would work with people from a variety of different age groups, and the role would add additional capacity within the existing team to deal with severe mental health breakdowns, which had seen a spike due to C-19.

 

·           Relating to bid ASC 10, relating to transitions from Children’s Services to Adult’s Services, was the £270k proposed funding enough? Executive Member response – This had not been as well resourced in the past as it could have been, and this was additional funding to improve this service. The level of funding could be adjusted if needed. In addition, this was part of a much larger programme to get all areas of Wokingham Borough Council’s (WBC’s) Adult Services into the top 10% of the country.

 

·           The transition programme from Children’s Services to Adult’s Services happened at 14 years of age at WBC, how did this compare to other Local Authorities? Executive Member response – An answer would be provided at a later date.

 

·           Relating to the capital bid regarding the Learning Disability Outreach and Overnight Respite Centre, why had this taken a considerable amount of time to come about? In addition, why had the original published figure stated £2m of investment, whereas the supplementary papers stated a cost of £1.8m? Executive Member and officer response – A detailed answer would be provided at a later date, however Loddon Court had been adequate for some time, however it now needed investment to be brought up to standard.

 

The Committee moved on to their overview of the special items and capital bids for the Children’s Services Directorate.

 

UllaKarin Clark stated that the proposals in front of Members were not just about saving money, but also about providing a better and more efficient service for the Borough’s children and their families. UllaKarin added that agency workers had been reduced from 36% to 27% of staff, and this trend was hoped to continue going forwards.

 

During the ensuing discussions Members raised the following points and queries:

 

·           How many agency staff were currently employed by Children’s Services? Executive Member response – There would always be a certain need for agency staff within the service, but a lower total number was always better and cheaper for the service. Agency staff were very useful for covering sick and maternity leave, however the service could not continue to employ agency staff for vast swathes of posts and therefore WBC were looking to entice more permanent staff with a variety of different incentives. The numerical figure of agency staff currently employed would be provided after the meeting.

 

·           It was noted that costs of sending children to out of Borough schools and centres was becoming more expensive as other Authorities know that we are dependent on their services. It was therefore necessary to invest in in-Borough facilities to provide for most of the needs of children within the Borough. It was noted that it was very unlikely for all children to have their needs completely met in-Borough.

 

·           Relating to the capital bid for the multi-faceted placement hub, when would this project be completed? Executive Member response – This was a rolling programme, and this would be the first hub to be refurbished, and more could be refurbished in the future if there was a need. This was about improving the service provision, and as this was a statutory service then all costs would be met. The works for this project could and would not start until this funding was formally approved.

 

·           Why was the compass team being funded through special items rather than a permanent budget line? Officer response – This was effectively about the funding for the team being proven as effective before being made a permanent line. The hope was that this could provide some good savings and better outcomes for children.

 

·           Relating to bid CS20, parenting assessments, how much of an issue was this? Executive Member response – The issue was that currently the Early Help team had to be used for this function, which took them away from their work. If this team was not used then outside help would have to be commissioned which was expensive.

 

·           Relating to bid CS29, Children’s Transformation Programme, was the £1m of funding enough to reach a ‘Good’ OFSTED rating, and when was the next scheduled OFSTED inspection? Executive Member response – The next inspection was possibly due in the spring, and the service had to make improvements to become ‘Good’ and them ‘Outstanding’. If the inspection came before implementation of schemes, then proposals would be presented to OFSTED which would be used when calculating WBC’s OFSTED rating. WBC was very committed to completing the journey to a ‘Good’ rating, and the reserves were there to support that journey if needed.

 

·           Relating to bid CS24, Recruitment & Retention Strategy, had comparisons been made with other Local Authorities such as South Buckinghamshire or Oxford? Executive Member response – The service was making comparisons with similar sized Local Authorities such as Bracknell and West Berkshire. Some authorities offered allocated parking at office sites whereas WBC did not currently. WBC needed to become more inventive with the remuneration offer to professional Children’s Services staff, regardless if they were in a management role.

 

·           It was noted that when WBC achieved ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ OFSTED ratings, this would in turn attract more high quality staff to join the WBC team in permanent positions.

 

The Committee moved on to their overview of the special items bids for the Place and Growth Directorate.

 

Pauline Jorgensen stated that special items included the Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system, the updated Local Transport Development Plan, and funding to cover loss of income at car parks die to C-19.

 

During the ensuing discussions Members raised the following points and queries:

 

·           Relating to bid P&G8, CRM, was £120k a suitable estimate? Executive Member response – This was an initial IT estimate prior to proper costing.

 

·           Relating to bid P&G26, Local Transport Plan 4 and Delivery Plan, would this move alongside the Local Plan Update? Executive Member response – Yes, this would be developed alongside the Local Plan Update.

 

·           Would Member have access to the proposed CRM system? Executive Member response – This was very desirable and the hope was that this could be achieved.

 

·           Relating to bid P&G15, additional funding to support the local Plan Update, this was a very important project for WBC to stop speculative development within the Borough. Taking this into account, was the proposed funding enough? Executive Member response – A considerable amount of money had already been spent on the Local Plan Update, and this was additional funding to progress it further.

 

·           Relating to bid P&G23, Building Control Fees Shortfall, how sure were WBC that the remaining partner Authority would not pull out? Executive Member response – WBC had made saving due to the service arrangement over the years, and the proposals asked for £100k to realign the service to meet the needs of the service. It was obviously a risk that the other partner within the service could drop out, and the service position would be re-evaluated going forwards.

 

The Committee moved on to their overview of the special items for the Communities, Insight, and Change Directorate.

 

Graham Ebers stated that the continuous improvement programme special item bid remained unchanged, and this would help deliver organisational change and improvements across WBC. Bid CIC12 would help to provide additional HR support for a year to deliver an enhanced people’s strategy. CIC13 would provide much needed funding for the Community Safety Partnership and the Wellbeing Board, which had previously received no funding resource.

 

During the ensuing discussions Members asked raised the following points and queries:

 

·           Did the previous 21C programme create issues for services? Executive Member response – It is possible that some of the changes made during the 21C programme would not have been made in hindsight, for example the thinning out of staff within HR. It was important for WBC to have a strong HR department, and bid CIC12 reflected this commitment.

 

·           It was noted that one of the key focusses of 21C was to protect specialist staff. The issue was that some of them became alienated. Key improvements were made, including more digital processes and streamlined procedures.

 

·           It was noted that Committee Members supported funding towards the Community Safety Partnership and Wellbeing Board.

 

The Committee were updated on the sole Special Item for Resources and Assets. The Committee had no queries regarding this bid.

 

The Committee moved on to their overview of capital bids relating to the Climate Emergency agenda.

 

Pauline Jorgensen outlined a variety of highways projects including congestion management improvements. One key improvement would be that more utility work would be completed out of hours.

 

John Kaiser outlined a number of proposed projects including solar farms, the first of which would have a planning application submitted in 2021. Solar sites such as the one proposed could provide clean energy for the Borough for a period of 40 years, whilst generating revenue for WBC. John outlined the proposed energy reduction project, which would offer businesses support to lower their carbon footprint.

 

During the ensuing discussions, Members raised the following points and queries:

 

·           Could energy reduction and clean energy generation projects result in helping people who suffer from fuel poverty pay their bills? Executive Member response – Whenever homes were built by WBC or one of our Council owned companies, it would be ensured that good quality materials and insulation was used. This would provide long term energy savings for residents.

 

·           Regarding traffic management congestion, would any of this be funded from WBC reserves? Executive Member and officer response – My Journey received a contribution with each house that was built. S106 and some Local Enterprise Partnership monies also fed into funding this scheme. The first year of this scheme was fully funded, and further years would be funded by a variety of sources including grants.

 

·           How would the shortfall in the capital funding be met? Executive Member response – Unless WBC knew that they would be receiving and grant for a project, then the project would not be included within the plan for the next year. Not all projects were undertaken in any given year, which meant that there would be residual money to roll over into future years and other projects. The capital programme was a large and complicated set of projects, which were undertaken on a rolling basis.

 

·           What year 1 savings would be realised from the proposed solar farm? Executive Member response – The savings line would be achieved in the form of income generation from the first full year of operation.

 

·           How many solar farm sites would be provided for the £1.2m to £1.4m bid? Executive Member response – The funding would provide for one large site to be commissioned and built.

 

·           Relating to the bid to provide upgrade to existing WBC accommodation, what improvements were being made? Executive Member response – WBC only had this type of accommodation at Grovelands, and the funding would provide temporary accommodation which was of good quality whilst being energy efficient.

 

At this point of the meeting Guy Grandision proposed that the end time of the meeting be extended for a maximum of 30 minutes, to 11pm. This was seconded by Paul Fishwick and carried.

 

The Committee moved on to their overview of capital bids relating to the Environment and Leisure portfolio.

 

Parry Batth gave an overview of a variety of projects within this portfolio, including the Carnival Pool redevelopment. Parry stated that the Carnival pool redevelopment was progressing well, and the outcome would be an asset to the Borough and its residents.

 

During the ensuing discussions, Members raised the following points and queries:

 

·           What were the timescales for the completion of the Carnival Pool redevelopment, and were there any expected delays? Executive Member response – The project was scheduled to be completed in 2021, and there were no delays to the timescales.

 

·           What date would the proposed in-Borough crematorium be built? Executive Member and officer response – The project was due to be completed in 2022/23.

 

·           Relating to the housing and regeneration bids, the bid sheets contained a lack of detail. As this was a public document, what would be done in future to improve upon issues such as this one? Executive Member and officer response – This bid was about providing 1000 homes in 4 years at a return of 5% for WBC. The policy needed more of a strategic direction in order for the document to be clearer.

 

·           How would it be ensured that the proposed crematorium would be as environmentally friendly as possible? Executive Member response – Officer and Member would make sure that all aspects of the proposed crematorium were as green as possible, reducing the carbon footprint wherever possible. Measures would include an arboretum and lots of tree planting.

 

·           How many homes would be knocked down in phase two of the regeneration project, and how many homes would replace them? Officer response – A total of 249 new homes would be built, which was more than the amount being demolished. Of the 249 homes, 179 would be affordable.

 

·           What was the correct costing for the proposed crematorium? Executive Member response – The project would cost £4m altogether including construction costs.

 

·           It was noted that the Service was very proud of all workers who had maintained services such as weekly waste collection during the pandemic.

 

The Committee moved on to their overview of the capital bids relating to the Roads and Transport portfolio.

 

Pauline Jorgensen outline a number of proposals including improvements to the California Crossroads, and Highways Carriageways Structural Maintenance programme.

 

During the ensuing discussions, Members raised the following points and queries:

 

·           Had a consultation been carried out regarding proposals relating to California Crossroads? Executive Member and officer response – A consultation had been carried out and responses had been taken into account. The requested funding was to enable works to be carried out. This was a multi-year project, and some detailed design work and the consultation costed money. Any roll-over of funding would go towards construction.

 

·           How would any funding gaps be addressed? Executive Member response – There was always a chance that projects would move between years, which left funding available for other projects.

 

·           With regards to the drainage blocks at California Crossroads, how would this be dealt with in the absence of additional funding? Executive Member and officer response – As part of the detailed design work, it was identified that where the drainage drained to had collapsed. There would be the ability to bid for additional funding to cover costs, which would go through the Executive as a supplementary estimate.

 

RESOLVED That:

 

1)     Parry Batth , John Kaiser, Charles Margetts, UllaKarin Clark, Pauline Jorgensen, Graham Ebers, Chris Traill, Nigel Bailey, Mark Cupit, and Andy Glencross be thanked for attending the meeting;

 

2)     An answer be provided relating to how WBC’s transition age of 14 between Children’s and Adult’s Service compared with other Authorities;

 

3)     An answer be provided relating to the proposed Wokingham Learning Disability Outreach and Overnight Respite Centre, and why the original published figure stated £2m of investment, whereas the supplementary papers stated a cost of £1.8m;

 

4)     The numerical figure of agency staff currently employed within Children’s Services be provided;

 

5)     All Members and officers be thanked for their contributions throughout the budget scrutiny process during this municipal year.