Interviews with:

Alison Broom, Chief Executive;and

Steve Goulette, Assistant Director Environment and Regulatory Services.

The Chairman welcomed Alison Broom, Chief Executive, Steve Goulette, Assistant Director Environment & Regulatory Services and David Edwards, Director of Change, Planning and the Environment. 

The Committee was taken through a presentation which focused on the council’s business planning, the medium term financial strategy, how cost centres were managed, services which generate or could capture income and commercial services.  Mrs Broom advised that when identifying new areas that could trade and demand an income it was essential to prioritise and allow a period of planning and experimentation before planning too ambitiously as this would impact on the council’s baseline budget. The Chief Executive identified particular projects in the Council’s current business that were being addressed, these included the review of fees and charges, the local setting of planning application fees and the future governance of the Hazlitt Theatre.  Human Resources was highlighted to the Committee as an area providing commercial opportunity with their experience and implementation of the Midland system. Mrs Broom explained that the current methodology used for identifying new opportunities began with the categorisation of all Council services as to whether they could be delivered in-house, shared or through partnership  and trade.  Research to establish experience and good practice would follow this along with consideration being given to the impact of competition with local employers or service providers.  The Chief Executive advised that part of this process was establishing whether the Council should be abstracting from business that already exists or offering something new. The final area addressed in the presentation was the Council’s finance information project, the aim of which was to deliver ‘an enhanced recharge and budget management culture across the council supported by efficient processes.’  It was explained that this would result in an improved budget management culture; the three main work streams of the project would be budget monitoring, recharges and the account code structure. A completion date of April 2012 was given.

Members questioned the Chief Executive on the Leader of the Council’s outlook for the authority the previous year which was to describe the Council’s future as that of a commissioning body. Mrs Broom explained that the Council had limitations, there were statutory instruments in place and case law was used to help exemplify all decisions[AW1]  made. This put the authority in a position where, for example, the cost of market pitches could only be enough to cover costs.  With regards to commissioning and commercial activity, Mrs Broom explained that both types of activity required different skills to those usually applied to regulatory services; a shift in attitude and approach would be required by the Council, Members and the public. Members questioned whether a commissioning route would impact on the Council’s ability to generate an income.  Mrs Broom explained that with the advent of Localism and the government’s White Paper on Public Services there would be diversity in the way in which services were delivered.  The Chief Executive told Members that one activity did not prevent the other but the Council did have to be very clear on what it was doing.

Members raised questions on the general power of competency in relation to the Public Services White Paper and the action the Council was taking in relation to this.  Mrs Broom explained that the Local Government Act 2000 had introduced wellbeing powers but the legal environment had remained unchanged. In order to exploit these powers and to give them foundation the Council had used the Sustainable Community Strategy.  The Chief Executive informed Members that the Council did not need the general power of competency to be responsive to the needs of the community and once the vision and ambition of the organisation was set, a way would be found to achieve this. 

The Committee’s questioning moved on to the Council’s assets and areas that could provide an income. Members were interested in determining the executive’s outlook on hiring out parks such as Mote Park for events and charging for venues such as the newly vacant Town Hall. Mrs Broom told Members that event management was something the Council had limited experience of other than Shakespeare and Proms in the Park.  The Committee was told that this would be an area that their research could add value.

Some Members of the Committee raised questions surrounding parking and enforcement activity. Members were assured that parking enforcement was to ensure compliance and not to raise an income.  Mr Goulette informed Members that the annual review into parking charges was taking place.  It was agreed that Councillor Barned would undertaken research in this area and report back to the Committee.

Members raised concerns regarding the public’s perception of the council operating as a business and felt that there was a difference between being a business and being businesslike; with the latter being where emphasis should be placed.  Members and Officers were in agreement that a business like culture should be fundamental to the council’s approach.

Mr Edwards, Director of Change Planning and the Environment told the Committee that resources were required to adapt and change to provide services that residents want.  The Director felt that there were opportunities to move forward and provide good value for money and the resilience could be found within partnership arrangements.  The Committee was informed that the first shared service had been borne out of another authority’s need for expertise.  The resilience of partnership arrangements was said to be the key to service delivery.  Members questioned the issue of ownership when entering into partnership arrangements and the importance of this in order to maintain excellence.  Officers informed Members that this was addressed at the formative stages of any partnership arrangement.  Mrs Broom told Members that there was often a contrast in the cultures of authorities coming together to form partnership arrangements, she informed the Committee that cultural interfacing was important.  Members questioned the partnership model suggesting that the arrangement was structured to reduce cost to each of the partners and would therefore reduce the scope for income generation.  Mrs Broom explained that the current shared services; Legal, HR and Revenues and Benefits were ‘transactional activities’ and the economies of scale were there.

Members asked the Officers to identify areas that had potential to develop commercially, the waste strategy was said to be an area that offered opportunities as well as planning fees, HR and Revenues and Benefits. Mr Goulette identified the Crematorium and the Leisure Centre as two areas already generating an income and providing a local need.  Mrs Broom highlighted consultancy and advice as areas to address, planning pre application advice helped eliminate legal challenges, saving money and time.

The Committee queried the way in which the organisation evaluated and sought to improve itself with ‘value for money’ no longer in existence.  The Chief Executive informed Members that the authority was keen to be put forward for peer reviews and was open minded in this area.

Members praised the recent budget strategy training that has been arranged with Paul Riley and noted its value to the Committee as part of its ongoing responsibilities as the overarching Overview and Scrutiny Committee as well as its relevance to the review topic and the benefit of an increased understanding of this.  The Committee felt that their engagement with the budget strategy at its most formative level would be of most benefit to them.  Members felt that this could be achieved by appointing a smaller working group who would take on additional involvement and report back to the Committee as a whole. 

It was resolved that:

a)  Councillor Pickett should investigate the Parking review and charges with Steve Goulette and report back to the Committee on his findings;

b)  The Committee should investigate event management on behalf of the authority and report back to the officer group on this area of research; and

c)  A budget strategy working group should be established; volunteers would be sought via email by the Scrutiny Officer.

Members raised questions on the power of general competency in relation to the Public Services White Paper and the action the council was taking in relation to this.  Mrs Broom explained that the Local Government Act 2000 had introduced wellbeing powers but the legal environment had remained unchanged. In order to exploit these powers and to give them foundation the council had used the Sustainable Community Strategy.  The Officer informed Members that the council did not need the power of competency do be responsive to the needs of the community and once the vision and ambition of the organisation was set, a way would be found to achieve this. 

The Committee’s questioning moved on to the council’s assets and areas that could provide an income. Members were interested in determining the executive’s outlook on hiring out parks such as Mote Park for events and charging for venues such as the newly vacant Town Hall. Mrs Broom told Members that event management was something the council had limited experience of other than Shakespeare and Proms in the Park.  The Committee were told that this would be an area that they could research. 

Some Members of the Committee raised questions surrounding parking and enforcement activity. Members were assured that parking enforcement was to ensure compliance and not to raise an income.  Mr Goulette informed Members that the annual review into parking charges was taking place.  It was agreed that Councillor Barned would undertaken research in this area and report back to the Committee.

Members raised concerns regarding the public’s perception of the council operating as a business and felt that there was a difference between being a business and being businesslike; with the latter being where emphasis should be placed. 

Mr Edwards, Director of ^^^ told the Committee that resources were required to adapt and change to provide services that residents want.  The Officer felt that there were opportunities to move forward and provide good value for money and the reliance could be found within partnership arrangements.  The Committee were informed that the first shared service had been borne out of another authorities need for expertise.  The reliance of partnership arrangements was said to be the key to service delivery.  Members questioned the issue of ownership when entering into partnership arrangements and the importance of this in order to maintain excellence.  Officers informed Members that this was addressed at the formative stages of any partnership arrangements.  Mrs Broom told Members that there was often a contrast in the cultures of authorities coming together to form partnership arrangements, she informed the Committee that ‘cultural interfacing’ was important.  Members questioned the model suggesting that the arrangement was structured to reduce cost to each of the partners and would therefore reduce the scope for income generation.  Mrs Brrom explained that the current shared services, Legal, HR and Revenues and Benefits were ‘transactional activities’ and the economies of scale were there. 

Members asked the Officers to identify areas that had potential to develop commercially, the waste strategy was said to be an area that offered opportunities, planning fees, HR and Revenues and Benefits.

Mr Goulette identified the Crematorium and the Leisure Centre as two areas already generating an income and providing a local need.  Mrs Broom highlighted consultancy and advice were areas to address, planning pre application advice helped eliminate legal challenges, saving money and time.

The Committee queried the way in which the organisation evaluated and improve itself with ‘value for money’ no longer in existence.  The Chief Executive informed Memberss that the authority was keen to be put forward for peer reviews and was open minded in this area.

Members praised the recent budger stratrgy training that has been arranged with Paul Riley and noted it’s value overall to the Committee as it had reponsibilty to scrutinise this.  <embers’s also noted it’s relevance to the review topic and the benefit of an increased understanding of this.  The Committee felt that their engagement with the budget straegy at its most formative level would be of most benefit to them.  Members felt that this could be achieved by appointing a smaller working group who would take on this additional involvement and report back to the Committee as a whole. 

It was resolved that:

Councillor Pickett should inveigagte Parking and report back to the Committee

The Committee should investigate event management on behalf of the authority and report back to the officer group on this area of research

A budget strategy working group should be stablished