Your Budget Questions Regarding PLACE Please
The opposition has been successful in getting the Budget for 2023-24 explored in more detail at Overview & Scrutiny Panels thanks to the support of the Chair at the recent Corporate O&S meeting.
We are waiting on a date but for those of you interested in the borough finances it made sense for me to put the call out to residents to ask for your input.
Cabinet 1st December 2022 – Budget papers presented
Corporate O&S Meeting 14th December 2022
WIth my focus on the Place directorate in the paper above, my initial response to the budget was to send two emails. I then followed this up with more detailed questions around Place budget lines.
My focus is around Place but other opposition Cllrs will be asking questions at their O&S panel meetings, so feel free to ask any questions and I will pass them on to the right Cllr.
Thank you.
Cllr Jon Davey
Very vague explanations – 1st Dec 2022
Some of the reasons given against the savings seemed very flakey
If I was a sales guy sharing this with my sales director as to how I would achieve target then I’d probably get sacked
I get things have to balance for the council to proceed but we were promised advertising sales, corporate sales and a lottery last year just to make the books balance and non materialised YET
Is anyone being held to account or do we just drift on?
It feels like stuff gets made up to make it balance but then get left as there was no real drive for it, it’s served its purpose.
I find it hard to engage with this way of doing things.
REPLY
Progress on savings is tracked in the regular Finance Update reports to Cabinet (Savings Tracker Appendix)
Specifically on the lottery, officers are progressing the administrative detail and license application to implement a new Community Lottery. It is anticipated that this will be delivered in 2023/24.
FOLLOW UP QUESTION
The lottery was supposed to generate a net £25k this year, allowing £25k for costs.
Has money been spent on the application this year? If so, surely it should be showing as a net loss on the books.
Thank you.
% saving against each item would be good – 1st Dec 2022
If a budget is 1m and you save 50k then get that
If budget is 100k and you save 50k then that is much harder to achieve
Not having any measures in this regard it makes it difficult to contextualise and so you tend to ignore it and leave it to those with a more rounded understanding of finance to challenge.
REPLY
Thank you Cllr Davey for your feedback. One of the difficulties in presenting a percentage figure is what to use as the base – this could be directorate budget or budget at a lower level, and it would be challenging to provide consistency at this lower level. For example, a saving in Adult Social Care Learning Disabilities could be expressed as a percentage of Adult Social Care, percentage of the Learning Disability, percentage of Learning Disability residential, and so on.
PLA015 – 376k
Review of budgets compared to last year’s outturn has identified areas where budgets can be reduced. This includes items like consultancy, staff public transport, training and also includes the decrease in national insurance.
MY OBSERVATIONS / QUESTIONS
I’m reading on other lines about savings on consultancy or using S106 monies for transport when that should only be used for infrastructure.
For transparency, it would be good to know the specifics on amounts greater than £1k for these line by line savings as after years of cuts being able to find such a huge amount seems surprising.
REPLY
£50,730 of this saving is made up of National Insurance following the decision to reverse the increase. The remainder is made up of various smaller budgets (with examples of the types of budget effected given in the text of the saving) that have been found to be surplus based on review of prior years’ outturn. This is basic housekeeping on the budget and is usual practice to ensure surplus budgets are not carried forward indefinitely.
FOLLOW UP QUESTION
If 50k represents NI, then does the balance essentially equate to unpaid salaries because we have been unable to attract the right people probably due to lack of resources as the council tax hasn’t been increased by the max allowed each year by the Tory administration.
If officers are feeling under pressure due to lack of manpower, I’m not convinced removing the head count permanently is the right approach as it is likely to cause more pressure on existing staff and they will then leave.
But I can understand that this is a logical balancing act if short term financial fixes are needed to prevent an S114.
PLA025 – 50k
Increasing the size of the proposed in house team will allow a reduced amount of consultancy support to respond to planning applications, planning performance agreements and smaller S278 schemes which will allow more of the fees for these services to be retained by the council and therefore reduce the overall net cost to the council.
MY OBSERVATIONS / QUESTIONS
My understanding is we have been looking for more in-house planning officers for some time but are struggling to find them.
So what will our recruitment team be doing that is different in 2023 to encourage officers to choose RBWM and how did this magically round number of 50k get formed?
REPLY
This relates to Highways Development Control rather than planning. We are currently in the process of recruiting the roles and have had a good level of interest. The budget for the in-house team is already in place having formed part of the process to bring the Project Centre Contract in house. Having reviewed the operation of the service we have identified the opportunity to retain more of the fee income from S278 agreements and planning performance agreements by also undertaking the work in house with a small level of additional resource. The £50k is the net difference between the income generated and the cost of the additional resource.
PLA035 – 350k
S106 contribution towards support public transport subsidies. This is an one-off.
MY OBSERVATIONS / QUESTIONS
My understanding is that S106 needs to be spent on capital assets and this is part of the revenue budget. Can you explain why services are being offset against income that cannot be guaranteed? Is this legal?
REPLY
S106 money can be spent on both revenue and capital depending on the purpose for which it was collected. This is money that has already been collected (so is therefore guaranteed) and was collected for the purposes of supporting public transport. This funding will help to maintain supported bus services in the borough during challenging times in the bus industry.
PLA065 – 50k
Review of the operation of parks including:
– Provision of public conveniences and / or consideration of charging;
– Closure of park gates; and / or utilisation of volunteers
– Pets corner on Ray Mill island and whether there are alternative provision arrangements.
MY OBSERVATIONS / QUESTIONS
How much will it cost to put charging equipment into public conveniences and has the fact that if you charge, you can’t have black mould on the ceiling been considered? Will the maintenance costs outweigh any potential gain?
How do you guaranteed services levels on public parks if you are relying on volunteers to open and lock the parks? What process do we have for selecting the appropriate volunteers? Could you tell us how often the sensory garden near Osgood Park is opened by the current volunteer?
If alternative homes cannot be found for the pets at Ray Mill island then are the Tories proposing the euthanise the animals to save money?
REPLY
This will be a project to look at options for public toilets across the borough, which include charging for their use, or alternative provision of toilets including the options for them to managed by alternative providers or to review opening times and the number of toilets available. Cost benefit analysis will be conducted ahead of progressing proposals.
This proposal will investigate options that may include not closing park gates in many locations and utilising friends of groups or volunteers to take on this task if appropriate. Regular inspections of our parks will continue to take place to ensure service levels remain consistent. The sensory garden near Osgood Park was developed by the community and is not a council managed space so we cannot comment on the opening arrangements at that location.
We will be reviewing all options for Pets Corner including alternative provision through sponsorship, if the decision is taken to close the facility, then suitable homes will be found for all the animals.
PLA075 – 11k
Review of service provided for 2 schools in the borough. Based on enforcement.
MY OBSERVATIONS / QUESTIONS
Is this saying we are going to remove officer time on enforcement or are we looking to increase fines by the 11k?
And why is this happening at 2 schools and not others… which schools are benefitting from this service?
REPLY
There are three schools within the borough that are still supported by a School Crossing Patroller; Furze Platt, St. Peter’s Middle and Eton Porney. This service is not provided by the team for any other schools across the borough, any crossing support would be provided directly by the school. The rationale for the change is that the schools have the daily contact with the SCP and apart from pastoral issues, RBWM management have no day to day contact.
PLA085 – 67k
Review policy of subsidised parking.
MY OBSERVATIONS / QUESTIONS
Can you please be transparent on what subsidised parking might be removed?
Is this the free parking in Maidenhead on a Sunday?
Free parking for electric cars?
Discounted parking in Alexandra Gardens for 1 hr and the others around the borough?
What else is subsidised and being considered for removal.
REPLY
It is estimated that there is an approximate loss of £100k income per annum for providing free parking for various events across the borough, this includes approximately £50k for the previous free parking offered in Town Centre car parks over the festive period. This year a revised offer has been introduced building on the success of the resident discount parking where residents can now get up to 2 hours free parking in selected car parks daily and free travel on supported bus services on selected Saturdays leading up to Christmas. We will work with the event organisers to ensure that the cost of parking is considered when planning future events. There are currently no plans to remove the residents discounted parking or introduce charges for electric vehicles.
PLA095 – 60k
Look at additional opportunities for charging for parking to cover the cost of operating, including: – Free parking on Sundays; and / or
– Management of the Riverside car park.
MY OBSERVATIONS / QUESTIONS
The Riverside car park is managed via the cafeteria… so if it moved to Ringo then how would that impact on the cafes income? Would it be less viable in the winter?
REPLY
This proposal is still in its initial stages and will need to be fully scoped, further details will be provided as the proposal progresses.
PLA105 – 60k
Increase use of cashless parking utilising the existing digital solution via RingGo app, resulting in a saving of service costs as well as the collection of cash. A pay-by-app method of payment for on- and off street parking will be introduced instead in some areas.
MY OBSERVATIONS / QUESTIONS
How does this fit with our EQIA policy regarding offering services to all residents?
Most people still prefer cash or credit cards as opposed to Ringo with many residents not using mobile phones.
Have solutions for those of pensionable age who don’t wish to have mobile phones or apps been considered. Would free 1 hr for residents, who are pensioners, be possible?
REPLY
This proposal was revised to expand the cashless parking system. However, the original EQIA was not amended before being published for Cabinet to reflect the change.
There is currently no proposal to remove all on street pay and display machines so payments can be made at the machines by debit/credit cards, only cash will not be permitted which will bring savings from reduced cash collections. The EQIA will be amended accordingly.
PLA115 – 50k
Identification of areas where legitimate charges could be made to recover costs including:
– Pavement licencing;
– Cleansing and valeting services provided in car parks (currently only provided in Hines Meadow and Windsor Leisure Centre);
– Licence vendors in key locations, parks, on streets;
– Licence for private trainers using parks; and / or
– Boat hire in Maidenhead through concession contract.
MY OBSERVATIONS / QUESTIONS
We were told last year that income would come from services and nothing has transpired… so why should we have confidence in these channels being explored properly?
We have a corporate plan that is looking for people to get fitter, yet this policy looks to charge keep fit instructors who use the parks… so how many would they need to be training at any given time to be charged? What about cyclists who meet in the parks would they be charged? Is this likely to be extended to dog walkers and other community service providers?
REPLY
As part of the budget setting process officers reviewed a variety of fees and charging arrangements, including those that are not currently charged for or in part subsidised. Numerous local authorities do charge personal trainers (PTs) who are delivering commercial business activity in parks and open spaces managed and maintained by the council at cost. However, there are different ways this can be approached and one option is to work in partnership with PTs to deliver free or discounted community activities for targeted groups and in return receive a waived fee themselves. Car Parking fees and charges are and will continue to be reviewed to generate positive revenue generation alongside committing more funds toward repairs and maintenance of RBWM car parking facilities.
The minimum number of participants to be charged has not been agreed e.g. if 1-2-1 or 2-1 PT sessions chargeable or just group sessions. Regarding charging cyclists, if it’s a charged-for coaching cycling session then that would be considered however if it’s just groups meeting to cycle then there would be no plan to charge. Regarding charging dog walkers, there are no current proposals but it may be considered if they are “professional” dog walkers in line with other authorities. This would be similar for any other professional / charged for services which would be investigated for a charging model.
Unfortunately, given the financial challenges facing local government it is usual practice to identify the strategic approach to savings before developing more detailed plans.
MY FOLLOW UP
If it said we have 22 fitness instructors running an average of 3 groups of 5 clients a week… there average charge per client per hour is £22 and so 6 months notice that we will be charging them £250 a year each, raising approx. £5,000 giving us £2500 this year… that I can start to understand.
PLA135 – 250k
A Strategic review of Place Service structures, functions and alignment to the Corporate Plan. This programme steers away from service specific cuts that would be possible to achieve this value of savings and instead seeks a more overarching view of how the directorate should involve for the next three to five years.
MY OBSERVATIONS / QUESTIONS
Can we have a clearer picture of what this means because 250k is a great deal of money and it suddenly being found as savings after years of savings being made needs greater clarity.
REPLY
The Directorate Leadership team in Place Service have already started a strategic review of the existing structures, functions, and alignment to the Corporate Plan. Whilst intrinsically linked to delivering a successful balanced budget and commits to further efficiency savings, this work focuses on areas that would benefit from greater alignment and mutual expertise. As with many councils, RBWM have found recruitment to some vacant roles a challenge and this is no different to Place Service. However as part of the review officers are testing different approaches to how Job Accountabilities are structured and the specific requirements of each role. This is especially relevant where colleagues have retired and both the jobs market and available skill set of candidates have significantly changed over a period of time. A good example of this is within parks and open spaces team, where recently revised jobs are about to go out to advert.
PLA155 – 90k
Parish Council and other commercial organisation be approached to seek support funding as an income to reduce the net cost of community services.
MY OBSERVATIONS / QUESTIONS
Again talk of commercialisation… what is on offer here for a corporate sponsor?
As for asking Parish Councils who manage themselves efficiently to subsidies shortfalls when Tories have wasted millions, is rather embarrassing. What makes RBWM think that is the way forward?
REPLY
These questions are political in nature and therefore it would not be appropriate for officers to respond.
I accept the latter element might not be appropriate but what is on offer to generate income must be known to officers or how could that be agreed?
PLA185 – 66k
Increase promotion of the benefits of Planning Performance Agreements and encourage greater uptake.
MY OBSERVATIONS / QUESTIONS
Can you explain the advantage of the PPA
REPLY
The main purpose of a Planning Performance Agreement is to provide a framework, agreed between the LPA and the applicant or potential applicant, about the process for considering a major development proposal. They enable a bespoke discussion about the resourcing required to secure the best planning outcomes and what timescales are reasonable to meet certain milestones. They are often accompanied by funding agreements to ensure that resources and external input can be secured in order to secure high quality outcomes and deliver to desirable timescales. From the Local Planning Authorities perspective, they enable specialist resources to be applied to the consideration of an application that would not otherwise be possible.
PLA195 – 63k
Increase in fee income from planning application due to increased availability of land for development and improve clarity arising from the adoption of the Borough Local Plan.
MY OBSERVATIONS / QUESTIONS
Please define the increase in fee income … is this estimating an ongoing annual increase and how does this compare to the last 3 years income?
REPLY
The average income between 2019-2022 was £1.35m. The 2022-2023 budget targets an income of £1.58m and budget monitoring indicates we are on track to achieve this. A 4% increase in income from the 2022/2023 budget is considered achievable. Given the Local Plan allocates adequate sites for the plan period it is considered that the level of fee income could be maintained, but the proposal does not envisage there would be increases in future years. Likely income for future years budgets would be considered at the appropriate time having regard the most up to date information available.
