Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Michalowski.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting on 1 February 2024.

The Minutes for the previous meeting on 1 February 2024 were agreed.

To receive any declarations of interest.

There were no Declarations of Interest.

The Executive Member for Environment and Sustainability.

The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Sustainability, Councillor Moses, gave an overview of the Review of the Council’s Environmental Sustainability Strategy report, Action Plan and annexes.

The report explained how the review was undertaken and summarised the main changes that have resulted from the review. The proposed Strategy and Action Plan had been discussed by Members at the ES Strategy Scrutiny Review Panel (changes summarised in Annex 3), and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 14 March 2024 (draft Minute published as an Executive Addendum earlier in the week).

The Portfolio Holder stressed that the Council always needed to balance its environmental sustainability work with the need to be financially sustainable which was reflected in the Strategy and Action Plan. The updated documents will ensure that the Council continues to make good progress on its carbon reduction targets.

Annual reports will continue so Members can review and comment on progress and the Cross Party Member Sustainability Group would continue. Councillor Moses thanked all Members who have had an input into the review process either formally or informally.

There were no further comments from Executive Members.

Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Councillor Harrison, noted the changes that had been accepted as a result of the Panel’s reviewing comments. However, a number of suggested changes were not accepted. For example, some O&S/Panel Members felt that there should be more specific targets such as putting Electric Vehicle (EV) chargers in the Council’s own car parks. Other Members wanted to gather more data and evidence or felt that a specific Scope 3 net zero target should be included in the Strategy.

Visiting Members asked questions and made comments in the following areas:

·        Electric Vehicle (EV) charging in Council car parks – Members considered that residents needed to see clear targets for this work to be completed in every car park.

·        Net Zero target for scope 3 carbon emissions – some Members had suggested setting a Net Zero target for Council Scope 3 emissions for 2050 in the Strategy to hold the Council to the same standards as those expected of the borough’s businesses and residents. Members asked the Leader to defer this item while this issue was addressed in the public-facing version of the Strategy and Action Plan.

The Leader, Councillor Biggs, noted that these points had been raised by Members at Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting on 14 March and also at the ES Strategy Review Panel. It was difficult to base figures on data during the pandemic. The Action Plan could be amended and adapted in the future, but the Executive did not want to halt the work underway while this was debated. He noted the call to defer the item but said it should not be deferred as it was important to carry on with the work. The appropriateness of a specific Scope 3 target could be reviewed again in the future.

Visiting Members said that Members had been told to wait for the three-year review, but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

The Executive Member for Place, Planning and Regulatory Services.

The Leader, Councillor Biggs, introduced this item as the Portfolio Holder for Place, Planning and Regulatory, Councillor Michalowski had sent his apologies.

The Executive were asked to approve and adopt the updated Reigate & Banstead Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) in Planning (Annex 5) and approve a consultation on the review of the SCI’s requirements on publication of names and postal addresses from comments on planning and related applications.

The Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) is a statutory document which sets out how the Council will engage with residents on various aspects of planning. Since 2018, Councils have to complete a review of this document every 5 years. The current SCI was adopted in April 2019.

The review has refreshed the SCI to reflect changes in digitisation and engagement tools as well as improving formatting and accessibility. The report also recommends a review be undertaken into the approach of publishing responders’ names and postal addresses.

Two matters will be put to Full Council for a decision on 28 March 2024. These are to review and publish the Reigate & Banstead Local Plan: Core Strategy policies and an indicative timetable for a new Local Plan to be approved. Local Plan policies have to be reviewed every 5 years and as the last review was July 2019, this needed to be completed. There have been no changes in legislation or regulations, but new guidance was published in 2019 for Local Plan reviews to be subject to Duty to Co-operate discussions with neighbouring authorities. This has been undertaken.

There are also implications for decision making on planning applications as policies older than 5 years from the date of adoption or review can be deemed out of date, so attract less weight. The Core Strategy also contains the Council’s housing numbers that it must provide over the plan period (2012-2027) or 6,900 or 460 per annum.

The latest LDS/indicative timetable reflects the latest position on preparation of the new Local Plan as presented to Overview and Scrutiny Committee in October 2023. An update was given to Overview and Scrutiny at its meeting on 14 March 2024. There were no further comments from the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Councillor Harrison.

A Visiting Member felt that the item had not been fully reviewed at the last Overview and Scrutiny Committee as there was a six page Addendum but not the full report to scrutinise. The Member asked for clarification as it was noted in the report that it was not proposed to amend any details in the Core Strategy but in the Duty to Cooperate feedback, against Surrey County Council’s response, it states that this will be amended. It was unclear whether changes are being made to the Core Strategy or not.

Tanya Mankoo-Flatt, the report author and Principal Planning Development Officer, said it was the draft Local Plan review that went to our Duty to Cooperate partners for comment and that the draft Local Plan Review was amended as a result of the comment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

The Executive Member for Corporate Policy and Resources.

The Portfolio Holder for Corporate Policy and Resources, Councillor James King, introduced the Risk management – quarter 3 2023/24 report (from the period from October to December 2023).

In this quarter, no new strategic risks have been identified and no strategic risks are recommended for closure. Updates on controls and mitigations for each risk are recorded in annex 1 of the report. 

On the operational risks update, the previously reported red-rated operational risk was no longer red-rated. An update on Operational Risk 3 was provided in exempt Annex 2. It was clarified that the scoring of SR2 since Q1 2022/23 should be 9 and not 6 as in the report. The score was accurately reflected on p293.

The report was considered by the Audit Committee at its meeting on 13 March 2024. The Committee made one observation to be considered by the Executive on SR2 – Commercial Investment. In summary, a member of the Committee felt that it should have a higher score rating. The risk scoring was reviewed by officers and felt to be appropriate at this time. However, this risk – as with all strategic risks – will continue to be kept under review and any changes reported quarterly.

Councillor Harrison confirmed that he was a substitute at the Audit Committee meeting and had raised the point on SR2 – Commercial Investment. He felt that this needed to be higher rated. The SR3 on Challenging economic conditions for businesses and residents was 16 which was fair but in proportion, to keep SR2 at 9, he felt was too low.

The Leader responded that the Council would keep SR2 – Commercial Investment under review.

Officers confirmed that the written response will be shared with O&S Committee Members in relation to a Member’s question on the Operational Risk 3 in the exempt annex. There was no further discussion on the exempt item.

RESOLVED – that the Executive:

(i) Notes the Q3 2023/24 update on risk management provided by the report and associated annexes.

The Executive Member for Corporate Policy and Resources.

The Portfolio Holder for Corporate Policy and Resources, Councillor James King, gave an overview of the Risk Management 2024/25 report which introduced the proposed strategic risks for 2024/25 and presented the 2024/25 assurance framework to Members.

The strategic risks for the year ahead – in this case 2024/25 – are set as part of Quarter 3 reporting each year so there is a live risk register from 1 April 2024. The strategic risk register from this year (2023/24) will not, however, be formally ‘closed down’ until Quarter 4 reporting, which will come to the Executive in July. The report set out several changes to the strategic risks for the coming year and introduced a new document as part of the updated risk management strategy – the Assurance Framework for 2024/25. This aims to capture the wide range of risks the Council faces and manages on a day-to-day basis. It records controls and mitigations relating to each area of risk and provides an assessment of whether these are sufficient.

The Audit Committee considered this report at its meeting on 13 March 2024. Members of the Audit Committee welcomed the Assurance Framework as a useful tool to understand risk management at the Council. Members discussed reference in the report to the potential closure of risk SR5 (Cost pressures affecting the viability of Council developments) in Quarter 4. Some Audit Committee Members raised concerns about this. There was no suggestion that this risk be closed as part of the report to Executive. If the Executive does not endorse its closure next quarter, then the risk will transfer into 2024/25.

The Committee’s feedback had been discussed with officers – it was considered that the best opportunity to discuss whether this specific risk should be closed is via the Quarter 4 report.

It was noted that in agreeing Recommendation (i) that Executive Members be aware that SR5, SR6 and SR8 from 2023/24 will also carry forward if they are not closed in Quarter 4.

The Leader, Councillor Biggs, noted that he felt that the Strategic Risk should not be closed until a lessons learned exercise has been completed and any changes recommended be made. The Executive can reinstate any Strategic Risks for 2024/25 at the next meeting. The Audit Committee can discuss them as well. Lessons learned were ongoing.

Visiting Member, Councillor Harrison, who had been a substitute at the Audit Committee meeting on 13 March felt strongly that the Strategic Risk 5 should not be closed down. He appreciated the assurances given by the Leader, but he preferred if this Strategic Risk was carried forward into April 2024/25.

Other Visiting Members asked about references to the current closure of the Harlequin theatre and the Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC) issue. There was a risk of loss of culture to residents while it was closed. Members asked how long it would be closed.

The Head of Corporate Policy, Projects and Performance said the current closure of the Harlequin was a live issue that the Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

The Executive Member for Corporate Policy and Resources, and the Deputy Leader and Executive Member for Finance, Governance and Organisation.

The Portfolio Holder for Corporate Policy and Resources, Councillor James King, introduced the quarterly performance report up to the end of quarter 3 2023/24. Of the 10 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) reported on in quarter 3, eight were on target or within the agreed tolerance. Two indicators were off-target and outside the agreed tolerance.

The red-rated indicators were:

·        KPI 1 – Council Tax collection, and

·        KPI 7 – affordable housing completions.

Additional detail was set out in Annex 1.

Annex 1.1 set out the proposed KPIs to be reported on in 2024/25. These are consistent with those reported on this year and continue to reflect the Council’s corporate objectives as set out in the current Corporate Plan.

An updated set of KPIs will be developed for reporting from 2025/26 onwards. A Member task and finish group will be set up to inform this review process which will take place later this year.

The report was considered by Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 14 March 2024. They made no formal observations to the Executive but some comments on the content were captured in the draft Minute of the meeting which was published as an Addendum to the Executive agenda earlier in the week.

Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Councillor Harrison, noted that the Council tax collection KPI was red-rated which was potentially worrying but the economic climate was picking up, so this should improve. He referred to the new Annex 6 – Housing Focus on Homelessness 2023/24 which set out the rise in the number of homelessness cases. This was a risk that Members should continue to monitor. O&S Members also discussed affordable housing.

Managing Director, Mari Roberts-Wood, commented that the homelessness issue was one of the most significant challenges that the Council and residents face. The new annex accompanied the performance reports set out these challenges and highlighted the increase in the number of cases. This was due to a reduction of private rental sector accommodation, alongside the cost of living and general housing challenges. This was to be considered at both Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Executive meetings. Reigate and Banstead Borough Council was not alone in facing these challenges. It was an important issue and important that Members and officers gave it due attention.

There were no further comments from Executive Members.

Visiting Members made the following observations:

·        KPI 7 Affordable housing completions – Members noted that the Council had delivered affordable housing in the planned period, and it was on track. However, delivery was low this current year with a lower percentage of affordable homes as a proportion of all homes than in previous years.

The Leader, Councillor Biggs, highlighted the slowdown in building generally which was happening nationally. There were fewer larger sites as Westvale Park and other sites in Redhill were nearly completed. It was important to note that the Council was still on target, overdelivering on the 15-year target while retaining the borough’s open spaces that were important to residents, businesses and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

The Deputy Leader and Executive Member for Finance, Governance and Organisation.

The Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Finance, Governance and Organisation, Councillor Lewanski, introduced the Debt Write Off & Recovery 2023/24 report which recommended the write-off of 9 debts valued at £206,919.56.

The circumstances surrounding each debt were set out in the report and Councillor Lewanski reassured Members that all possible recovery action had been taken in each of these cases. The Council takes debt recovery very seriously and works with a company or individual if they get into difficulty to make every effort to conclude the matter. The Council will always use all tools that the law allows to recover a debt until it becomes impossible, unlawful or uneconomic to do so.

The Council Tax or Business Rates debts are only a fraction of the total amount as the Council only retains less than one-twelfth of the income from each Council Tax bill. Of the £51.7m of Business Rates collected each year, the Council only keeps around £2.5m.

The write-off is essentially an accounting process to protect the Council against misstatement of the accounts. In all cases – and in line with Council policy – write-off is recommended only when all possible avenues have been exhausted. If further information is received or if the circumstances surrounding a debt change, then it will be pursued again.

The write-off represent less than one per cent of the Council’s annual budget and the local authority remains a high performing Council when it comes to debt recovery, with a record that makes Reigate and Banstead Borough Council one of the best in the country.

The Leader and Members passed on their thanks to the Head of Revenue, Benefits and Fraud, Simon Rosser, and his team who were held in very high regard for the efficiency with which Council Tax is collected. This collection rate was much higher than other local authorities and it was one of the best teams in the country.

A Visiting Member asked for clarification of the circumstances whereby the Council is owed money on business rates from a firm that was based in Hong Kong. Officers confirmed that the company was operating in the borough at the time when the debt arose.

RESOLVED – that the Executive approves:

(i) That nine irrecoverable debts totalling £206,919.56 (Annex 1) be written out of the Council’s accounts.

The Deputy Leader and Executive Member for Finance, Governance and Organisation.

The Executive Member for Finance, Governance and Organisation, Councillor Lewanski, introduced the Treasury Management Strategy 2024/25 for the coming year. The Strategy comprises of three sections:

(i)               The Treasury Management Strategy Statement (TMSS) – this sets out details of the Council’s ‘traditional’ treasury management activities such as sources of borrowing and investment counterparties and limits.

In response to an Advance Question raised by the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee, he confirmed that the Capital Financing Requirement (CFR) that is reported in the Quarter 3 monitoring report that Members considered at Agenda Item 8, was originally prepared in March last year when the 2023/24 Treasury Strategy was drafted. These CFR forecasts were recently updated when preparing the Strategy to reflect the capital programme outturn position for 2022/23 and 2023/24 and updated forecasts for capital expenditure and financing over the medium term.

The two separate snapshots were therefore the 2022/23 balances and forecasts in the quarterly performance report to monitor the current year’s treasury position and the updated 2024/25 forecasts in the Strategy report which will be used to monitor next year’s treasury activity.

Another factor to note was the £40m capital receipt last summer from sale of accommodation units at The Rise which has a beneficial impact on the Council’s underlying investment balances and borrowing requirement.

(ii)              The Investment Strategy – this covers the Council’s investments and a summary of those made for service or commercial reasons. It confirms that provision has already been made, funded through a call on the Commercial Risks Reserve in previous years, for expected credit losses, relating to company loans and shareholdings.

(iii)            The Capital Strategy – this outlines the Council’s capital expenditure plans and core borrowing (internal or external) and investing activities. It includes the Prudential Indicators that the Council is required to report under CIPFA’s Code of Practice.

One ongoing area of uncertainty related to the outcome of the latest consultation on changes to how the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) is calculated and accounted for. If there are changes, this will need to be reflected through updates to the MRP Policy which was attached as an annex to the Strategy.

There were no further comments from Executive Members.

Councillor Harrison, Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee, thanked the Committee Members who attended the briefing session with the Council’s Treasury Advisors (Arlingclose) and the Chief Finance Officer on 5 March 2024 which covered background to treasury management in local government and the underlying drivers for the 2024/25 Strategy. Councillor Harrison observed that he was heartened by the very pertinent questions from Members.

The Chief Finance Officer confirmed that written answers would be provided.

RESOLVED – that the Executive RECOMMEND to Council to approve the following:

• Treasury Management Strategy for 2024/25;

• Investment Strategy 2024/25; and

• Capital Strategy 2024/25. 

The Leader of the Council.

The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Sustainability, Councillor Moses, introduced the report into the appointments to the Board of Banstead Commons Conservators. The Conservators maintain and protect the integrity of the Banstead Commons, a strategic part of the green belt in Reigate and Banstead.

The terms of two Conservators, Mr V W Broad and Mr J C Mill conclude in May this year. The Portfolio Holder thanked both for their service. Both candidates have renominated themselves to the vacant positions. Ms K Farmer also nominated herself to one of the conservator positions which are for a period of 3 years.

Banstead Commons Conservators have recommended that Mr V W Broad and Mr J C Mill be reappointed due to their wealth of knowledge on Banstead Commons and common land legislation and to ensure continuity.

The Executive went into exempt Part 2 session to consider the CVs of the three candidates which were published as an exempt annex.

Following a return to the public session, it was agreed that:

RESOLVED – that the Executive:

(i)               Considers each of the nominations to the Banstead Commons Conservators and elects two Conservators for the period April 2024 to March 2027 – Mr V W Broad and Mr J C Mill until March 2028.

The Leader of the Council.

The Leader, Councillor Biggs, introduced the draft Overview and Scrutiny Proposed Annual Work Programme 2024/25 report and Annex 1.

The Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Councillor Harrison, told the Executive that much of the business carries on from year to year. There were three items which had been carried forward from previous years which the Committee hoped would be discussed this coming year. There had been a suggestion from Committee Members to scrutinise wastewater. He would work with the Managing Director as to how to go about this as a topic of interest. It was noted that the scope of the reviews would need to be set which the Committee would do.

The Leader, Councillor Biggs, thanked the Chair, Councillor Harrison, and the Committee Members for their work throughout the year. It was a busy programme, and the meetings were full, but the Committee was always insightful and useful. This was a benefit to the work of the Council. The Leader thanked the Committee for its work.

A Visiting Member commented that it was important that the Committee reviewed the carry over items and scrutinise these topics. Both leisure and greenspaces were vital issues, and it was a real benefit to residents to be able to scrutinise the work.

Councillor Harrison noted that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee was ready and willing to review these topics, when the Executive and officers had plans which were available for scrutiny.

RESOLVED – that the Executive RECOMMEND to Council:

(i)               To agree the proposed Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme for 2024/25 as set out at Annex 1 and detailed in the report be approved.

To receive any statements from the Leader of the Council, Members of the Executive or the Managing Director.

There were no Statements given by the Leader, Executive Members or the Managing Director.

RECOMMENDED that members of the Press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that:

(i)            it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act; and

(ii)          the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

RESOLVED – that members of the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that:

(i)               It involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 and 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act; and

(ii)             The public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

The Executive Members considered the three CVs of the three candidates nominating themselves for the position of a Banstead Commons Conservator. The Executive then returned to the public session to agree and approve the two nominations.

To consider any item(s) which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be considered as a matter of urgency – Local Government Act 1972, Section 100B(4)(b).

(Note:  Urgent business must be submitted in writing but may be supplemented by an oral report).

There was no urgent business to discuss at the meeting.