Agenda item

To consider the report of the Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources which sets out the draft Money Plan for the period 2021 to 2026 and Budget Proposals for 2021 to 2022.

 

The format for the session will be as follows:

 

1.    Leader of the Council will introduce the report.

 

2.    The Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources will add her comments on the report.

 

 

Each Cabinet Member will then present their respective portfolios in the following order (as set out in Appendix 5):

 

1. Cabinet Member for Economic Recovery & Growth.

2. Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources.

3. Cabinet Member for Culture and Leisure.

4. Cabinet Member for Environment.

5. Cabinet Member for Communities and Neighbourhoods.

6. Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning Strategy.

 

During their presentations the Cabinet Members will address the following points: -

 

1.Current staffing levels

 

2.Financial pressures for next year, including any potential reduction in income streams and, in particular, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

3.The proposed budget savings in their area for next year and how these will impact on the services they provide.

 

4.Any new income streams identified during the process.

 

5. The main priorities for their portfolio and whether any have changed as a result of the Draft Money Plan.

1.1         The Chair invited the Leader of the Council, Councillor Cook, and the Deputy Leader, Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources, Councillor Hannah Norman, to address the Committee.

 

1.2      Councillor Cook provided an overview of the draft detailed budget for

2021/22 and the longer term plans up until 2026. He outlined that there were uncertainties regarding future incomes, expenditure and ultimately, the year-end position for 2020/21. Moreover, that the prudence exercised in past money plans meant that there were no savings made in last year ‘s budget, and none were expected to be made in next year ‘s budget. Nonetheless, like other authorities, the COVID-19 pandemic had impacted the City Council ‘s finances this year, although Gloucester City Council was perhaps in a better position than others. Whilst the Council had been forced to identify some savings, it was not expected that these would have an impact on staffing levels or reduce the Council ‘s ambitions. For example, regeneration plans such as Kings Square and Kings Quarter redevelopment would be continuing. Moreover, some means of increasing income had also been identified. Councillor Cook then highlighted that cross-party input on the budget such as at the meeting at hand would be welcomed before the budget was finalised in February 2021. Likewise, residents’ views were also welcomed, and there would be an opportunity for them to have an input on the budget. Lastly, he thanked Officers who would been involved in its preparation.

 

1.2         Councillor Norman outlined that local government and particularly second-tier authorities continued to face a tough outlook, and this had been exacerbated by the pandemic. However, she added that Gloucester City Council had received over £2 Million in grants from central government to assist with increased spending due to the pandemic, in addition to claims for lost income. Furthermore, Councillor Norman outlined that due to the uncertain nature of 2020, the year-end position and hence the opening of the figures for the council general fund had been estimated by the finance team in consultation with all departments of the council. Additionally, as a result of the pandemic, central government had not completed a full spending review this year, and hence a one-year settlement would be provided. A financial settlement was expected before Christmas, and thus the proposals in front of members were only draft and could change significantly prior to the Council ‘s budget meeting in February 2021. Councillor Norman highlighted that if the Council received a greater than anticipated settlement, a budget equalisation reserve would likely need to be established to assist with managing any potential additional pressures on the Council’s finances in the short to medium term. Likewise, there were various assumptions within the money plan including the need to draw down on the Business Rates reserve and the increase of council tax by £5 or 2%. Salary increase assumptions had also been changed following the Chancellors’ announcement on public sector pay in November. Lastly, Councillor Norman echoed the Leader ‘s comments thanking staff who had assisted in the creation of this draft budget and money plan proposals, and particularly the S.151 Officer.

 

1.3         Councillor Norman and The Head of Policy & Resources responded to Committee Members’ questions as follows. In response to Councillor Ryall ‘s query about how risk was assessed as part of the budget, The Head of Policy & Resources explained that this was done using a 4 by 4 risk matrix of impact and likelihood. For this, it was about recognising that recovery may not be as well as expected. In answer to Councillor Haigh ‘s question about income from commercial activities, he outlined that the income from this was in the net budget requirements. Indeed, when investments for this were made, it was outlined that the income would be placed in the sinking fund. Page 23 of the agenda included the breakdown of the figures which would also be included in the final budget. However, a breakdown could be provided to the Committee. Regarding the general fund, Councillor Norman advised that the budget was a balancing act between provision for services with the portfolios as well as the financial stability and security of the Council moving forward. For the present budget, a reduction was expected in the general fund over the reduction predicted in last year ‘s budget, and thus it would be prudent to pay into this fund to ensure that the Council had a working capital for the Council to be able to draw-down as required. The Head of Policy & Resource added that there was a surplus of £589,000 when the budget was set from the new homes bonus. This was not planned to be included in the general fund but rather into  earmarked reserves each with a specific purpose of use such as a marketing, climate change and organisational reserves. In sum, the general fund was being kept at a size appropriate for Gloucester City Council. Finally, in answer to Councillor Wilson’s query, Councillor Norman outlined that she was satisfied with the increase in the general fund and earmarked reserves based on Officers’ advise on the best level to work towards.

 

Economic Recovery & Growth Portfolio

 

1.4         The Cabinet Member for Economic Recovery & Growth, Councillor Melvin, advised that she currently had 6 FTE (Full Time Equivalent) staff with 1 soon to be vacant post within her portfolio.

 

1.5         She outlined that there were no specific budget pressures for 2021/22 in her portfolio although income from markets and licensing would need to be kept under review given the likely impact of COVID-19 on a number of sectors next year.

 

1.6         Moreover, Councillor Melvin noted that there were no proposed budget savings in her area for 2021/22.

 

1.7         She noted that there were no new budgeted income streams in her area for 2021/22, although she would continue to work with officers to increase income through the markets service in particular. Indeed, there were some proposed ideas to generate additional income.

1.8         Councillor Melvin noted the priorities for her portfolio for 2021/22 as follows. Firstly, driving up quality and income at the Indoor Market. Secondly, delivering on a number of discrete projects arising from the Economic Recovery Task and Finish Group. This would include working with GFirst LEP, Colleges and other training providers to ensure that Gloucester residents could benefit from the jobs being created at The Forum. Thirdly, working with the Business Improvement District, LVA and others to ensure that businesses were fully sighted on growth opportunities as the City emerged from the COVID-19 crisis  Fourthly, continuing to work with officers and businesses to develop more efficient processes for vehicle and premises licensing building on the success of the current pilot with the taxi trade. Finally, a main priority would be promoting the re-purposing of vacant and underused space to support the vision to repurpose & reimagine the City Centre and surrounding areas.

 

1.9         Councillor Melvin, the Head of Policy & Resources and the Head of Place then responded to queries from Committee Members as follows. Firstly, in answer to Councillor Hilton ‘s query it was outlined that the Council collected levy payments on behalf of Gloucester BID with the Council also paying its own levy. Further details about where this could be found in the budget would be shared with Committee Members. Secondly, responding to Councillor Wilson, Councillor Melvin explained that there were a number of monetary and non-monetary initiatives to increase footfall in the City Centre, both equally as important as the other. Thus, any increase in parking charges should not deter people from coming to the City Centre. Thirdly, in relation to Councillor Pullen ‘s query about increasing footfall at Eastgate Indoor Market, Councillor Melvin advised that ideas for this included new branding and increasing the number of new businesses to the Market. Lastly, in answer to Councillor Haigh ‘s question, Councillor Melvin advised that work had started to signpost people to the Market from other parts of the City with further plans for this in the future.

 

Performance & Resources Portfolio

 

1.10      The Cabinet Member for Performance & Resources Councillor Norman advised that current staffing levels within her portfolio were 55.7 FTE in post with 12.7 FTE vacancies. These figures included 9 apprentices recorded against HR but used across different portfolios.

 

1.11      She outlined that there were several financial pressures as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Firstly, whilst the digital transformation programme had seen through the Council’s ability to adapt and continue to provide an excellent customer service to residents, this had also led to additional software license maintenance costs to ensure the ongoing effective operation of the Council’s IT platforms. Overall, it had led to an ongoing revenue pressure of £125,000. Moreover, the uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic would potentially impact the Council ‘s future income streams. This included for example income from Parking and Commercial Properties which was affected by any lockdowns and the speed at which the economy recovered. As such, there was potential for the income figures included in the budget to be subject to variations which could lead to potential financial pressures on the Council. These pressures would be managed as they arose in a similar fashion to the pressures in 2020.  Finally, the current budget figures were presented based on the median expected outcome; and the consideration that the Government would continue to support local authorities through the pandemic.

 

1.12 Regarding proposed budget savings, Councillor Norman highlighted that the move from the Herbert Kimberley and Philpotts Warehouses had been completed in 2020, generating savings of £200,000 in 2021/22. Similarly, the extension of the Revenues & Benefits services contract was being negotiated, and was expected to provide a saving of £100,000 in 2021/22. Furthermore, steps were underway to reduce the number of pool vehicles held in the Car Club at an estimated saving of £7,000 per annum. Alongside this, other proposed savings included; a review of the support levels required at the corporate level with the aim of making savings of £30,000, a proposal to stop printing City Life magazine and to enhance the digital offering with online advertising to create net savings of £4,000, changes to the Human Resources service contracted levels with the County Council which had been agreed to generate savings of £35,000 which should be implemented without a reduction in the quality of the service, and a proposed change at Castlemeads Car Park to a Pay & Display car park for seven days a week potentially generating a further £80,000 of income.

 

 

1.12      Councillor Norman advised that apart from the proposed changes at Castlemeads Car Park, there were no new income streams in her portfolio.

 

1.13      Lastly, she outlined that she did not anticipate any changes to her portfolio as a result of the budget proposals for 2021/22. However, the Performance & Resources portfolio had an enabling function in support of the customer facingservices. Therefore, any priorities were based around the ‘Core Principle supporting the broader priorities. Services in the portfolio would strive for value for money, only spending what was affordable.

 

1.14      Councillor Norman then responded to questions from Committee Members. In response to Councillor Coole ‘s query on implementing any proposed cyber security initiatives from Central Government, she stated that depending on the Terms and Conditions for this, the City Council would apply for any such initiatives. Nonetheless, she was having regular conversations with the Civica IT Service Manager and the team. Cyber security was a priority, and particularly, ensuring the best technical and cost-effective solutions. Furthermore, responding to Councillor Haigh, Councillor Norman and The Head of Policy & Resources outlined that the budget put in place for the election was correct, and was based on the fact that there had not been any elections this year. However, this would change in the 2022/23 budget for example, given that there were local elections due to be held. In addition, the increase in costs in the Senior Management portfolio could be attributed to new appointments, transformation and commercialisation, however, a detailed breakdown would be provided to Members. Moreover, options were being considered going into the future for Castlemeads Car Park, for example, for it to become a pay & display car park. Likewise, Longsmith Street Car Park would continue to be used in the long term. Responding to Councillor Ryall, she clarified that the proposed £80,000 income from Caslemeads Car Park was based on a phased return to the car park, and not the car-park at full-capacity. Likewise, there were revenues to be made from Castlemeads for example during the Victoria Markets at Gloucester Quays.

 

1.15    Councillor Norman outlined that the proposed £30,000 saving for Corporate Support services would consider a potential reduction in hours based on the changes to the level of service required due to staff working from home as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In answer to a query from Councillor Hilton she advised that there was not any provision for the installation of webcasting hardware in the Council chamber within the current budget. Councillor Norman added that current estimates suggested that the cost of installation would be £80,000-£100,000 with annual costs of £30,000. The Chair asked whether it would be possible for the City Council to hire Gloucestershire County Council ‘s chambers which had webcasting features rather than installing its own. Councillor Norman stated that whilst she agreed with this idea in principle which would also be a more cost-effective option, arguments against this had been previously raised by Councillors in the interest of preserving the City Council ‘s sovereignty and independence. Lastly, it was outlined that a People Impact Assessment of the budget would be made available to Members.

 

Culture & Leisure Portfolio

 

1.15      The Cabinet Member for Culture & Leisure, Councillor Morgan, advised that there were 34.5 FTE in post with 5.3 FTE vacancies [Total FTE: 39.8] plus zero hours workers when required. Furthermore, vacancies had been held owing to the pandemic, and would be recruited to once cultural venues were fully functional again. These vacancies had supported the city council’s overall saving targets this year through holding off on replacing vacancies where possible, although all roles would be required going forward.

 

1.16      In relation to financial pressures, he advised that the outlook for 2021/22 remained uncertain. He added that the year had proved challenging for the culture and leisure sector particularly as the COVID-19 pandemic had led to a shutdown of services, and the challenge of not knowing when, and how it would be possible to plan and manage events. The budget currently presented was based on no changes to income from those expected in the 2020/21 budget, and the achievement of these levels was dependent on life returning close to normal by the summer of 2021. Cultural services were assessing how to safely hold future activities and events for the public once they were able to do so. Unfortunately, however, the venues due to their size and age did not lend easily to social distancing and any reductions resulting from this capacity could impact the levels of income achievable from events and activities. As such, the team had been planning and holding some small-scale outdoor events at Blackfriars.

 

1.17      The cultural services team would continue to be innovative in their thinking and development of opportunities to both organise and run events. For example, they were monitoring the various Arts Sector funding that were available and submitting claims as appropriate. Moreover, two teams had been set up to perform the events management and destination marketing functions with a reallocation of the budget previously assigned to MGL, and the £200,000 reserve set aside for the Destination Marketing activities in the 2020/21 budget. Lastly, the transfer of the former Museum of Gloucester Life buildings to Gloucester Historic Buildings Ltd and the Civic Trust was still to be completed.  The Council was optimistic that once the transfer process was completed, predicted future savings would be generated.

 

1.18      Councillor Morgan outlined that there no proposed budget savings in the portfolio for 2021/22. However, the cultural services team will be seeking additional funding from Arts Council and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport in support of the recovery process.

 

1.19    In relation to new income streams, he advised that whilst there were no new specific income streams in the portfolio,  the Council would continue to identify and implement ways of increasing the profitability of  commercial activities to support the City ‘s cultural ambitions and the Council’s budgets. For example, the City had been successful in securing £1000,000 from the Arts Council Recovery Fund and awaited the outcome of another fund to support the loss in cinema revenue. Likewise, the Tall Ships Festivals contract shared a split of profit from ticket sales with the new contractor. Lastly, weddings and events postponed from 2020 would be returning if restrictions were lifted in 2021

 

1.19      Finally, Councillor Morgan explained that the main priorities for the portfolio were based on putting Culture at the heart of Gloucester to make it a better place to live, work and play. The priorities were as follows:

·         A comprehensive Museums Development Plan which will underpin a bid for external funding to enable a major investment in the sustainability and appeal of the City’s Museums Service

·         Ambitious proposals for Cultural Development Funding to support the City’s ambitions to create a vibrant City Centre with the Guildhall as a leading venue supporting and growing the city’s creative talents.

·         A revamped Guildhall Cinema with investment justified by a robust business plan

·         A great festivals and events calendar supported by an effective and collaborative network of evets organisers

·         A final year to the Great Place Programme and an opportunity to celebrate all of the wonderful things that the Great Place Programme has enabled us to deliver

·         Real strides in delivering the audience development, programming improvements, marketing, use of new and innovative venue spaces that are a foundation to shifting perceptions about Gloucester and supporting our long-term ambitions for a new venue

·         And doing everything that we can to make sure that if colleagues in the other parties reconsider their stance on City of Culture after the 2020 elections, we are in the strongest place possible to submit a creative, inclusive, innovative and distinctly Gloucester for Gloucestershire bid to be City of Culture in 2025 which is supported by all parties.

 

Environment Portfolio

 

1.20      Councillor Morgan echoed his thanks to Officers who had assisted in the preparation of the budget, and then responded to Committee Members’ questions as follows. Firstly, he advised that there were 3 full time employees working on events management and destination marketing functions, including a Destination Marketing Manager. Secondly, the £30,000 listed as ‘other income’ under Destination Marketing for 2021/22 was a target which had been set for the team to raise. Thirdly, he responded to Councillor Lewis advising that the budget which had initially been earmarked to be used for events in 2020 had been repurposed and used instead for initiatives such as ‘Of Earth and Sky’, towards art packs, supporting Gloucester Day and Gloucester History Festival. Moreover, some of this budget would be rolled over and used towards events in 2021/22.

 

1.21      The Cabinet Member for Environment, Councillor Cook outlined that there were a total of 38.4 FTE in post with 2.0 FTE vacancies (total FTE: 40.4) within his portfolio.

 

1.22    In terms of financial pressures, he advised that monitoring had highlighted a pressure for the contract inflation in the Council’s contract with Amey. This highlighted the higher than inflationary indexation in the contract over the past three years, and the increased garden waste service levels. This pressure has been addressed in the draft Money Plan by increasing the contract price budget. Furthermore, the commercialisation strand of the Transformation Programme required funding of a role to manage this programme causing an additional cost pressure of £70, 000. This role would ensure that the commercialisation income streams in the money plan were delivered thus generating net savings to the Council. Moreover, Councillor Cook explained that there was significant uncertainty caused by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic with a potential impact on the Council’s future income streams. For example, the portfolio budget included income from the Cemeteries and Crematorium Service which were sensitive to any further restrictions imposed by the Government on service sizes and the holding of wakes at the Arbor. Furthermore, the precautions required to ensure the safe performance of services also required additional expense on PPE and other safety equipment. As such, there was potential for the net income figures included in the budget to be subject to variations that would lead to potential financial pressures on the Council. These would be managed as they arose in a similar fashion to the pressures in 2020. Finally, he explained that the current budget figures were presented based on what was the median expected outcome; and the consideration that the Government will continue to support local authorities through the pandemic.

 

1.22      In relation to proposed budget savings, Councillor Cook identified savings target within the portfolio in relation to pest control (review of the seagull management contract) of £10,000. The increase in the take-up of the garden waste service had also meant that an additional vehicle and collection rounds were required at additional costs to the Council. It was therefore proposed to review the pricing of this service with the potential to raise £40,000 to meet these additional service costs.

 

1.23    With regard to whether there were new income streams, Councillor Cook outlined that whilst there were no new income streams within the portfolio this year, opportunities to raise additional income would always be considered. Moreover, income streams within the portfolio continued to meet targets including discretionary services such as bulky waste collection. Lastly, the Heritage Action Zone project had commenced its work, and brought much needed improvement works to the Cathedral Quarter of the City and thus enabled the funding of a staff role to oversee the project.

.

1.24    Councillor Cook outlined that the main priorities for the portfolio were to ensure that; a.) the City of Gloucester weathered the COVID-19 pandemic safely b.)  the Council appropriately managed the City environment with adequate precautions put in place to safeguard the population, and c.)  the Council managed its finances and remained financially solvent in these uncertain times.

 

 

1.25    Councillor Cook responded to Committee Members’ questions as follows. Firstly, in relation to Councillor Haigh ‘s query about garden waste services, he explained that last year a new vehicle was added to the fleet as extra capacity was needed beyond the 3 vehicles in use at the time. The total costs for this including the crew was approximately £130,000 for a year. Subscribers had grown from 20,000 to around 21,000 and whilst this covered some of the costs for the new vehicle, this was only to about half of the £130,000 per year and hence, the charge for garden waste services would be increased to cover the shortfall. This additional cost would be approximately £2.00 for subscribers. Furthermore, responding to Councillor Hilton, he outlined that the £10,000 saving which would be made from ending the sea-gulls management programme was due to the fact that a rule change  from January 2021 would mean that a general license would not be permitted by Natural England. Thus, the Council would not be permitted to carry out seagull and egg nest removals. Lastly, in answer to Councillor Pullen, Councillor Cook stated that he did not believe that the closure of the Hempsted Household Recycling Centre would adversely impact the seagull population.

 

Communities & Neighbourhoods Portfolio

 

 

1.26    Councillor Watkins advised that there were 47.6 FTE in post with 6.9 FTE vacancies (Total FTE: 54.5) within her portfolio.

 

1.27    Furthermore, she outlined that whilst there were no major pressures identified within her portfolio for next year, the COVID-19 pandemic had  impacted services within the portfolio. For example, frontline staff in both the Customer and Housing Services had to step up in order to meet the continual new challenges thrown at them. Moreover, the nature of how homelessness was addressed changed during the first lockdown with a co-ordinated effort County-wide to place everyone in temporary accommodation such as securing whole properties for this purpose and shared costs amongst the County and its Districts. Government funding had been made available to enable these initiatives, nevertheless, the challenge going forward would be looking at how positive aspects of this process could be retained in a way that is affordable to the Council.

 

1.28    Councillor Watkins explained that the Council would continue to identify opportunities to explore improving access to temporary, supported and permanent accommodation through repurposing existing properties and land in the city. This would allow the Council to have more control over where individuals were placed and avoid having to place people outside of County. This was not only costly, but more importantly, detrimental to the wellbeing of those households.

 

1.29    Lastly, she explained that the Council continued to bid for the various Government funding available, and had received additional funding in relation to the Next Steps Accommodation Programme which would allow further development of housing opportunities for those in need. A specific Housing Projects and Strategy team had been set up within the Council to use some of the funding received to achieve this, and develop further the housing opportunities. In addition, the Council was forecast to spend its entire Discretionary Housing Payment budget this year which had assisted more people to remain in their home or find a new home, and had reduced the costs which would be incurred by processing these individuals as homelessness cases.

 

1.30    Councillor Watkins highlighted that there was one saving identified in  the portfolio of £19,000 to reduce the Members’ grants with a proposal to replace this with a small application based grass roots grant scheme.

 

1.31    Moreover, she explained that there no new income streams included within this budget for the Communities & Neighbourhoods portfolio.

1.32   Lastly, she outlined that the main priorities for her portfolio were as follows:

·         Reducing reliance on temporary accommodation, particularly B&Bs and thus reducing expenditure.

·         Process redesign in Housing to maximise capacity and improve the interactions with the customer.

·         Continued improvement of performance in housing – continuing the positive trend seen.

·         Continue the good work of the Housing partnership in reducing street homelessness (positive progress was expected in relation to this, but figures would not be available until new year).

·         New housing supply (in partnership with RPs and VCS) to reduce numbers of people in B&B.

·         Continue to invest (in partnership with others) in community building across the City.

·         Maintain Purple Flag.

·         Develop further the work of Nightsafe and Daysafe.

 

 

1.33    Councillor Watkins then responded to Committee Members’ questions as follows. In answer to Councillor Hilton ‘s query about Voluntary & Community Sector Organisations (VCS), she advised that the City Council had undertaken a stock-take survey to gage how VCS organisations were coping during the COVID-19 pandemic and whether they required additional support. She added that the Barnwood Trust had also carried out a similar exercise. As a result of this, a City Council recovery fund had been made available to VCS organisations and further funding had also been available through grants particularly to those organisations who had lost income and/or needed to adapt due to the pandemic. Moreover, a COVID-19 Compliance Fund had proved successful, as well as other more practical initiatives to assist organisations such as introducing them to business partners, working with other strategic funders in the County. Overall, it was an ongoing priority and there was for example a strategic group set up towards this effort which included members of the community and other organisations.

 

The meeting was extended by 30 minutes.

 

1.34    Furthermore, Councillor Watkins advised that there were no changes to the service level agreements with the advice agents which were extended during the pandemic.

 

1.35   Councillor Lewis expressed his thanks to Councillor Watkins and the staff working within her portfolio for their work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Councillor Watkins received this, and noted that it had been an honour to work with Officers during such a difficult period.

 

 

Planning & Housing Strategy Portfolio

 

1.36     Councillor Gravells echoed his thanks to Officers who had assisted with the preparation of the budget. 

 

1.37    In relation to staffing levels he advised that there were 17.5 FTE in post with 1.0 FTE vacancy (total FTE: 18.5).

 

1.38   Councillor Gravells explained that following the submission of the City Plan to the Planning Inspectorate, Cabinet and Officers were awaiting a date for the Examination in Public. To this end, £100,000 had been identified in the 2020/21 budget to facilitate this examination with some of the expected costs expected to be deferred into 2021/22. Moreover, the review of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) would continue in 2021/22, and £65,000 had been identified as a contribution to the costs of its production. In addition, the planning making strategy for the JCS authorities was to be reviewed with the potential to have a single local plan examined to minimise future financial pressures. Likewise, Councillor Gravells outlined that a change in property use classes could lead to a possible loss of income as a result of a change to the way planning decisions are made. Currently, this was seen as low risk for 2021/22 income, but would need to be kept under review.

 

1.39    Similarly, the base budget for 2020/21 was increased by £202,000 to allow for one off costs for preparing the City Plan as well as the JCS Review.  This cost included £100,000 for the Examination in Public which was expected in Spring 2021. The £202,000 could now be removed from the base budget for 2021/22 creating a £202,000 saving. Councillor Gravells added that the unused element of the budget for City Plan and JCS review costs included in the 2020/21 budget would be held in reserve to meet any delayed expenditure from 2020/21 should the EIP take place in 2021/22.

 

1.40    He outlined that there were no new income streams identified for his Portfolio for the coming year. However, officers would continue to promote the use of Planning Performance Agreements where appropriate.

 

 

1.41    Councillor Gravells advised that the main priorities for 2021/22 were as follows:

 

·         The Examination in Public and subsequent adoption of the City Plan.

·         The continuing review of the Joint Core Strategy.

·         Review the current and proposed governance arrangements for the JCS.

·         Review of the Community Infrastructure Levy.

·         Work with Gloucester City Homes and the communities of Matson and Podsmead to identify priority regeneration opportunities that meet the aims and objectives of the recently adopted Supplementary Planning Document.

·         Assessment of major planning applications including:

·         Phase 2 Kings Quarter

·         Redevelopment of HKP Warehouses

·         Downings Malthouse, Bakers Quay

·         St Oswalds Housing development

·         Podsmead regeneration sites

·         Trajectories Project: Identifying and promoting future housing development opportunities.

·         Repurposing Project: Appraising opportunities that arise to repurpose stock into housing where its current use is redundant.

·         Accessibility Project: Increasing the provision of and promoting better design of accessible housing.

·         Larger Homes Project: Finding solutions for households with a need for a larger home (5+ bedrooms).

·         Pathways Project: Evaluating current pathways and enabling homeless people to move into appropriate housing.

·         Private Sector Engagement Project: Securing private rented sector accommodation options for vulnerable residents.

 

 

1.42    Councillor Dee noted his thanks to the Cabinet Members for their work during the course of the year which had been made even more challenging due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

1.43    Committee Members discussed possible recommendations.

 

 

 

 

1.44    RESOLVED that the Overview & Scrutiny Committee RECOMMENDS that:

 

1.)  Cabinet includes the following information which was requested at the Overview & Scrutiny Committee budget meeting within the final budget report or as an annex to the report:

 

·         To provide details of where the Council ‘s BID levy contribution is located within the budget book.

·         To provide a detailed breakdown of the changes in the Senior Management budget from the 2020/21 budget.

 

2.)   Cabinet changes the headings within the budget to be identifiable to the portfolio holder rather than service areas.

 

3.)  Cabinet removes the proposals to change how the community grant is managed from the budget report.