Transcript

to the cabinet meeting. Let me start off with our standard announcement. Good evening and welcome to the meeting of the cabinet. This meeting will be webcast live to the internet. For those who do not wish to be recorded or filmed, you will need to leave the chamber. For members, officers and other speakers at the meeting, it is important that the microphones are used so viewers on the webcast and others in the room may hear you. Would anyone with a mobile phone please switch it to silent mode as they can be distracting. I would like to remind members that although we have strong opinions on matters under consideration, it is important to treat members, officers and public speakers with respect. Thanks very much everyone. Do we have any apologies for absence? We do leader, we've had apologies from Councillors Holgate and Speakman. OK, thank you very much and do we have any declarations of interest? Councillor Prager. I'm going to make a voluntary declaration on item fee, the district parish and town council scale of election fees, being a parish town council on Sangate parish council. I'm a town councilor on both Folkestone and Hyde councils so despite the fact that there's no pecuniary interest there at all, I do think it's worth having that on the record. Councillor Fuller. Can you guess what I'm going to say? I am also a parish councilor, sorry, for Sangate. Nearly got into trouble there and will declare an interest on that basis. I similarly have to declare an interest then as a town councilor for Hyde town council. Any other declarations of interest to make? Jolly good, OK. We can move on then to the minutes to consider and approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on the 17th of April. Does anyone have any queries or questions, amendments etc? Happy to propose. Councillor Prager to propose. Councillor Blakemore to second. All those in favour, please indicate. Thank you very much. I'll now sign them. Thank you very much. So moving on to our first substantive item for district of parish and town council elections, Kent scale of election fees and my sources tell me that we are going to be led through this by Councillor Fuller. Your sources are correct, yeah. I will keep it brief as there might be some news happening. So effectively, DLUC has recently produced a sort of a guide for the fees as they now should be. What this report outlines is changes that we're making to pull ourselves into line with KCC broadly and with the DLUC guidance. In the appendices, sorry, there are some indicative figures that give you an idea of roughly what the changes will mean. So based on that, we're looking at about 7% to 8% rise for town and parish councils in terms of the fees that are involved. On that basis, I'll move the report and see if I've got a second. Thank you very much. Very happy to second and open for discussion and debate. Councillor Prita. Thank you, Chairman. We've been using the Kent scale of election fees for some years. The joy of watching this document wander past me five times in a row, I think, with the scale of fees slowly and gradually increasing over a period of time with the expectation that the scale of fees effectively means that if there is a by-election, a town and parish council by-election during the course of the year, that the council, that the district council who have to run that election can recover their costs. So the significant change in the DLUC figures at this stage is that things like wages, because minimum wage has gone up so much over the last two years and postage, et cetera, has gone up, then there's a substantial increase in the marginal, in the variable costs of an election that's just gone up. So I fully understand where the scale of fees, how it works, be where it goes. But I think it's the point that Gary just raised. What this changed the scale of fees following DLUC's new guidance is it increases the cost of an election, the sample gives us in Appendix 2, by 7.8% from where it was last year. And that's about a £5,500 election to about a £6,000 election. Now, for a town or parish council, £6,000 is not a small amount of money. And if they've been in a good place, and if they have been working logically that they're putting some money aside for elections and by-elections during the course of the year, during the course of the years in order to run up to the four-yearly cycle, but also to have some money put aside for elections. But actually, this Kent scale of fees would apply from now and would put up the cost of an election called now by 7.8% now, despite the fact that the town and parish councils set their precept in February based on the figures then. So even if they've set their figures, even if they've set their budgets and they've made a reasonable allowance for the potential of a by-election, etc., and put some money aside for that during the course of the year, they can't have included this figure in there because they didn't know it. And they haven't got, because we're talking about this municipal year, they haven't got the opportunity of getting that back before next municipal year, because they can't change their precept. It's dead to them. So that 7.8% is literally an additional charge which they can't have budgeted for in year. That said, I think it's really, it is really important that we a) adopt the scale of fees and b) that it's I think in line with Kent. That doesn't mean that we can't offer some assistance voluntarily on top of that. And where I think we've got some wiggle room and where I think that it would be useful for us to show that we understand the challenges faced by town and parish at this stage is that I don't think that we've got anything that we can do other than say that in terms of the variable costs, the number of staff that you've got there, the postage, etc., in terms of running an election, we've just got to recharge that for the Kent scale of fees. We've just got to do so. Where there's little wiggle room is that if you look at the appendix 2, we're also recharging some fixed costs there. So, for instance, in order for our election department to function, it's got an election management system piece of software which costs us £7,500 a year. We've got to have that £7,500 license whether we've got any by-elections in the year or not because it's also used for every other election. So, for instance, the Kent Police and Crime Commission election used it and we made a recharge on the basis, recharge of some of the cost of that software for that election beyond our claim back from government for that. The general election, which I can announce is on the 4th of July, we will also be claiming back, live for the tape, we will also be claiming back costs from the government for the fixed cost of that election so that there's some more of that £7,500 we're already claiming back from government. So, we know that there are two big elections that will have happened in this municipal year that we've actually covered the majority of those fixed costs off on that and we haven't got an income line for Town and Parish Council election. We're not expecting to make money on these things because we can't plan in how many by-elections we think that there might be in the town or the parish. As you'll see from appendix 2 in that worked example, we're talking that the cost of that software that would be budgeted to New Romney in this particular worked example was £261 for the cost of that fixed cost towards that £7,500 that we had to have anyway. I'm suggesting that for this year and this year alone, we say that in the case of a town or parish council election, we'd meet the fixed cost of the election software and we wouldn't add that to the bill, to the fees. Everything else would be charged in exactly scale. That would mitigate that 7.8% increase down to 3.3% in year increase. It doesn't mitigate it entirely. It's still more money than they'd have paid last week but it just takes the edge off it and shows that we're actually listening to town and parishes who find these ophined by-elections very hard and having to do their best to deal with that. And although town and parishes aren't capped in practice, they actually are. You can't turn around and just say I'd like to put my council tax up 10 or 15 or 20% without being shot by people, and I know I tried, and bear the wounds. So you actually have got to operate within political reality at that stage. So all I'm suggesting is that for this year, given the fact that we know that on the 4th of July we'll be claiming back a large percentage of those fixed costs to the government anyway, that we can just write ourselves a third recommendation to add to recommendations, that for the financial year 24/25, folks in the High District Council will not recharge the cost of the election management software license for town and parish by-elections to mitigate the rise in cost of by-elections in this year. So that effectively, as I said, in terms of that worked example, would turn that bill down from a £452 increase to a £261 increase. That just stops it hurting quite so much. It's still an extra expense that they will have to absorb, but I think that that would show that we have done our best and listened to their problems and taken that on board. So I'd like to move that amendment number 3 so that for the financial year 24/25, F&HDC will not recharge the cost of the election management software license for town and parish by-elections to mitigate the cost in rise of by-elections in this year. I hope I've got a seconder. I'd actually be happy to take that into the initial recommendation or the movement that I've made, as it were, moving of the motion, but I'm also happy to second that if needed. Thank you very much. So we're now debating the amendment rather than the substantive item. Thank you, leader. What we can do is we can, I think it's a good idea to have it as a third recommendation, as Councillor Prager has suggested, because it's clearer, and what we can do, leader, with your permission is take each of the recommendations individually and vote on them. So how shall we proceed in terms of the debate? Oh, no, obviously the members can speak on the matter if they wish to. I would debate it first, yes. So just to clarify, we're debating the amendment which has been proposed by Councillor Prager. Ah, right, okay, so you're just going to add it, okay. So we'll be able to debate the whole thing rather than just specifically that third. Yeah, and then once we've exhausted it we will then go through the recommendations one at a time, yeah. Right, okay, so it's open really for general debate. If I can, as I've got my mic turned on, I'll kick off. This is within the Kent schedule of charges, so I'm confident that they all apply. I'm also conscious that this will have come forward with the recommendation of our returning officer. So I know the amount of money is relatively tiny, and we know that Councillor Prager is the champion of the parishes, but I think, you know, we might be kind of just fiddling around here. You know, I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise, but this is a relatively small amount of money. The issue for me is that we will be departing from what is a fairly standard schedule published in terms of the Kent schedule of charges, and also the recommendations of our returning officer. So that's just my first input. Thank you, Chair. Just to say that I think what Recommendation 3 is aimed at doing is, while it seems like a relatively small amount of money at our end, is taking into account that for some of the smaller parish councils it's a lot of money. It could be a significant proportion of their preset, and more importantly it's money that they won't have budgeted for. They will have planned on the basis of the previous fees. They will have budgeted for this year on the basis of the previous fees, and although we are offering them in Recommendation 2 the potential to pay an instalment, those instalments still have to occur during this fiscal year, which they won't have budgeted for. So this is more about making sure that we don't put parish councils in financial difficulty at a time when everyone's struggling, as it were, when we can effectively mitigate the costs by claiming back what we need to from government. So it's not necessarily about how big a sum of money it is at our end. We really must consider that we do have some very small parishes with very small presets. Thank you. Councillor Blakemore. I just wanted to ask, when would the parishes and town councils have expected these fees to increase? Presumably they would have expected them to rise at some point, so how often does that happen regularly, or could they have expected it to have come this year? Councillor Prior. As I said, a paper on the credit scale of fees comes each year. They couldn't have. This has been said, though, is based on a revised scale, which came from de-luck, which puts the price. So normally you'd expect things to go up a little bit, and this time it's gone up a lot. So it's an unexpectedly large increase that you wouldn't normally expect to see in that stage. Just to address a couple of the other points there, plenty of district councils support town and parishes in their area with some support towards their by-election fees. Some are quite generous, some meet the whole cost. I'm not suggesting that for a second, because, as you know, my love of town and parish councils comes only alongside my love of balancing our own budget. And the second thing is that although I fully understand that the returning officer was briefed on this, she's not the returning officer for these elections. Although she's the returning officer for those elections, it is the town and parishes that bear the cost of it. So I understand that it would be, from our point of view, better for them to pay more. We are also guardians and responsible for those under our control, under our authority. And in order to give them a little bit more protection, as I said, it's talking about small amounts of money to us. £261 is nothing huge to us, unless there are suddenly a thousand by-elections this year, which there won't be. But on the other hand, to some of these town and parishes, A will make the increase more moderate. We're not giving them a discount, we're reducing the increase, that is all. It actually just indicates, it just shows that we have listened at this stage, and we're doing our bit to softening the blow a little bit for those town and parishes. We can't take all of the pain for them, but we're taking some of it. That's all. Thank you. Anyone else wish to chip in? Councillor Schaffman. I was just going to ask whether there's an indication whether we could get an idea of how many by-elections would normally crop up in a year, and that gives us a vague idea of the scale of this. Might be useful. Is there an average? It's very difficult to say. Thank you very much, Councillor Schaffman. Ewan, you're going to come in? Thank you, thank you, Councillor Schaffman. I think it's fair to say there's probably five or six per year on average. You can't tell, obviously, in that respect. And I want the leader at this point if I could just offer some advice on this. Members, you'll note from the report that the responsibility for application of the fees lies with the returning officer. And then the report today, you'll also note under section 4.2, the advice from the section 151 officer is that the principle of full cost recovery from town and parish councils is important to retain and appropriate to avoid the district council subsidising other councils. So, that would be the position of our returning officer here tonight, but that would be our position on this report. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Proxer. And I would make the further proposition to the finance officer's comment that I have accepted the principle of full variable cost recovery from town and parish councils. We're talking about a fixed fee, which we are already recovering in this year from the course of the other elections which are taking place, and a fee that we would pay whether or not we were running any by-elections in year. It is like us charging some of your salary to that by-election because we would be paying you anyway whether or not there's a by-election next year. I just feel that in the case of this specific, one specific licence, it just shows that we have listened to something and given, as you say, five or six times two hundred and sixty pounds, and actually New Romney is quite a large town council, that amount of money, the percentage is the same across each area, that amount of money is probably higher there than it would be anywhere else. We're talking about a thousand pounds that we've claimed back from other elections anyway. Any other discussion to be had? So, with guidance from Ewan, and yes please, we're going to have another. I wonder, members, taking on board the points that are made, and I think you'd understand the position I'm conveying this evening, if you are indeed minded to make a third recommendation, could I suggest that the words of that recommendation start with the words to recommend to the returning officer, because ultimately the decision would be from the returning officer on this matter. Is everyone okay with that, that we're actually to recommend to the returning officer? Councillor Prater, are you? I don't understand that being the legal position. I understand that we set, states that the council may similarly set a maximum scale of charges for the returning officer to use, it's even 1.2. The answer is no, the council sets it for the returning officer, so I think recommendation 3 says it. It's 1.2 of your own report. Thank you, Councillor Prater and members. I did actually touch base with the elections manager today, because I knew that this matter would come up for discussion. It is my understanding having spoken to the elections manager that the final decision does rest with the returning officer, therefore as Ewan Green has said, it is my recommendation as a monitoring officer that the words to recommend are used, if you still wish to proceed with the third recommendation. Thank you. For the sake of the argument, I'll add the words to recommend to the returning officer. Very good. Okay, well thanks very much everyone. A very interesting discussion. So if we can vote on an individual basis then for each of, sorry to interrupt you, yes absolutely, if we take each of the recommendations individually and Councillor Prater, if I may ask just for clarity when it comes to recommendation 3, if you would be kind enough to read it out again for everybody's benefit, in particular Gemma is going to try and jot it down, I'd be great to. Thank you. That's incredibly helpful. That would be very helpful. Okay, so we see, can I assume that we're going to propose, we had a proposer and a seconder for the third, so can we have a proposer and we've already done that one. Right. Okay, so we can go straight to the vote. Okay, so with regard to recommendation number 1, can you please indicate. Those in favour? Super. That's one out of the way. That's great. Item 2, to agree that recharges for Town and Parish Council can be made by instalments with accounts settled by the end of each financial year should a request be made. All those in favour, please indicate. Thank you very much. So now, Councillor Prater, if you would kindly read out your third suggestion. Let's do that with a microphone. To recommend to the returning officer that for the financial year 24/25, F&HDC will not recharge the cost of the election and management software licence for Town and Parish by-elections to mitigate the rise in cost of by-elections in this year. Okay, everyone feel they've understood that. So those in favour, please indicate. Okay, very good. You're happy Gemma? And those against, please indicate. Those abstaining, please indicate. There we go. So I think that's carried. Yeah, thank you very much. Moving on to the next item, Agenda Item 5, Marketing Assets, Windpine House Heat Metering and Lighting Upgrade Pilot Project. And Councillor Shoop is going to talk us through the intricacies of Windpine House. Thank you. Yeah, it's a bit of a mouthful. So for a bit of background, Windpine House is a block of 44 independent living apartments for older residents in Hyde. Last year, there were a lot of issues and complaints from residents about the heat levels in winter and the ability to control the heating all year round. The amount of maintenance required was increasing as were the costs of running the system. So it was decided that we needed to look at options for improving the overall situation. So in October 2023, a consultant was appointed to undertake an options appraisal for upgrading the heating and hot water system to both the individual apartments and the communal areas, along with upgrading all the communal lighting to LEDs and so that it only comes on when people are moving around. So the outcome of the appraisal showed that we need a new approach to how the heating and hot water systems operate at Windpine House. And there are a couple of key factors to bear in mind. So we need to comply with the Heat Network Metering and Billing regulations of 2014, which say that we should be billing tenants for what they actually use. So at the moment, there are no meters in the individual homes. So tenants are charged a flat rate regardless of their actual energy use. And crucially, we're not recovering the full cost of the energy use for individuals. So the HRA is subsidizing those bills. But just as important, if not more so, it's the right thing to do to provide a controllable, comfortable environment for our tenants. So the best option identified was to keep the existing two gas boilers, which were installed four years ago, and are of good quality and still working well, but to strip out the existing and failing distribution system and replace it with what are called heat interface units. And those include energy metering within the individual homes. So by installing the HIUs, it allows for the temperature of the central heating system to be lowered so that for the heating and the hot water, it's then at the correct temperature when it gets to the individual apartments. And so it saves energy overall. And even though it retains the existing gas boilers, it would be a far more energy efficient system than is currently in place. And it also will provide a significant carbon reduction of over seven tonnes a year for the whole block. And finally, it would be ready for conversion to heat pump technology if and when we look to go down that route. Unfortunately, it's just proved not feasible to go straight to a gas-free option at this time. So the overall estimated cost of the project is £1,035,097, which includes all the works associated with taking out the old system, replacing the new system, as well as the upgrade to the lighting system, and allows a small contingency of £44,500. Hopefully that's a lot of money by any measure, but having gone through the details with officers, I'm satisfied this is a necessary investment in this particular scheme, and it lays the groundwork for if and when we can complete a transition to an even more energy efficient and lower carbon technology in the future. It's also going to be a pilot project as we look to renew and upgrade other systems across our independent living schemes. The recommendation is about the environment of £300,000, as detailed in section 2 of the report, and this comes from savings that were made in the independent living lifeline upgrade and the independent living improvement fund. So we're asked to switch that money over to this Windpine House heating and lighting upgrade. So I just finally wanted to add that the project has been discussed with residents, as detailed in the report, and tenants are aware that their energy bills may go up, possibly down, but more likely overall up, but they will be paying for what they individually use once the project is completed. So I'd like to move the recommendations. Thank you very much. Is there a seconder? Yes, someone's second. Councillor Blakemore, thank you very much. And it's open for discussion. Councillor Priton. Thank you. First thing to say, so that people can breathe out, is the recommendations which are on the report here, I haven't got a problem with, I can vote for the recommendations. The remainder is merely commentary. When this has been explained to me as to how this works, and I have the benefit of the briefing, so thanks to Jim and the team for doing maths in terms of this, from my very non-expert point of view, I didn't really understand why this approach was being taken, and I remain in a very non-expert view of not understanding quite why this approach is being taken, but that's fine, because I'm not an expert and they are, and if they are recommending that this is the best way forward and that this will deliver the best outcome for residents, then I'm going to take their and Rebecca's word for that. I'm reassured that the, because I understand a service charge is currently being, a flat service charge is currently being mounted to power. When you get to individual metering obviously that will then switch to a metering for each flat, each one of which will then pay for their power. I'm a little concerned because whenever my electricity bill comes with a flat charge that I can't get away with, so the first £200 is donated straight to Octopus Energy in my instance, and it doesn't matter how much electricity I use, that £200 a year is going straight to them. I don't know if there is a, any way that we can come up with a solution that doesn't do that, but I imagine that each of them are dealing with the electricity supply and therefore they will be, fix a standing charge, which we're not going to be able to help mitigate. I merely point that out, that although I fully understand that in terms of the cost of power, there will be a few winners and some, and most people paying more within this because we're going to go to full cost recovery, that's the point of some of this, that actually the standing charge is just a win for the energy companies because that's not a charge for power, it's just what they get to do and what they're not doing at the moment. However, it does mean that there should be a more reliable heating system in Wimpine House. I really wish that we could be going to a greener solution quicker than using gas boilers for the base heat across, but then everybody else wanted to do so as well and it's just not achievable at this time. I'd really like to see solar panels being added to the mix so that would actually help the HR use, power the HR use and reduce the amount of money that they do so, but I also understand that we can't afford them at this time in terms of doing that, but I'd like us to get there. But I am reassured that work which has been done on this, thank the officers for spending their time explaining it to me slowly and in words of one syllable, I hope it goes well and as I said I've got no problem with the recommendations which mean that we're remaining within money which has been put aside for housing being spent on housing and delivering better housing for our residents. I will vote for that. Very good. Councillor Scaffron. Thank you very much. I haven't been briefed on this so I'm not even in Councillor Prater's position of knowing, he doesn't know too much about it as it were, but equally I accept the words and thank you very much for the issue for such a clear introduction and explaining it so very well. I was just slightly puzzled by 5.6 which appears to jump actually, we get 5.4 and then 5.6 on climate change implications. You mentioned the carbon saving which I really recommend. I hear very clearly the solar panels which you were mentioning, Councillor Prater, and indeed the difficulties with running with the gas system. I fully accept that that is recommended and that's absolutely within the spirit of this proposal, but I just wondered, just a little bit puzzled as to why the savings that we have got on carbon are not flagged up in the climate change implications, but maybe they shouldn't be. There's a few things to say here, I think. One is those of you who may have spent like me many happy hours talking to the residents of Whimpine House, you will know it is a complex situation, shall we say, and the key to this is the heat interface unit. Now I don't think there's going to be any change to the electricity billing on this because the system is a gas wet system. It's water that's going around rather than the electricity. So the heat interface unit is where the main hot water circulation meets the secondary hot water circulation in each of the flats. I might have to defer to Mick who is the expert. Much better to have Mick do it, or Andy, sorry Andy. Mick will explain much better than me. Well that's correct, in effect it's a kettle. So it goes in at a certain temperature and then he puts the right temperature at source. So the trick here… So that just confirms that that's gas when it leaves the sort of communal boiler but then gets to the individual flats and is heated by electric. The residents are charged for energy, not for gas or electricity. It's an energy cost combined. So do they pay a standing charge at the Councillor's point then? As I was going to go on to say, the new, well not the new, but the real difference is heat metering here. So it's not electricity metering, it's heat metering which is a difficult concept to get your head round. It is electricity metering. But it's both, so it's classed as heat metering. Sure, but the meter which is in each individual's flat and each individual will have a deal with Octopus Energy or EDF or whoever it is, is for electricity to heat their kettle, their HRU, in their flat in order to have the water at the temperature that they want it at. Because it's not powered by gas, it's powered by electric. That's what the meter does, isn't it? So that would be, we would have an energy supplier and it would be charged by them for heat metering. Not specifically electricity or gas, it would be charged as heat metering. Do the tenants pay for their own electricity to turn the lights and TV and computer on? Do the tenants currently pay for electricity to turn on their lights and their computer and their TV? They've already got individual electricity meters in every flat. It's a blanket cost at the moment. Yeah. There's no metering at the moment, no. OK, but will they be in charge for their lights on that meter when we've done this work? I think you'll find it will just be the heat, not their lighting. I think that's remarkable and not the way I'd understood it, to be honest. Well, what I could do is double check that and come back to you, yeah. I wouldn't take it, you know, it sounds simple when you throw in these terms, but believe me it is complexed. So, you know, the gas is used to generate the power, the power is converted into heat and heat is metered. To brave new world. I think if we could, yeah, maybe afterwards have some clarity on the bills and the agreements that individual tenants will have to make, whether they're paying us or whether it's going, they get to choose an electricity supplier or whatever, yeah, some clarity on that would be really useful and I did want to say as well it is, yeah, although I'm really pleased that it is going to be way more efficient and there will be huge carbon savings. Obviously if there had been any way to get it, you know, bypassing gas at this point would have been fantastic, it's what we all want, but I am, you know, reassured that it is, the system, you know, we could later plug in newer technologies down the line when that becomes a more feasible option. Andy, you're going to chip in. Thank you, I'd just like to add to that, since it's come up a couple of times, the reason we're not putting the new boilers in at the same time and get rid of the gases is because the boiler's quite new and they're very expensive boilers, so we want that to have its lifetime. This is, there's a massive carbon reduction in this, the system is way more efficient and it's future proofed, so when the boilers are on my arse legs or we've got the budget to replace the boilers, it's a fraction of the cost of the whole project just to put the ground source heat pump in rather than doing all this, this would all be needed for the ground source heat pump to work properly anyway, so this is future proofing it, it's not the whole project, but we've got budget for this at the moment, there's a big carbon saving and then we can go in a few years time when we've done some of the, we've got other priorities within the HRA and we have to use the money very wisely because we've got an ageing stock, particularly in independent living, but it will be future proofed. Thank you. Councillor Raimour. Just a really quick question on that, what is the expected life of the existing boilers, I understand they're four years old, so would you expect the last ten or fifteen years? Thirty years. Thirty years, okay, thank you. As with all installations there will come a point where it will be a balancing act in terms of after twenty years parts are more difficult to get, you know, the technology will have moved on and the old school gas fitters won't be available, so there will be loads of balancing acts, but the key thing here to understand is exactly as Andy has said, this has been future proofed, so effectively when that big piece of kit goes, then we can just swap it for another big piece of kit rather than having to tear the guts out of the building and try and do all of this work now, so if you think of it in terms of this is a complete job but in two stages, it kind of settles it in your mind more. Just so we're clear, we've got to decide on the veerment and on the works, so there's kind of two things, oh I'm getting advice here. Right, so the decision on the works has been taken which is great news, fantastic, I'm talking about that, that means we're neither wrong nor right which is really good, all we've got to do is the veerment, so while I'm sure all of the officers will regale us with the technical details so we can all come up to speed on this, what we're actually deciding is the 300,000 which we're going to move over into this project, so I've kind of forgotten, did you propose Super and Councillor Blakenore seconded, so all we've got to do now, sorry if everyone else is finished, all there is to do is really to vote, so those in favour please indicate, I think that's unanimous Gemma, thank you very much for all of that, jolly good, so item six, this is another of your ones I think, Councillor Shroop, jolly good, you can kick us off anyway, yeah. Sorry, yes, this is I think a relatively straightforward paper, so we have been offered £475,750 from the local authority housing fund phase three grant and that is to buy at least two properties which would accommodate refugees with the Afghan settlement programme and a further property which could be used to accommodate any homeless households in the district, so we had to put in an initial expression of interest by the 28th of March, we need to put in a further non-binding MOU by the 31st of March, just to confirm that we do want to take part in this programme and you'll note that the report also outlines what's been done with phases one and two, which has, we've got 15 properties that have been acquired through that phase, those phases, which is great that we've got those added to the stock of council homes, obviously the money covers at least 40% so we will have to provide the other 60% of the money to buy those three properties, but I'm extremely happy to move the recommendations. Thank you very much, Councillor Shroop, I'm very happy to second and open it for debate. Councillor Peruzza? It's a straight out good thing, we should do it. Councillor Scroff? I think it looks like an excellent proposal and it would be sort of foolish not to take up the offer of the money from the government. So, Julie Good, we have a proposer, we have a seconder and so all that remains for us to do is to vote, so we'll vote on all of the recommendations together. All those in favour, please indicate. And then Mr Chairman, thank you. Julie Good, with great help from officers, we are doing agenda item number 7, which is all about infrastructure funding. Now you'll be delighted to know I'm not going to try and explain this, but we have the wonderful James Hammond here to explain how it works. Thank you. Thank you, leader. Well, in summary, in accordance with the latest provisions made by the community infrastructure levy amendment, the IFS itself is just an annual report where we detail information on developer contributions that have been received over that period, for the period 2023, 2022 sorry, to 2023, where developer contributions have been passed on to other providers for them to deliver infrastructure in accordance with the terms on which that was secured. And then also when it comes to civil receipts, civil receipts that we've received from civil liable development, the proportionate amount that has been passed on to town's parish councils within that period, what's being retained by Fexham and Hithe towards our pot that we control for spend on strategic infrastructure, and also what's been passed over to Kent County Council in accordance with the governance arrangements that were agreed by cabinet back in July 2020. So we pass over a proportionate sum for Kent to then spend on their infrastructure priorities. So really it's an audit tool that looks back at the monitoring period, but also presents a supporting infrastructure schedule. It's a long list that then gives an idea of potential projects that could be funded in part through CIL going forward. So the recommendations are there before you. The first one being to receive a note of report. The second one to be that you agree that the council accepts the IFS for 2023, which would have immediate effect following cabinet approval. And then the third point is to note that there is consideration of the way in which members can become better engaged in and have oversight of the CIL process going forward. So I gave members a briefing back in February this year across the whole process of CIL and also gave you a flavour of the type of projects that CIL could help to support going forward. But it's just a circle back around really and revisit those conversations in a meaningful way. Julie, thank you very much for that James, that's great. So just a word of warning, many of our parishes are very, very good at spending CIL and they anticipate the CIL arriving, so when it does it barely touches the account when it's been allocated, quite rightly out for projects. High-term council are very good at spending their CIL. So the figures that are in the report are a snapshot. So when James presented to overview and scrutiny our chair, Councillor Jones, took him to task I think on the fact that she had already spent a great deal of that money as the Mayor of Hyde. So the figures are accurate but they all move. More money comes in, more money goes out and the towns and parishes spend. So while the numbers are accurate they may not be current as of this afternoon. That's really the point that I'm making. I'm happy to propose and open for debate. Councillor Blakemore. Thank you leader and thank you for that informative introduction James. I'm just trying to understand, is the timing of this report typical? Because we're now in 24, 25 and I know the report covers 22, 23 so there's a bit of a lag there. So just trying to understand the thinking behind that. Yes certainly. The intention is to publish and have it adopted by the end of the calendar year, so typically December. There's been a delay because there was a call from members to have an item taken to overview and scrutiny to really give that in-depth piece, that cross section of what CIL is, what we've taken so far in terms of receipts, how that's been spread out to town and parish councils, what the district priorities are. So we've reached year end for 23, 24. I've asked finance already for the data that we can then look to proceed and prepare the IFS for 2023 effectively. If I could just add a comment to that. The feeling coming into overview and scrutiny was that CIL needs to be demystified. We all use this phrase CIL. So James was asked and I think is delivered admirably on it in terms of providing a report with a lot of detail that I think offers a lot of transparency in terms of the process. I think that that kind of ethic, if you like, that policy of greater explanation, more detail, more transparency, although it may be extremely time consuming and no doubt frustrating for James, that is the policy that we will be pursuing and I think this report does that. Councillor Prater. Thank you. I had an early view of this report in what was a major organisational mistake and how major an organisational mistake it was and it became apparent when I read it and had a long conversation with James and Ewan about where it came to. I just want to say that the report has been amended since that first draft and I very much welcome the amendments which have been made there and I think that this provides us a reasonable basis to go forward. The reason why I had a problem with it to begin with is the reason that I'm sure that every cabinet member, indeed every councillor, look out there is that you look at the priority projects for the spend of SIL by FNHDC and you look at the list and I think it probably would be a list that I would have written of ways of spending a fair amount of that money but I don't know because I've never been asked. It is not a councillor led decision and although it has been reported to overview and scrutiny they have no power to amend it and we don't even have power to amend it as I understand it. The process sits outside councillors and that makes me really uncomfortable with any decision. We talk about when we go to committee system where do these reports come or we're in the cabinet system now and you're being told what this money is being spent on not being asked or given a paper saying we'd like to spend it on these things do you want to put things in and take things out or adjust money up or adjust money down this is just the way that it is. And where I really welcome the report and recommendation 3 in the report is that that's been understood and UN has taken that on board and that we are going to consider how members can become better engaged with and have oversight of the community infrastructure levy process which will be subject to a future report. I really hope that that future report includes involvement in not just engagement oversight and a reporting. Actually I think that councillors should have you know when it gets to a committee system a paper should be going to committee saying here are the things that we think we need to spend money on the justification for the reason that we should spend this money on those things please can we have member support for that as well not just that I get to complain about it in the margins. As I said I think if I look at any individual one of those items on there I'd have probably put it on there as well but I'd have loved to have been asked. And I think that this process where we amend this process and where we go through the constitutional review over the course of the next few months and where we come forward with a new constitution we should be building in that a committee somewhere gets hold of this and is involved in making the decision not just seeing the decision. And there's probably going to be all sorts of loneliness around CIL and how one can do that and that it has to be different protocols as opposed to just member decision. But I'm also willing to bet that there is a way of involving councillors in that decision and we should get there. So that's what my significant hope is for under item three is that that's the way that this will start to work more in future particularly under the committee system whereby people can get engaged in that in a real way and actually help direct funds into things that are real priorities for that committee for the entire council area. But I also understand that the infrastructure funding statement has to be agreed it's a look back it's a snapshot of where we what has happened it is therefore we can't amend that so we should receive a notice report. We should accept the IFS statement which is in appendix one and we should absolutely look forward to the recommendation three that we consider how this process works in future so that we're not just looking at a list that members have no say in but that somebody is looking at a list and has choices and that some of those people are councillors. So I will vote for this report on that and I said I welcome Ewan's work in terms of making sure that recommendation three is there and I really hope that that's the way that that plays out. Very good. I mean you know we that is the intention not necessarily you know councillors making the decision but being involved in the decision. It will be for officers but we want to well there's because there's money involved there's always a great deal of you know I can completely agree with you in terms of the involvement in councillors of councillors rather than just being given a list to approve. So so we say that is the direction that we're travelling in. Sorry just to be clear we've not been given a list to approve here at all. We're being reported a list here. We can say yes to it or no it doesn't stop the expenditure tomorrow. They were being reported a list but it's not having a list to approve. I don't understand the logic where their members can't vote on spending money on stuff on a list. We do it all of the time. We just did it on Wimpime House. Spend two hundred thousand pounds that be put aside for one thing. Let's spend it on another thing. Literally what we do. And I look forward to a mechanism which allows that to happen without civil money as well. I don't hugely accept the argument but I'm sure that we will see one coming over the next few months as to why that couldn't be done. You know standard committee reports and discussed in that way which will absolutely done right be guided by officers absolutely be an officer's recommendation. We need to do this and this and this and this is the source of funding we can do so and Andy will make a strong pitch for I want to do this this and this and without this money I can't do this this and this and you'll tell me off. But we should be involved in saying yeah go for it because it gives him cover too at that moment because that's what we're here for. And what will they do without us? Yeah well I think I think we're we're more or less agreed on on that. But that is that is the direction of travel. That's an intention. That's a destination if you like. What we've got at the moment is we've got three recommendations. I think I'm moved. Oh Councillor Blakemore. Sorry I had some questions which I have spoken to James well emailed James about before the previous meeting when it was going to be coming forward on the actual infrastructure schedule because I believe that's looking forward rather than looking back. And there was some notes in there that felt like they were maybe out of date particularly on issues like the let's get into the detail here but the Cheriton Road Cherry Garden Avenue Junction which I'm now advised isn't part of the active travel scheme and it is noted as being part of that in the schedule. And there's some also some information around buses which seems to quote numbers that no longer exist as of last September. And yeah just some sort of clarification on that says there's talk about a bus route between Hyde and Folkstone West and yeah I think we were going to have some clarity on that. Thank you. James. Yeah thank you. So the information is typically gathered from Kent County Council on things like bus routes so for the item that you've referred to there effectively short of Garrison the 106 makes a significant contribution towards pump priming bus service improvements in and around the Garrison site because of the change in the commercial environment for network providers there's had to be revision on the subsequent routes that would be supported so that detail I don't have before me but I've requested it from KCC so that when the revision to the 106 is made because it has to be indeed a variation that the wording of that change then gets incorporated into the next version of the infrastructure schedule. So there won't be there won't be any lessening of the financial contribution it'll just be a redistribution of the funding to different routes. Just adds to the feeling that we're looking at an out of date document if you like it's not really clear where that money's going because there's also an issue on page 70 there's references to the Princess Parade S106 which then sort of begs the whole bigger question about where's all that money going now. I don't I mean in terms of commenting on specifics so Princess Parade I know there's been various capital items about the current status of Princess Parade but the intention was not to kind of mislead anyone but maintain the line item for that because the project in the future I don't know the full detail as to what direction the traveler will go in. If the next revision means that it comes out then that's no problem it's an editing change that is easily instructed but just to give a framework of what the future position could look like in a simplistic way the infrastructure schedule is a long list of projects that could potentially be supported there's no cast iron guarantee that they will be supported it's just that by referencing them there is that schedule so every about this time every year I go out to the providers in the infrastructure so not only internal providers such as Andy's team and others but then to external providers so on health transport etc and I remind them that we work to the framework of a schedule and then the question asked is are there any updates to be made for the next version to be published so from an editorial sense I apologize that maybe one or two have slipped through the net but those changes can be made in that data later in the year so the framework is the longest is the schedule then we know from a backwards look what the funding position is in terms of how much is held on account what's been committed so in terms of the recommendation three it's quite easy to understand I think that we'll have potential long list of projects a known amount of funding and then there'll be a discussion around how can that funding amount be directed towards which projects and that's really how members could be proactively involved are you ok with that Councillor Blakemore yeah that's fine thank you I mean my introductory remarks were kind of about this kind of time lag and forward look and you know which which makes it all a bit complicated and certainly you know there is stuff in there that's absolutely pinpoint accurate and there's other stuff that's a kind of you know cast forward as it were so it is it is a difficult document to read in a in a kind of single context ok jolly good so we've we've had our report I've moved the report I don't think we've got a seconder so if someone would care to second the report Councillor Shrew thank you very much and there are three recommendations we're taking all three together those in favour please indicate thank you very much that's jolly good and that concludes our meeting so thank you very much for attending. [BLANK_AUDIO]

Transcript

Transcript

Thank you very much. Good evening and welcome to the meeting of the Cabinet. This meeting will be webcast live to the internet. For those who do not wish to be recorded or filmed, you will need to leave the Chamber. For members, officers and others speaking at the meeting, it is important that the microphones are used so viewers on the webcast and others in the room may hear you. Would anyone with a mobile phone please switch it to silent mode as they can be distracting? I would like to remind members that although we all have strong opinions on matters under consideration, it is important to treat members, officers and public speakers with respect. So welcome everyone. We are going for the world record of the shortest Cabinet meeting this evening. If we could start with apologies for absence. Thank you leader. We have received an apology from Councillor Holgate. Moving on to declarations of interest. Is there anyone who would like to make a declaration of interest? Councillor Lockwood, welcome. Thank you leader. I'm not officially part of this meeting but just to err on the side of caution I'm going to declare an interest against point number 5. In the past, many years ago, I was professionally engaged by East Kent Spatial Development Company and paid for work. Thank you very much. That's duly noted. Thank you. No other declarations can I see? Okay, jolly good. So now we can move on to the minutes. The minutes of the last meeting on the 20th of March 2024. Does anyone have any issues or concerns with those minutes? Happy to move. Councillor Blake's happy to move. Can we have a seconder? Oh Councillor Blakemore seconded. All those in favour please indicate. Thank you very much everyone. I'll now sign the minutes. Thank you. Right, thank you very much everyone. So agenda item 4 relating to the infrastructure funding strategy 2023 will not be considered at this meeting this evening. It has been deferred for consideration at a future meeting of the cabinet. So we will go straight on, if that's okay, to agenda item 5, the East Kent Spatial Development Company update. Now I'm sure you've all read your pack with interest. I certainly did and so the East Kent Spatial Development Company is a local authority controlled development company operating across East Kent and the surrounding area. I think it's important to note the partners, Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Folkestone and Hyde District Council, Thanet District Council, Kent County Council, the University of Kent and Locate in Kent. It's an interesting report and I'm delighted to welcome Councillor Lockwood who is here this evening to take us through the report. So over to you Councillor Lockwood. Thank you leader. Just to give a bit of background on my declaration earlier I was professionally engaged to project manage as a building surveyor the development of the Romney Marsh Enterprise Hub. So I literally know that building inside out and I was behind the walls, above the ceilings etc. And then I was very lucky to be able to visit recently with Councillor Cooper, arranged by Debbie who's here, the director, to meet the site, the business manager there, Darian Price, who I work with in the creative quarter many years before that. So my connection to this project goes back at least 12 years. I have a good knowledge of that site and I was very thankful leader for your invite to become a director of this. I was curious to know what was happening at Boverie House which is the other folks in the high of the district council project and we've had three, four meetings since then and you know it's a wonderful project and Debbie will expand more across the other sites but we have a wonderful opportunity here. Between the seven partners we're one of two or possibly three that has more than one site within the district. But what I would flag, and I'll keep this very brief so you hit your world record, is that Boverie House sits between Folker and the bus station and this is critical part of the LUF development. So please any questions for myself or Debbie or the team around Boverie House. We would welcome your ideas about getting more occupancy in that building. It's the lowest occupancy across all of the East Kent spatial development sites. It's struggling a bit with its location because you know look out the window and it needs Folker to be developed and it needs the bus station site to be developed but thankfully there's a plan for that in place. So I'll leave it there. We'll take any questions if there are any and hand over to talk about the sites around Canterbury and Whistable. I don't think there are any in Fannock are there? No. So Folkestone and Hive 2, Fannock 0. Very good. Do you want to come in? No? You're OK? So Debbie would you like to expand a little on what Adrian has given us? Yes certainly and please do if I do go on a little bit please feel free to stop me because I've lived and breathed EKSDC since about 2002 and I can talk about it for England and I can see everyone's eyes glaze over. So please feel free to stop me but just in summary and I won't go too much on about the formation of the company it's in the report but in terms of business centres our first business centre we did developed in conjunction with the University of Kent at Canterbury and it was really and Susan will remember the days of the South East England Development Agency and them moving away and being closed down and EKSDC took on the Canterbury Innovation Centre which is a large sort of architecturally designed building on the University of Kent campus and it really gave us a really good basis for the company in terms of income generation and really made us a forward thinking sustainable company. Following on from that we developed further office space and workshop units in the Alsham area which is obviously a Dover, well the Dover District Council area. They've always been very successful. They're managed by the Alsham Trust there so it's all given back a little bit to the community. We let that on a profit share basis. In terms of EKSDC then reinvested funds we purchased Clover House in Whitstable which was a building that had been empty for approximately three years had previously been occupied by the Kent County Council and whilst a structurally sound building it was nothing short of a wreck internally as you can imagine a building that had been empty for that period of time but also been phased out over a period of time even before that. We completely gutted that building, refitted it into modern office space and that has been in support of the Canterbury Innovation Centre a very, very successful project. So they're the main buildings outside of the Folkestone and Highvedon District Council area. Okay, thanks very much Debbie. So members do we have any questions for our guests? Councillor Shrew. Thank you. I just wondered if there's anything on the horizon. It was mentioned I think the reserves are looking quite healthy going forward so I just wondered what the future plans are. Yeah, our most imminent project is we're looking at working with Dover District Council on the Dover Beacon Project which is a building that's been developed using levelling up funds and it's a free stage building so there's a business centre, a creative centre and college, three separate entities encased in one building. That's due to be opening in 2026 and whilst the board haven't made a formal approval of it yet, we have an approval in principle of being involved in the business centre side of that project. In terms of what else is coming through the pipeline, there isn't anything, obviously there's lots of discussions that always go on but there isn't anything secure at this time. So open to options really. Councillor Proater. Thank you, Jim. So yeah, I'm mindlessly parochial so I'm going to go with Boverley and Romulan because that's where we are. Reading the appendix to the report, obviously it's clear that Bovary House doesn't have the occupancy that you'd hope it would and understood. I can see that the report says that there's no single reason but I'd be grateful if you'd give us, expand a little bit on what you think the multitude of reasons might be. I hear what Adrian says, it doesn't have the outlook at the moment and hopefully the new town square effectively will give it that outlook. Equally, we're doing our best to make sure we provide you with neighbours as soon as we can afford to at FOCA. But it can't just be that, can it? So it would be interesting to hear your feedback as to where that is. Good to see that you were saying that you were having a discussion about basically doubling occupancy with quite soon and especially the ground floor units as well, how that will help animation for the area and be useful. I think that's an important thing. It currently feels like the bottom of a staircase as you walk past there at the moment because it's the bottom of a staircase and not feeling like that would really help the animation of that area I think. So yeah, I'd be interested to know why you feel you're having, the range of reasons why you think you're having difficulties around that and whether it's just that that's what the market looks like or whether you think there are other things that we should know about in terms of netting space there as well. And also just slightly to tease your business case at this stage, presumably that one's not making as much contribution or any contribution to the EKSDC overall or is it, or does it wash its face anyway at 30% occupancy? I was going to tease out that as well. The same question on the last point to Romney Marsh Business Hub, presumably with the pretty excellent occupancy that you have there, that one actually is washing its face but I just, I'm making a presumption I don't want to do so. I'd like to know if that actually is good, a positive place on your, in the investment. Thank you. Do you mind if I work backwards? So in terms of Romney Marsh Business Hub, that moved into profit actually last financial year and is anticipated to remain in profit. I think at the end of the financial year that's just concluded, it made in the region of, we still want to tie up the final accounts but in the region of £42,000. So for a centre that's opened fairly recently it's really fitted its profile in terms of occupancy. In terms of Bovary House, Bovary House is losing money so currently the EKSDC is, if you like, funding it. I don't believe it'll be a long-term situation. I think the centre will move into profit. I still have complete faith in it. I think the feedback from people who undertake viewings is always, it's probably some of the best office space in the area and I think we're probably, certainly for the quality of the office, one of the cheapest in the area. So I think we're pitching the property right. I think probably the main issue or if I could only identify one issue and I think there are multiple, certainly in terms of the building, it's parking and it's not necessarily, there's plenty of parking around there. It's not specifically the parking, it's the access to and from the parking. So I had, for example, one tenant leave who clearly said to us I can't do another winter walk-in to the car park in the dark. So I think it's, so it's not necessarily the lack of parking, it's the area around the building, shall we say. In terms of other tenants that have left the building, it's generally been, you know, Oh well, I live in Dover so I'm now looking for office in Dover. So it becomes very hard to tie down individual circumstances. I think the EKSDC business model creates churn and that's the nature of our business model. We're easy in easier terms. People do move out. But in order to maintain the occupancy, you've got to have the people moving in. And at all our centres, since probably about April/May last year when the cost of living here, we had that churn dropping or that level dropping because whilst we, it wasn't necessarily an increase in the number of people that were vacating the building. We weren't getting those levels of people coming through. And I believe it was the cost of living that impacted that. Now obviously at Boverie we were starting at a lower point when that hit, and I think that's the main reason why there is lower occupancy than we anticipated. So I think it's, there's some, some of it involves the building itself, where it's located, and the parking, but also a large part of it is the environment. And I say that, sorry, the economic environment, and I say that because we are now starting to see an increase across all of our centres, an increase in interest. Tim. Thank you, that's really valuable. And the point about parking as well, as you said, it's not an absence of parking in the local area, it's not an absence of parking within a few, couple of minutes walk, but it's about walking routes and dry walking routes and well lit walking routes to well lit and dry parking. That's helpful feedback for property owners in the area. So yeah, thank you for that taken on board, and thank you for the, I really hope that we don't want you going anywhere, and I'm sure that nobody likes to see a drag on the accounts in terms of us leaving, but I hope by the time those new clients come on board and that ground floor is animated, that they'll be close enough, but it will then fall through. So thank you very much. Adrian, yes. Thank you, Jim. Just on the matter of animating the ground floor, and this is by no means a matter of a cabinet at all, but I have asked if the council could provide a screen in the ground floor window whilst it's empty, showing the fly through so that people walking past can see the plan that's about to unfold. Thank you very much. I have a question. It's a balance sheet question. Your investment property increased substantially between the two years that's shown, 22 and 23. I was wondering whether you could tell us why that was. You've got almost a 25% increase in that number, from 7,549 up to 9,737, and I'm just wondering was there something added to the portfolio that made that jump, or was there some kind of substantial revaluation? We would have done a revaluation within that time, so we do a revaluation every two years, and in that period that might well have been the addition of the Romney Marsh Business Hub. No good asking me. I'm asking you. I mean, that would be my assumption, but I could check and come back to you if that's okay with that. Okay. That would be very great. I'm just trying to say I don't have the exact answer for you. No problem. Sorry to put you on the spot. It just caught my eye. I'm sorry. Yes, I'm happy to provide an answer. Do any other members have any questions or queries? So our recommendations is to receive and note the report, to raise matters for consideration of the council's appointed board director and company chief executive, which I think we've done. So is there a necessity to vote on this? I'll propose a second in the next. Okay. So if I could have a proposer to move the report. Happy to do so. Thank you very much, Tim. Could I have a seconder? Oh, Councillor Fuller. Happy to second. Thank you very much. All those in favour, please indicate. Thank you very much, and probably didn't break any records, but that was a fairly brief cabinet meeting. So thank Thank you all for your participation. Thank you.