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]
