Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and notification of substitutions

Apologies for absence were received from the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Procurement, Mr J Simmonds, who was substituted by the Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance and Procurement, Miss S J Carey.

No declarations of interest were received.

To agree the minutes of the meeting from 30 November 2015.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 30 November 2015 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Leader stated that he had decided to vary the order of the agenda and deal with the Revenue and Capital Budget Monitoring Report (item 6) before the Budget 2016/17 and Medium Term Financial Plan 2016-19 (item 5).

To receive for information, the latest monitoring position on both the revenue and capital budgets and to agree necessary changes to the capital programme.

Cabinet received a report providing the budget monitoring position for November 2015-16 for the revenue and capital budgets.

Ms Susan Carey, Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance and Procurement was in attendance in the absence of Mr John Simmonds, Cabinet Member and she introduced for Members the key information to which they should have regard. In particular, she highlighted the following in relation to the revenue budget:

i           The savings target for 2015/16 was £83m, which was an extremely challenging target. The net projected variance against the combined directorate revenue budgets was an overspend of £0.861m, a reduction from the quarter 2 projected overspend of £6.609m, before management action.

ii          Management action was expected to reduce this overspend to an underspend of -£0.539m. However, there was some minor re-phasing of budgets, which would need to be rolled forward to 2016/17 in order to fulfil legal obligations (detailed in section 3.7 of the report); therefore, this changed the position to an underspend of -£0.231m as shown in the report.

iii         There was some significant underspending within the forecast, which was detailed in section 3.8 of the report, which would ideally be rolled forward to continue with these initiatives in 2016/17 but this would only be possible if the Authority as a whole was sufficiently underspending by the year end. If this was allowed for, then this changed the position to an underlying overspend of £1.036m.

iv         Directorates had been tasked with coming up with further management action to balance the position.

Ms Carey also commented that the report contained mixed messages; the position had improved significantly, by £5.5m after allowing for assumed management action and roll forward requirements, which was extremely good news, but the majority of the improvement was in respect of the release of £4.2m of uncommitted Care Act monies resulting from the Government announcement to delay the implementation of phase 2 Care Act reforms. She stressed, however, that the draft funding settlement for 2016-17 was awaited before releasing this money in case it was assumed in the settlement that this funding would be required for future social care pressures such as the National Living Wage.

Ms Carey also referred to paragraph 3.6 on page 54 of the report, where it was noted that high waste volumes experienced during 2014/15 had continued into the first 8 months of 2015/16 with a forecast overspend of £2.063m currently reported. However, this was more than offset by savings on management fees at waste disposal sites, in-vessel composting, higher than anticipated income from recyclables, lower cost of waste to energy disposal, contract savings at Household Waste Recycling Centres and transfer stations and a re-phasing of works at closed landfill sites into 2016/17, resulting in a small net underspend on the waste budgets of -£0.020m.

She also referred to the details of the proposed roll-forwards/re-phasing required to complete existing initiatives as detailed in paragraph 3.8 of the report.

Mr Andy Wood, Corporate Director of Finance and Procurement stated that he shared Ms Carey’s confidence  ...  view the full minutes text for item 151.

To consider and endorse to County Council for agreement, the draft budget and the council tax precept (including the additional Social Care Levy) taking into account proposed amendments from Cabinet Committees and late changes to the draft Budget and MTFP published on 11th January 2016.

Cabinet received a report setting out the proposed budget for 2016/17 and the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) 2016-19 for consideration and comment before it would be considered and determined at County Council on 11 February 2016. The proposed draft budget included a 1.998% council tax increase (up to the referendum limit) and a further 2% through the social care levy. The draft budget represented the Council’s response to the local budget consultation and consequences of the Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015 and the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement.

Ms Susan Carey, Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance and Procurement introduced the item. 

She began by congratulating officers, particularly Dave Shipton and Lizi Payne for the timely production of a clear and detailed draft budget based on the information currently available to the Council, which was made even more difficult than usual this year because the provisional local government finance settlement announcement just before Christmas was so significantly different to what the Council had expected. In particular, the changes to various grants, together with a redistribution change had affected the Council in a fundamental way and these changes were made very late.  She observed that the balancing of the 2015/16 budget would be extremely difficult as reported in the last item and that the setting of the 2016/17 budget had also presented significant challenges.  The squeeze on local government finances would continue to present increasing problems in the future, particularly 2017/18.

She went on to refer in particular to the following:

1. The proposed Revenue Support Grant (RSG) settlement included three key changes, which were set out in detail in paragraph 1.2. The combined effect was a reduction of £18m more than had been anticipated following the Spending Review, which had been done without consultation or prior notification and could not have been anticipated.
2. There was some good news, however, in paragraph 1.3, where confirmation was given about an increase in the council tax base, both in terms of collection and a growth in housing stock. 
3. However, even if KCC decided to increase Council Tax up to the referendum level (1.998%) as well as the additional 2% social care levy, there remained a shortfall when compared to the additional spending demands of almost £80m as detailed in paragraph 1.4 of the report. Announcements about a number of specific and ring-fenced grants were also still awaited.
4. At such short notice, the proposed budget included a greater use of reserves in a way that had not been planned.
5. The Capital budget was also under significant pressure, as described in paragraph 1.6; as the Council’s revenue budget decreased, the amount of money used to finance borrowing would also have to be reduced and, therefore, it was unlikely that any new borrowing would be considered and new schemes would have to be limited to resources available from capital grants and external sources/receipts.
6. She referred to the table in paragraph 2.1, which showed a significant reduction in the Council’s funding settlement over the next three  ...  view the full minutes text for item 152.

To agree and adopt the refreshed Kent Environment Strategy: A strategy for environment, health and economy by Kent County Council. 

Cabinet received a report on the Kent Environment Strategy: A Strategy for environment, health and economy, which had been the subject of a public consultation from 27 July to 25 September 2015, as agreed by the Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee on 21 July 2015. Following on from the consultation, the strategy was updated to reflect feedback and the final draft of the strategy was endorsed by the Kent Leaders’ Group on 24 November and the Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee on 4 December 2015. The report now before the Cabinet recommended formal adoption of the Kent Environment Strategy.

Mr Balfour, Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport stated that this had been an extremely good piece of work, which had evolved through consultation and he praised Carolyn McKenzie and her team for achieving co-operation and agreement from Districts and other key stakeholders.

Carolyn McKenzie, Head of Sustainable Business and Communities, was present and gave an informative presentation, which outlined the high level priorities, which were derived either through legislation, partner priorities or stakeholder and customer needs. She added that the strategy was very much a Kent strategy, a partnership document with Kent County Council as the facilitator and leading by example. The strategy contained key links to other areas, such as health and economy and there were shared risks and opportunities from climate and wider environmental factors such as population and land use change. Members were advised that the rapidly-changing policy environment over the last 3-5 years, coupled with a recession and severe public sector cuts had driven the need to review the strategy as well as the needs of the public health agenda. With regard to the approach, Carolyn McKenzie explained that the strategy was very much evidence-based with strong engagement through a range of workshops, partner meetings and a full consultation exercise, including a public perception survey.

She explained that there were a number of significant opportunities and challenges, mainly due to the high level of growth in Kent; these issues included poor air quality in some areas, 8% of residents in fuel poverty, severe weather impacts such as flooding and severe pressure on ground water supplies.

On the positive side, she explained that a high proportion of respondents to the survey had stated that they regarded the Kent countryside as important to them and eco-tourism, which included visits to public parks and the coast, was worth £2.5bn to the Kent economy.

More than 75% of the respondents to the survey supported the high level aims and many of those who didn’t wanted a stronger focus in some of the same areas. One of the most important areas of public feedback was the need to balance development with the needs of the environment. Other key issues going forward related to making the coast more important/prominent and noise, specifically airport noise. All of these factors had been included within the strategy.

The next stage in the process would be to develop a detailed implementation plan to support the high  ...  view the full minutes text for item 153.

To determine the co-ordinated schemes for Primary & Secondary Admissions in Kent, the ‘In-Year’ Admission process for Primary & Secondary schools in Kent and the admission arrangements for the 2017/18 school year for Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools

Cabinet received a report on the outcome of the consultation on admissions arrangements and the proposed scheme of transfer to Primary and Secondary Schools in September 2017 including the proposed process for non-co-ordinated in year admissions. Cabinet was being asked to determine the co-ordinated schemes for Primary and Secondary Admissions in Kent, the ‘in-year’ admissions process for Primary and Secondary Schools in Kent and the admission arrangements for the 2017/18 school year for Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools.

Mr Roger Gough, Cabinet Member for Education and Health Reform introduced the report and stated that these proposed arrangements had been seen and approved by the Education and Young People’s Cabinet Committee. He added that the proposed arrangements firstly reflected the County Council’s role in ‘holding the ring’ across the system of school admission arrangements in general and, secondly, to set over-subscription criteria for those schools for whom KCC was still the admissions authority, which still amounted to the bulk of primary schools but only the seven secondary schools listed on page 294 of the report.

Mr Gough stated that there were no material changes to the co-ordinated schemes following the consultation process. However, in terms of the over-subscription criteria, two areas of change were highlighted: firstly, for the Dartford Bridge Community Primary School where the proposal was to create a priority zone around the school in response to ongoing housing development; and, secondly in relation to Tunbridge Wells Boys Grammar School where there was a proposal to give priority to Pupil Premium children within each of the school’s admissions criteria.

Mr Patrick Leeson, Corporate Director for Education, Learning and Skills stated that the Council was required to review its admission arrangements on an annual basis. He stated that overall, the co-ordinated admission arrangements worked very well in the face of a much more diverse system where more and more schools were now their own admissions authorities and that the admission arrangements to schools in Kent was fair, even if some parents did not believe that in their particular cases. He added that the percentage of offers of first or second preferences for primary and secondary schools in Kent remained in the mid 80s, which was good in relation to national averages, although it was becoming harder each year to achieve these high levels because of the sheer complexity of the admission arrangements. Mr Leeson spoke about the increasing number of complaints nationally about the fairness of admission arrangements for Academy Schools and this had been highlighted in the national schools’ adjudicator’s report as an increasing trend; however, in Kent, there did not appear to be a significant problem in that regard and if a complaint was made, KCC would take it up with the relevant academy or the schools adjudicator to resolve, if necessary.

Mr Gough spoke again to endorse the comments of Mr Leeson that the job of holding the ring becomes more complex each year and asked Cabinet colleagues to offer their thanks and appreciation to Scott Bagshaw  ...  view the full minutes text for item 154.