Agenda item

The Board was given an opportunity to consider and comment upon the draft Revenue Budget for 2016/17. The Leader of the Council, Deputy Leader, the Chief Financial Officer and the Service Manager (Finance) answered members’ questions in connection with the report.

The Board noted that the higher level penalty charge for car parking in Appendix G should read £70 and not £7.

The following key points were raised during the course of the discussion:

1.               there was no demand for season tickets at Beachlands by non residents so it was proposed to remove this charge from the Budget;

2.               the introduction of the individual registration system had increased the workload of the electoral registration teams at Havant and East Hampshire which could only be met by a permanent increase in the workforce

3.               the additional work created by transformation projects such as the Joint Venture Company and 5 Councils had led to a temporary increase in Human Resources staffing

4.               There had been a reduction in car parking income: a review of the car parking strategy (including fees) would be undertaken in 2016/17.

5.               The Cabinet had carefully considered the Scrutiny Board’s recommendations to retain CCTV and explored other ways to make savings. However, it had been concluded that, in view of the need to find significant savings, the retention of CCTV could not be justified for the following reasons:

(ii)      the ratio of arrests to the costs of CCTV did not justify the retention of CCTV

(ii)      the provision of CCTV was not a statutory requirement;

(iii)     the Police and Crime Commissioner had refused to contribute towards the costs of the provision of CCTV although the precept raised by the Police was due to increase this year

(iv)    an attempt to raise a contribution towards the funding of CCTV from local Businesses had failed

(v)     evidence indicated that CCTV did not reduce crime: the police had not provided information to show that CCTV in the Borough had led to convictions or reduced anti social behaviour, the main reason for introducing CCTV in the Borough. A Welsh Council had demonstrated that the removal of CCTV reduced crime; and

(vii)      there had been a national reduction in the level of crime

(ix)       new legislation will place additional burdens and costs on CCTV which the Council could not afford

(6)        the draft budget had not taken into account decisions which the Council was expected to make e.g. the Joint Venture scheme

(7)        the changes to fees and charges for pest control were part of a review being undertaken by Environmental Health

(8)        charges reflected a number of factors, including staff costs. Therefore an increase in staff costs would not automatically lead to an increase in a fee or charge;

Although the Board raised no objection to the recommendations set out in the report concern was raised that, contrary to public demand, it was proposed to cease the CCTV system. The Board questioned the robustness of the case for the removal of CCTV and whether additional income could be generated or savings made elsewhere e.g. not proceeding with the proposed purchase and installation of poster frames at a cost of £61,000.

During the debate, the Chief Financial Officer strongly advised the Board that reserves should not be used to fund running costs of the CCTV system.

The Board considered that, in view of the delay in issuing the budget papers, it was impracticable for the Board give proper consideration to the Budget. It was therefore

RESOLVED that

(i)               authority be delegated to the 5 Councils’ Procurement Scrutiny Panel to complete the scrutiny of the budget and make recommendations, on behalf of the Scrutiny Board, to Cabinet: and

(ii)              that members of the Scrutiny Board be appointed as members of the 5 Council’s Scrutiny Panel to be held on 2 February 2016.