Budget Scrutiny Inquiry Task and Finish Group - Tuesday 13 January 2026, 10:00am - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting

Budget Scrutiny Inquiry Task and Finish Group
Tuesday, 13th January 2026 at 10:00am 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr John Chilver
Share this agenda point
  1. Katie Dover - Senior Scrutiny Officer
  2. Cllr John Chilver
  3. Cllr Chris Poll
  4. Cllr John Chilver
  5. Cllr Andy Huxley
  6. Cllr John Chilver
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Peter Brazier
  2. Cllr John Chilver
  3. Cllr Chris Poll
  4. Cllr Peter Brazier
  5. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  6. Cllr Peter Brazier
  7. Cllr John Chilver
  8. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  9. Cllr Peter Brazier
  10. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  11. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  12. Cllr Peter Brazier
  13. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  14. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  15. Cllr John Chilver
  16. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  17. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  18. David Skinner - Director of Finance & S151 Officer
  19. Cllr John Chilver
  20. Cllr Christine Adali
  21. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  22. Cllr Christine Adali
  23. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  24. Cllr Christine Adali
  25. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  26. Cllr Christine Adali
  27. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  28. Cllr John Chilver
  29. Cllr Martin Tett
  30. Cllr Peter Brazier
  31. Cllr Martin Tett
  32. Cllr Peter Brazier
  33. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  34. Cllr Martin Tett
  35. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  36. Cllr Martin Tett
  37. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  38. Cllr Martin Tett
  39. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  40. Cllr Martin Tett
  41. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  42. Cllr Martin Tett
  43. Cllr John Chilver
  44. Cllr Anna Crabtree
  45. Cllr Peter Brazier
  46. Cllr Anna Crabtree
  47. Cllr Peter Brazier
  48. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  49. Cllr Peter Brazier
  50. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  51. Cllr John Chilver
  52. Cllr Peter Brazier
  53. Cllr John Chilver
  54. Cllr Nidhi Mehta
  55. Cllr Peter Brazier
  56. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  57. Cllr John Chilver
  58. Cllr Andy Huxley
  59. Cllr Peter Brazier
  60. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  61. Cllr John Chilver
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Isobel Darby
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Isobel Darby
  2. Cllr John Chilver
  3. Cllr Martin Tett
  4. Cllr Isobel Darby
  5. Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care
  6. Cllr Martin Tett
  7. Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care
  8. Cllr Martin Tett
  9. Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care
  10. Cllr John Chilver
  11. Cllr Christine Adali
  12. Cllr Isobel Darby
  13. Cllr Christine Adali
  14. Cllr Isobel Darby
  15. Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care
  16. Emma Wilding - Head of Finance, Adults & Health
  17. Cllr Christine Adali
  18. Cllr Isobel Darby
  19. Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care
  20. Cllr John Chilver
  21. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  22. Cllr Isobel Darby
  23. Emma Wilding - Head of Finance, Adults & Health
  24. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  25. Cllr Isobel Darby
  26. Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care
  27. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  28. Cllr Isobel Darby
  29. David Munday - Director of Public Health
  30. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  31. David Munday - Director of Public Health
  32. Cllr John Chilver
  33. Cllr Chris Poll
  34. Cllr John Chilver
  35. Cllr Anna Crabtree
  36. Emma Wilding - Head of Finance, Adults & Health
  37. Cllr Anna Crabtree
  38. Cllr Isobel Darby
  39. Cllr John Chilver
  40. Cllr Isobel Darby
  41. Cllr John Chilver
  42. Cllr Nidhi Mehta
  43. Cllr Isobel Darby
  44. Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care
  45. Cllr Nidhi Mehta
  46. Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care
  47. Emma Wilding - Head of Finance, Adults & Health
  48. Cllr Nidhi Mehta
  49. Cllr Isobel Darby
  50. Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care
  51. Cllr Nidhi Mehta
  52. Cllr Isobel Darby
  53. Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care
  54. David Munday - Director of Public Health
  55. Cllr John Chilver
  56. Cllr Andy Huxley
  57. Cllr Isobel Darby
  58. David Munday - Director of Public Health
  59. Cllr Andy Huxley
  60. David Munday - Director of Public Health
  61. Cllr John Chilver
  62. Cllr Dev Dhillon
  63. Cllr Isobel Darby
  64. Emma Wilding - Head of Finance, Adults & Health
  65. Cllr Isobel Darby
  66. Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care
  67. Cllr Dev Dhillon
  68. Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care
  69. Cllr John Chilver
  70. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  71. Cllr Isobel Darby
  72. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  73. Cllr John Chilver
  74. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  75. Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care
  76. Cllr John Chilver
  77. Cllr Chris Poll
  78. Cllr Isobel Darby
  79. Cllr John Chilver
  80. Cllr Anna Crabtree
  81. Cllr Isobel Darby
  82. Cllr Anna Crabtree
  83. Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care
  84. Cllr John Chilver
  85. Cllr Martin Tett
  86. Cllr Isobel Darby
  87. Cllr Martin Tett
  88. Cllr Isobel Darby
  89. Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care
  90. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  91. Cllr John Chilver
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr John Chilver
  2. Cllr Mark Winn
  3. Cllr John Chilver
  4. Cllr Trevor Snaith
  5. Cllr Mark Winn
  6. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  7. Cllr Mark Winn
  8. Cllr Trevor Snaith
  9. Cllr John Chilver
  10. Cllr Martin Tett
  11. Cllr Mark Winn
  12. Cllr Martin Tett
  13. Cllr Mark Winn
  14. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  15. Cllr Martin Tett
  16. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  17. Cllr John Chilver
  18. Cllr Christine Adali
  19. Cllr Mark Winn
  20. Cllr Christine Adali
  21. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  22. Cllr Christine Adali
  23. Cllr Mark Winn
  24. Cllr John Chilver
  25. Cllr Christine Adali
  26. Cllr Mark Winn
  27. Cllr Christine Adali
  28. Cllr John Chilver
  29. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  30. Cllr Mark Winn
  31. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  32. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  33. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  34. Cllr Mark Winn
  35. Cllr John Chilver
  36. Cllr Dev Dhillon
  37. Cllr Mark Winn
  38. Cllr Dev Dhillon
  39. Cllr Mark Winn
  40. Cllr John Chilver
  41. Cllr Chris Poll
  42. Cllr Mark Winn
  43. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  44. Cllr Chris Poll
  45. Cllr Mark Winn
  46. Cllr Chris Poll
  47. Cllr John Chilver
  48. Cllr Nidhi Mehta
  49. Cllr Mark Winn
  50. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  51. Cllr Mark Winn
  52. Cllr Nidhi Mehta
  53. Cllr Mark Winn
  54. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  55. Cllr Mark Winn
  56. Cllr Nidhi Mehta
  57. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  58. Cllr Nidhi Mehta
  59. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  60. Cllr John Chilver
  61. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  62. Cllr Mark Winn
  63. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  64. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  65. Cllr Mark Winn
  66. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  67. Cllr John Chilver
  68. David Skinner - Director of Finance & S151 Officer
  69. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  70. Cllr Mark Winn
  71. Cllr John Chilver
  72. Cllr Mark Winn
  73. Cllr John Chilver
  74. Cllr Anna Crabtree
  75. Cllr Mark Winn
  76. Cllr Anna Crabtree
  77. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  78. Cllr Anna Crabtree
  79. Cllr Mark Winn
  80. Cllr John Chilver
  81. Cllr Mark Winn
  82. Cllr Mark Winn
  83. Cllr Susan Morgan
  84. Cllr Mark Winn
  85. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  86. Cllr John Chilver
  87. Cllr Trevor Snaith
  88. Cllr Mark Winn
  89. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  90. Cllr John Chilver
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr John Chilver
  2. Cllr Peter Strachan
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr John Chilver
  2. Cllr Anna Crabtree
  3. Cllr Peter Strachan
  4. Cllr Anna Crabtree
  5. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  6. Cllr Anna Crabtree
  7. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  8. Cllr John Chilver
  9. Cllr Christine Adali
  10. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  11. Cllr Christine Adali
  12. Cllr John Chilver
  13. Cllr Chris Poll
  14. Cllr Peter Strachan
  15. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  16. Cllr Chris Poll
  17. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  18. Cllr John Chilver
  19. Cllr Martin Tett
  20. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  21. Cllr Martin Tett
  22. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  23. Cllr Martin Tett
  24. Cllr John Chilver
  25. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  26. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  27. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  28. Cllr Peter Strachan
  29. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  30. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  31. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  32. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  33. Cllr John Chilver
  34. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  35. Cllr Peter Strachan
  36. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  37. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  38. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  39. Cllr Peter Strachan
  40. Cllr John Chilver
  41. Cllr Andy Huxley
  42. Cllr Peter Strachan
  43. Cllr John Chilver
  44. Cllr Nidhi Mehta
  45. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  46. Cllr Nidhi Mehta
  47. Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
  48. Cllr John Chilver
  49. Cllr Martin Tett
  50. David Skinner - Director of Finance & S151 Officer
  51. Cllr Peter Strachan
  52. Cllr John Chilver
  53. David Skinner - Director of Finance & S151 Officer
  54. Cllr John Chilver
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Cllr John Chilver - 0:00:00
Good morning everybody and welcome to this, the second day of the Budget Scrutiny Inquiry
Task and Finish Group. We have four sessions today. I'd like to welcome all the members
and officers attending today and also a particular welcome to members of the public watching
online through the webcast. I would like to just remind everybody to use their microphones
every time they speak and I would ask you to introduce yourself prior to speaking for
the first time. The sessions will follow the same format as yesterday. The cabinet member
will introduce their budget proposals, highlighting key areas and risks, followed by questions
from the committee and also any other members in attendance.

1 Apologies for absence / Changes in membership

So I'd like to start the agenda with apologies for absence.
Katie Dover - Senior Scrutiny Officer - 0:01:07
We have no apologies, Chairman. Thank you.
Cllr John Chilver - 0:01:10
Thank you. Are there any declarations of interest?
Councillor Pole.
Thank you, Chairman. Yes, there are two items on the agenda today where I need to declare an interest.
Cllr Chris Poll - 0:01:22
It is in my members interest declaration held on the website,
but in the culture and leisure and the health and wellbeing specifically,
my wife is project manager for Health on the High Street,
which has an operation in the library building in High Wycombe,
and through the health and wellbeing is part funded by the council
and also the NHS, which is an employee.
Thank you very much indeed.
That has been noted.
Councillor Wilson?
Cllr John Chilver - 0:01:54
I was just going to note that I'm Chair of the Health and Adult Social Care Select Committee
for the Health and Well -being IT.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And Councillor Huxley?
Cllr Andy Huxley - 0:02:08
I'm a trustee of one of the community centres here in Ealesbury.
Thank you.
I think that covers all the declarations of interest.
Cllr John Chilver - 0:02:15
Next item on the agenda are the background papers.

2 Declarations of interest

3 Background Papers

You should have the papers with the information on the Council's draught budget and links to
other appendices as well as the cabinet paper of the 8th of January.
And I would just like to mention that we agreed yesterday that we would refer to the page
number at the bottom of the portrait pack of the papers
so that to ensure consistency.
So that's the large number in the shorter side of the page,
please.
So I think we can move on to the first item on the agenda,

4 Culture and Leisure (Councillor Peter Brazier)

which is the culture and leisure portfolio.
and I'm happy to welcome the cabinet member,
Councillor Peter Brazier,
Deputy Cabinet Member, Councillor Catherine Oliver,
supporting officers who are Richard Barker,
the service director, and Fiorello Rugari,
who is the finance officer for the service.
And again, we have Dave Skinner, our head of finance,
and Fiona Jump, Deputy Head of Finance in support.
I'd also like to welcome Councillor Jonathan Waters,
who's the Chairman of the Growth, Infrastructure
and Housing Select Committee.
So I think without any further ado,
I'd like to invite the cabinet member
to present his budget proposals,
highlighting key areas of risks,
and then we'll move on to committee questions.
Thank you.
Cllr Peter Brazier - 0:04:08
Thank you Chairman and good morning everybody. I'm Peter Brazier, I'm cabinet member for Culture and Leisure.
I'd just like to outline what the Culture, Sport and Leisure portfolio comprises of.
It's our local and country parks. It's our playing fields and leisure centres.
We have two theatres and the Bucks Film Office and museums which form the backbone of our arts and culture offering.
and we have Buckinghamshire archives and of course the libraries, our library service.
Since unitary when the culture and leisure budgets were net 6 .7 million,
the portfolio has reduced the net budget by 45 % to 3 .7 million.
These reductions have been across all the portfolio services
and are a combination of savings efficiencies and improved income.
The proposed budget will deliver a further reduction in the net expenditure for the portfolio of $525 ,000 by 2829.
I just want to briefly talk about each of the key areas that this portfolio covers.
Within the local and country parks, we are managing a number of award -winning local and country parks,
which were visited by around 1 .1 million people during 24 -25.
The service also works with planning
to make sure green spaces are provided alongside development.
We are constantly making improvements and upgrades
to local parks and make play areas more accessible.
And in fact, we've just completed one across the road
at White Park in Aylesbury,
which is now a state of the art facility.
We are also about to open a new country park
with Stoke Poggis later this year.
That's subject to some planning approvals
that we're still working on.
We now have eight green flag awards
for Bucks local and country parks,
including a new one for Langley Country Park.
Moving on to our leisure offering,
we provide sports and leisure facilities
via our numerous playing fields
and state of the art leisure centres.
We have four million visitors to our centres,
and we get 2 .4 million income from the leisure contracts.
We are also working on the procurement
of a new ground maintenance contract
to commence from January 2027,
replacing the existing contracts
that we inherited from legacy councils.
Just while I'm here, I'd like to highlight Simply Walks
as an example of one of our successful initiatives.
Fiona, who heads up Simply Walks on her own, looks after a cohort of over 300 volunteers,
delivering walks nearly every day with 70 routes all over the county.
Walking is a socially inclusive exercise for all ages, and we have many in their 90s who
have stole the virtues of Simply Walks.
Just moving on to culture.
First of all, I just want to explain that we support the delivery of the Buckinghamshire cultural strategy in conjunction with Bucks Culture,
which we support along with the Rothschild Foundation.
Bucks Culture is there to deliver the cultural strategy, and Buckinghamshire's Culture Department.
I've written a tongue twister here,
which I should have worked through.
But basically, it's a partnership strategy
to deliver Buckinghamshire's culture's strategy.
Swiftly moving on, filming.
We operate a very successful Buckinghamshire Film Office,
which enables us to maximise the economic
and social benefits of filming across the county.
The office brings in over half a million income for the council and a further
estimated 8 .8 million into the local economy. It also helps local parish and
town councils make positive outcomes from filming in their communities and
I've got some good examples of that in my own ward where parish councils have
benefited from funding which has enabled them to do projects they wouldn't have
able to carry out normally. On to theatres, we are working to review our theatre contract arrangements.
The Waterside contract is due to be renewed in 2027 and the Swan in 2029,
and we aim to seek an outcome that's beneficial to all. We are also working with other partners
to develop, to deliver projects such as the fantastic Place Partnership Programme,
We Make Wickham, which is located in the Corn Market in High Wickham.
In 2025 -26 we are on target to welcome around 440 ,000 visitors to our theatres and museums.
Moving on to Buckinghamshire Archives, our archive service serves a role to preserve the history and heritage of Buckinghamshire.
It holds records going back 800 years.
We also provide an accredited archive service to Milton Keynes Council, as well as hold collections of local and national importance,
such as the collection of the National Paralympic Heritage Trust, recognising Stoke Mandeville's crucial role in developing the Paralympic Games movement.
Our archive staff also support volunteers and run outreach events.
They have had over 26 ,000 engagements through in -person events or on social media.
I just want to mention the Buckinghamshire Archives social media has taken off thanks to one of the Archives members, Callum, who's been doing some online videos.
And I would encourage anyone to go and look at the social media output from Buckinghamshire Archives.
It's not only educational, it's entertaining.
We are preparing for the move of the archives to a new purpose -built facility located at
the new offices in Danmark Street in High Wycombe.
This will ensure we remain accredited with the National Archives Service and provide
a better service to our residents.
Last but not least, libraries.
our library service boasts 179 ,000 library members who use our 10 county,
7 community and 11 self -managed libraries. We also service two prison
libraries as well as a school library service and home library service for
those in need. In all our libraries are visited 1 million times annually and we
saw 900 ,000 downloads last year. This means our libraries are still a very
valued and well used resource. Our libraries provide warm, welcoming safe spaces, which
is not just about books. We work with partners to provide a variety of activities, services
and facilities, encouraging culture, reading and learning, health and wellbeing services
and running community events. They also provide access to information and services, including
library council access points and tourism information.
You'll be familiar with the Library Flex programme, which has not only delivered savings for the
service but has been a hit with users.
We've had over 4 ,000 sign -ups in the first six months and some really positive feedback
from users.
And last but not least, 2006 is the national year of reading and obviously we're going
to be supporting that.
So thank you to Chairman and obviously we're here to take questions. Thank you very
much indeed. Is there anything that either the Service
Cllr John Chilver - 0:12:17
Director, Head of Finance or Deputy Cabinet Member would like to add? If not I
think we can move straight on to questions from the committee and
Councillor Powell I think your hand was up first. Thank you my colleagues just
Cllr Chris Poll - 0:12:31
mentioned Peter, the year of reading is 2026 I think not 2006. You had a lot
read them. So my specific question was on maintenance of the theatres it looks
like. 977 thousand pounds which has come from reserves. Now we've heard over the
previous day in previous portfolios there's quite a high usage of reserves
in this year's budget and what concerns me is that that reserve is drawn down
and not rebuilt for future years.
So I'd just like to ask you about that, please.
And also I'm pleased you mentioned about
the film office within the council.
I would specifically like to know
how we facilitate location services
for the film television industry.
Because I have an example
in the just over the county boundary where the most high -profile production
company, well more than that, the most high -profile company involved in film
and television in the world just rocked up with no planning permission, filmed
for a few weeks and then cleared away before any application could be
completed, I think they submitted, you know, once they were, it was like a retrospective
application. So whilst I don't think in that case it caused much inconvenience to local
people, there are examples where it does. And so yeah, I'd just like to know how we
help, or how we enforce film and television choosing their location and operating from
that without permission.
Cllr Peter Brazier - 0:14:36
I'll ask Richard to answer the question about the maintenance and theatres and then I'll
come back to the location services.
Thanks Peter, thanks for the question Councillor Powell.
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:14:55
So just in terms of the funding for the theatres, the capital funding, it is funded through
reserve.
We've got a reserve provision for cultural leisure of about 2 .6 million and we draw down on that reserve to offset
necessary capital costs associated with the contractual arrangements that we've got with the two
operators for the theatre. So we own the sites and the buildings. We've got
broadly speaking landlord responsibilities in terms of capital maintenance and so on. We utilise that reserve to
offset those responsibilities. I suppose your question is around
and sustainability of that reserve.
At present, I would say we've got sufficient funding
in the reserve to meet our obligations more than meet them,
certainly through this MTFP period
and beyond to the end of the contract's timescale.
In the event that that reserve becomes depleted,
we'd have a conversation as part
of the Council's Capital Programme planning,
and it would form part of our prioritisation
for new projects going forward,
But certainly for this medium term period,
there's sufficient funding in the reserve
to meet our obligations for capital funding.
Thank you.
And the second?
Thank you.
Yeah, on the location services.
Cllr Peter Brazier - 0:16:11
I mean, obviously, our film unit is relatively new.
And they've been doing a lot of work
being in dialogue with the filming companies.
Now, obviously, as you're fully aware,
where the planning system is not fast.
And generally speaking,
I think I know the example you were talking about,
where they're in and out before the planning application
was even validated.
And unfortunately there's not a lot we can do about that
because that's the way the planning system works.
But the whole point of the film office
is that they get in dialogue early
with the filming companies.
We've now got a formal location database,
which the filming companies are coming to us first.
And in fact, just before I came in this meeting,
I saw the head of the filming unit,
and she reported that there's been a lot of applications
since Christmas, and they've started to roll in again.
All we can do is engage in that dialogue
and try and get things like routing arrangements for traffic,
put in place first, and a lot of that has to be voluntary
because the planning system isn't quick enough
to react to it.
So I'd like to have a more reactive answer to the question,
but it is what it is from that perspective,
and all we can do is engage in better
and deeper dialogue with the film companies.
Thank you, I'm encouraged.
Cllr John Chilver - 0:17:43
Thank you very much.
I think Councillor Walsh, as you wanted to come in.
Yes, I've got a couple of questions.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:17:56
One is really linked to the S106 money and SIL money that comes in.
Obviously, we've got money coming in at the moment.
How much of that is going towards, rather than just play areas in certain areas in terms
of leisure within particular sites, how much of that is actually going to be going to any
kind of major project that would be coming up?
And as we build the local plan with the numbers coming through on that, particularly with
health in mind long term for the residents of Buckinghamshire, has your team been working
on what the needs would be in terms of particularly maybe a new major leisure centre for the Aylesbury
area which is lacking in that, particularly the north of the county, to ensure that we
we actually do get some provision
from each of the developments
that goes towards a more centralised benefit,
not just something that happens on the site,
because that doesn't work.
So that, their particular area that I'd like to answer.
I've got one other question after that if you'd come back.
Thank you, yeah.
Obviously the vast majority of Section 106 and CIL
Cllr Peter Brazier - 0:19:08
is going to local projects,
because that's where it comes into us
When we're providing local play areas and green spaces
And that's that's within the portfolio. There's obviously section 106 goes elsewhere
Not not not within this portfolio
As for the long term plan in the strategy, we are feeding data into the local plan development
And we are more than aware of the requirement for something in the north of the county
And as the local plan develops
that will
come out from there, but obviously there's nothing concrete
to talk about now other than the desire
to have something in the north.
Do you want to add anything to that, Richard?
If I could, Peter, yeah, thanks for the question,
Councillor Waters.
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:19:59
So, absolutely right, we've got nearly seven million pounds
worth of funding for section 106,
and there are defined projects,
quite often, pass -ported projects
to town and parish councils to deliver play areas,
recreation ground improvements, and so on,
So much needed for those areas, not the kind of scale
of project that I think you're probably alluding to.
Within our sport and physical activity strategy
that cabinet approved last year, we very much recognised
the need for a significant investment
in leisure centre provision for the north of the county
to address those population challenges.
As the cabinet members mentioned, that needs to go hand
in glove with the local plan.
We're developing a needs assessment to help guide
local plan infrastructure investment.
Still very much is around long -term infrastructure investment and I would see that having a big
role as part of the funding model for that new facility.
It's not yet defined.
As I said, we need to work that closely through with local plan development, but there is
certainly a commitment from the council to recognise the need for that in the north of
the county.
I raised it because I didn't want it to be missed.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:21:05
It's really going to be important if we're going to achieve that.
The second one actually is going back on a point made
on refurbishment of theatres.
And what concerns me is regional theatres
do not normally pay for themselves
unless you actually create something
which is more of a wraparound that helps support them.
In the same way as you do for a leisure centre nowadays,
you know, something poor doesn't pay for itself,
but basically the wraparound pays for it.
do we have any plans longer term,
particularly on capital, to actually come with,
to create a wrap around for some of these facilities
so that basically long term, we will have revenues coming in
that we can put in a sinking fund,
but basically we will never have to actually do
all the repairs just from our revenues.
Because if we don't do that, there'll come a point
when it may not be possible to sustain this.
Yeah, thank you, thank you for the question.
Cllr Peter Brazier - 0:22:05
And it is on our radar that we need to change the model.
As I mentioned earlier, both of the theatre contracts are up for renewal soon.
As you say, there's always going to be this wraparound element to it.
I don't think there's anything more I can say.
Thank you.
Thanks Peter.
I would just note that actually the commercial performance
of both of the theatres at the Council loans
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:22:36
is incredibly positive.
We're well placed I think in having two big
national providers delivering the Swan
and Aylesbury waterside.
That gives us access to significant programming benefits
in terms of the offers that's provided within the theatres.
Both operators are very positive about their usage
utilisation, income levels, and we see that through the contraction arrangements
that we've got. So I think we feel confident actually in terms of the
financial sustainability of the theatres. Obviously as part of the
contract cycle that gives us an opportunity to think about further
capital investment, possible opportunities, and we'll do that as part
of that process. Okay just wanted to make that note because I think that would be
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:23:20
Cllr John Chilver - 0:23:24
really good news. Thank you very much. Councillor Wilson. Thank you Chairman and good morning
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:23:29
everybody. The capital programme is on page 90. You've already alluded to a number of
aspects on this. I wanted to pick up the point around, it's the one of the second
dot point at the bottom of the page which talks about where the council has
landlord maintenance responsibilities and that's managed on a risk basis.
Clearly there is no additional funding beyond the immediate budget year.
And if there were a circumstance where there was a substantial amount of funding required,
would that come out of the culture and leisure reserve that Mr. Barker mentioned?
I just want to understand, because we're effectively self -insured, how we would fund such a situation,
or do we have alternative arrangements?
Because clearly, heaven forbid, you know, there was an intervention required that we couldn't wait for developer contributions or anything else.
Would that be the source that would allow us to keep facilities running in that event?
Thank you, I'm going to defer that immediately to Richard.
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:24:44
Thanks Peter, thanks Councillor Wilson. So I think the answer is yes.
So we'd look at the reserve initially, Dave or Fiona might want to comment on kind of wider corporate capital contingency provision.
But in the event of a major issue, a major failure in one of our leisure assets which required significant investment,
we would need to look at that.
We probably need to reprioritize the capital programme
for the council as well in that event.
But there is some corporate capital contingency,
which again might form part of that.
It would depend on the scale of the issue
and the nature of it, I guess.
But as I said, therefore, Fiona might want to comment.
Yeah, maybe just to add,
David Skinner - Director of Finance & S151 Officer - 0:25:27
so once the Earhart Reserve be depleted,
then we'd look at the capital contingency,
which is relatively small in the size of the overall capital programme, but
for the portfolio then that may well be adequate if not
We'd then be looking at having to reprioritize the programme or potentially look at then trying to secure additional funding
Thank you
Cllr John Chilver - 0:25:49
Good morning, I'm
Cllr Christine Adali - 0:25:56
Going on about reserves again. I'm sorry
On the theatres, I think you explained that there is a specific pot and if that's one's
round down, then we need to look at it.
On the leisure centres, do the expenses actually include a percentage of maintenance accruals
every year that are put aside that they're available when they're needed?
So are the reserves that we're drawing down specifically earmarked for maintenance for
the leisure centres, which will be a reasonably sustainable model given the income you have
from those contracts, and also, if that's not the case,
are you looking at potentially looking at evolution options
to reduce the costs to the council,
because some parishes and towns might be quite interested
in taking on some of the facilities,
especially football pitches and leisure centres,
and going forward, might you consider
the same for the theatres?
I mean, the contract will not cover the total maintenance
costs, as you've explained before,
but there is at least the potential to build up some reserves.
Thanks for the question, Councillor O 'Neill.
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:27:07
We've had lots of conversations actually with Town and Parish Councils about ambitions around devolution
and we touched on this yesterday's session with the cabinet members of communities around our devolution approach.
So that remains open. We've got an open policy and we're open to conversations and discussions with Town and Parishes around their ambitions.
I would say for the theatres we have the benefit of two very big national theatre providers in the county
delivering those services for the two theatres at the Swan and the Waterside.
And I think it becomes quite a challenge for a local council to take on that kind of facility
and deliver the kind of offer that our residents are able to benefit from at present.
So there's a big commercial return.
It's not suggesting the theatres.
Okay, sorry, I thought you mentioned the pieces.
I know that the provision we get is much better than anyone could provide.
Cllr Christine Adali - 0:27:57
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:28:03
Yeah, and I would say equally for our leisure centres, the same applies to a large extent.
So we have large leisure centre provisions, we've got in fact four of the large national contractors delivering our leisure services through contracted arrangements.
We have significant advantages of economies of scale through those arrangements.
As I say, they operate at hundreds of leisure centres across the country.
And we benefit from that arrangement in them delivering the services for
Buckinghamshire, certainly for playing fields and other more kind of local assets.
As I say, we're open to that discussions with town and parishes and
serve as an established evolution policy to deal with that kind of conversation and
transaction.
Sorry, in terms of the maintenance budget, yeah.
So the reserve provision is for the whole service director area, so the 2 .6 million
includes theatres and leisure centres are able to draw down on that accordingly.
The leisure centre contracts are surplus generating, so there's a net payment that comes to the
council paid by the operators for the opportunity to run the sites.
That provides some financial sustainability in dealing with that.
And then in terms of wider capital investment,
it goes through the normal council's prioritisation process
to determine which projects are funded
through the General Fund for Capital funding.
That brings me back to my question.
Cllr Christine Adali - 0:29:27
Which percentage of the surplus are you actually earmarking
for the reserves to keep it sustainable?
Just if it isn't a surplus.
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:29:38
Yeah. So we don't work on the basis of a kind
of a percentage contribution into the reserve each year.
We look at the reserve provision over the MTFP period.
We consider that against the commitments
that we might have for expenditure
and determine whether it's adequate or not.
And I think for this MTFP period, what we're saying
is we're very confident that we're
able to meet our obligations in terms
of our contractual responsibilities.
We've looked at condition surveys for the assets
and the sufficient reserve to meet those obligations
within the MTFP period for this budget.
Cllr Christine Adali - 0:30:16
So is that then a rolling programme that you'll every year you'll look at the total and then
decide if you...
Exactly right.
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:30:23
It works hand in glove with the council's capital programme which is on a four year
rolling basis so we're looking further ahead than than just that 12 month period.
Thank you.
Thank you very much indeed.
Cllr John Chilver - 0:30:34
Councillor Tetz.
Yes, thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:30:39
By the way, congratulations to the portfolio.
We run some really good cultural and social services in Bakim Shih.
There's a lot to be very proud of here.
I'm a bit of a stuck record on these reserves, I've got to say, and I've had this discussion,
I think, on every portfolio so far.
And I always worry with a series of services that keep using reserves and don't replenish
them.
And as a very wise finance man once said to me,
you know, you can only use reserves once.
A bit like spending your savings.
What I'm not clear on is, you know,
I can absolutely see a need to use reserves.
That's why you have EMR reserves.
But given that leisure services and culture services are ongoing,
virtually in perpetuity, where is the plan
to replenish those reserves such that they'll be available
in the future?
That's my first question.
And I'm just looking for reassurance
that there is a strategy to replenish those reserves
so that the services can be maintained going forward.
Secondly, I'm interested in the comments made in the report
about the drop in demand.
Now, it doesn't specify how big that drop in demand is.
I was listening this morning to the today programme.
They're talking about the general economic climate.
Everybody's feeding it the cost of living pressures.
People are cutting back on expenditures.
is, you know, there's a worry I have that things like leisure
may be one of those things.
And not so much going to parks, but actually
spending the extra money may be one of the things
that people cut back on.
The go apes in this world, the visits, the restaurants,
and the parks, and so on.
What assumptions has the portfolio
made about the drop in demand and the impact that will
have on the revenue income?
Has it made no assumption?
Has it made a minimal assumption?
Has it made an aggressive assumption?
I'm just looking for some reassurance that we're looking
at a realistic assumption.
It just simply says there's been a drop in demand.
We can't tell as a committee what that assumption is.
And my last question, again, because it's not clear
from here, on the libraries, one of the things,
I go back a long time in library council works,
one of the things that drives people
into libraries is the book fund.
You're actually knowing that there's a regular supply of the latest titles available in your local library.
It's one of those things that council and particularly council officers always recommend to cut.
And it's very easy to do, but actually it means that there's far less incentive to go into the libraries.
Can you reassure me that the book fund is not being cut because there's ambiguity in this about what's what?
How big is the book fund and can you just reassure us that it's being maintained?
Three questions, very easy ones.
Three questions there.
Cllr Peter Brazier - 0:33:34
On the reserves things, I'm obviously going to look towards Richard to answer that.
The drop in demand, are you specifically talking about the country parks?
Reference in the report to the drop in demand.
On the country parks?
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:33:46
It's those that, from this committee's point of view, because I'm not arguing about policy,
this is issue, from our point of view, a finance issue.
What are the assumptions about the drop in demand
whereby those services from which we generate extra income,
that may be just the country parks,
it may include other leisure services,
for example the theatres.
So if there's a drop in demand for the theatres
that may affect the income that we then get from them,
I'd just like to understand what modeling's been done
on that and therefore what assumptions are built in
to ensure that the numbers we're seeing
as a committee are robust.
Thank you.
Richard.
Cllr Peter Brazier - 0:34:26
Thanks Peter, thanks Kansas to have the question.
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:34:34
So I suppose the question is around is areas like cultural and leisure which have discretionary spend quite often,
have we modelled a reduction in that?
What we've actually seen, certainly since post Covid and even through the more recent sort of cost of living challenges,
is actually a continued increase in numbers for leisure.
We feel confident we've got a price point
for our sport leisure provision which is accessible
and that promotes access for all residents across the piece.
So we're seeing, I would say, a high level of resilience
in terms of our usage and utilisation
and our operational models,
particularly through the outsourced leisure.
We've mentioned the theatres earlier.
We've made decisions quite recently to outsource sites like
Farnham Park to Wickham Wanderers Football Club.
That places a degree of risk with those operators.
So we've seen performance very strong,
our income returns are buoyant,
and whilst we've seen a bit of a plateau of lit,
we're certainly not seeing a reduction.
We're not forecasting a reduction in demand going forward.
Sorry to interrupt, but that's slightly contradictory
to what's in the report,
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:35:45
because if you go to page 89 on the vertical,
It says income generation areas such as leisure and country parks are challenging in the current economic economy due to
marks the reduced usage
So is there reduced usage is their income generation challenges or are they not?
Sorry our page numbers differ slightly afraid so
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:36:15
We've been told to use the vertical, so it's 89, I believe.
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:36:19
Oh, you've got page 81.
Yeah, it's always confusing between these two.
We have it on the horizontal.
We have it on page 81.
It's little dot two under challenges and risks.
So I'm just playing back to you your own narrative about the challenges of income generation
and the reduced usage.
Yeah, thanks, Councillor Ted.
Sorry about the confusion.
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:36:46
So I think this bullet's referring to challenges around rising costs.
So certainly things like energy, you know, the facilities,
particularly the swimming pools are high cost generating assets.
And that's certainly been a challenge for the operators.
We've talked about the capital programme and the need to invest
in infrastructure staffing costs equally in terms of fair living wage.
Less so I would say in terms of income pressures and income demands.
What we're seeing across the portfolio, I think, is a level of buoyancy and confidence we've got in terms of the numbers.
We've certainly seen that, as mentioned, post -COVID, and we think the services are in a resilient position,
albeit there are some headwinds there, particularly on the expenditure side.
I hear what you say.
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:37:36
I just find that slightly contradictory to the text,
but I'll leave that point there.
I had two other questions, though,
one on the book fund reserves you've covered, I think.
Yeah, thanks.
So really quick on the book fund.
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:37:51
There are no planned savings
to reduce our book stop for our libraries.
It's probably just worth mentioning the progress
that we've made with libraries flex.
So we've looked to do things differently within our libraries,
provide more access to our library services by providing self -serve.
As of today, we've got four and a half thousand registered residents for our self -access libraries flex arrangements.
We haven't had any incidents of concern at all in terms of that self -serve arrangement, which has gone very well.
Certainly no reported issues that we've had identified, Councillor Tett.
So our approach has been about doing things differently,
certainly not reducing stock, and there are no plans
in this budget to do that.
At the risk of sounding like Nick Robinson asking the same
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:38:36
question repeatedly, can you just confirm
that the book fund A has not been reduced?
And I did ask how large it was.
You may or may not feel comfortable giving
that in public.
I would have to take a written answer if that's confidential.
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:38:50
We have a book stock budget of
370 ,000 I would need to confirm the the financial provision, but just for the avoidance of doubt there are no planned
Expenditure savings for book stock in our libraries as part of this budget. Okay, I can remember it was a million, but thanks for that
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:39:08
Thanks
Cllr John Chilver - 0:39:11
Yes, good morning
Crabtree and representative for the Marlowe Ward. Um, I
I have some questions on a couple of different topics.
Cllr Anna Crabtree - 0:39:20
One was to do with parks and country parks.
It mentions on the page that Councillor Tett
was just referring to, which I think is 81
on the budget pack, but 89 on the budget scrutiny pack.
It mentions consideration of future operating models
for trusts such as the Higginson Park Trust,
which is within my ward.
And I just wondered what that might look like,
what options were being considered here.
And when it says deliver maximum value
for our communities, how is that being measured?
I assume that's not just a monetary number,
but also some kind of indication of how the local community
value that space and how it's being used by different members
of the population.
I was slightly concerned to hear so much mention
and capital investment going into the new country park
when the Little Marlow Lakes Country
Park has been languishing for many years, if not decades,
waiting for investment and some kind of decisive action from Buckinghamshire. So
can you explain to me why there is investment being put into a new country
park when we've got ones that are already on the books that don't seem to
be getting anywhere. And then lastly to go back to this library flex idea, Mr.
Barker and I believe Councillor Brazier mentioned having four four and a half
thousand members of individuals signed up to the library flex system. I think
you said there were 179 ,000 library users,
so I'd make that about 3 % of the library users
that have switched over to Library Flex.
Could you let us know how the success, popularity,
and ongoing risks associated with Library Flex
are going to be assessed in the future,
and when we will hear back on that?
Thank you very much.
Thank you, there's, right, several questions.
Cllr Peter Brazier - 0:41:09
First of all, where we're talking about changing
the operating model in the trust we operate
is more specifically referring to the work
we're doing at Farnham.
As far as I know, there's no changes to Higginson.
And presumably no plans to devolve it,
which I know some local residents would
Cllr Anna Crabtree - 0:41:28
be very keen to support.
So we have plans to what?
To devolve Higginson Park back to the local community.
Absolutely not.
So obviously, the change in the operating model
is referring to Farnham, where we're doing a piece of work at the moment, working with
Wiccan Wanderers Football Club to take that on and make some significant improvements
Cllr Peter Brazier - 0:41:50
to the facilities there. That's quite an exciting thing that's going on. As far as the new county
country park in South Bucks, that's a standalone project that was funded by the importation
of soil onto the site.
So it wouldn't have had any effect
on the Little Marlowe Country Park.
Now, I haven't had an update on Little Marlowe for a while,
but I understand we are going ahead
with the development there.
Is that true?
Thanks, Peter.
I need to cheque.
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:42:31
So certainly, I don't think you can compare the two
for the reasons the cabinet member said.
So the previous district council committed to the new country park this unitary council progressed with that
It's funded through a self balancing arrangement through the income generator through soil importation
So no net capital cost for at the council
I would need to get a separate update on the little Marlowe site and others been various issues in terms of
In terms of planning, but I need to cheque on that
And
Sorry, I...
The success of library flex.
Cllr Peter Brazier - 0:43:04
The success of library flex, absolutely.
It's still early days.
It only became fully operational in October.
Yeah, it's a tiny percentage, but possibly the target market for that is relatively small.
But yeah, we will continue to monitor it and report through the normal channel.
Thanks, Peter.
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:43:33
Just notice well there's a separate report on libraries flex going to the Select Committee in March as well
So we were looking that in quite quite a level of detail, but as the cabinet member said still feels early days
We've been very pleased actually with a level of uptake and feedback that we've had from those residents that have taken up the offer
but
early days
Cllr John Chilver - 0:43:52
Thank you just on the South Park's Country Park
I know you said it's self financing in terms of the development are we confident it will be at least
self financing will cover its costs or preferably income generation going forward.
So I believe there's a cafe on the side.
Yes, is the simple answer to that question.
Cllr Peter Brazier - 0:44:12
Great, thanks.
Cllr John Chilver - 0:44:15
Councillor Mehta, you're next.
Good morning, I'm Councillor Nithimatha and I represent Aylesbury West.
Cllr Nidhi Mehta - 0:44:20
My colleague has already asked a question about the library flex,
but I'm assuming, as you mentioned, that a review will be presented to us in March.
So I would like to also see that what are the cashable savings from, you know, the library flex and digital investment that we have done.
My next question was on parks.
So when we go to any park, we have the parking, you know, amount that we need to pay.
And sometimes we have noticed that those parking amounts
or parking charges are quite high
and the residents have mentioned that they cannot afford it.
So my question to you is,
is there any desire to take an individual look
at income generation for each park
that's fair and accessible to all?
Cllr Peter Brazier - 0:45:24
Thank you for the question and yeah the FLEX is achieving its savings that it's set out
to do and that's set now into the MTFP so we're quite confident that we're going to
meet the savings as projected.
Car parking charges is always going to be controversial, always going to be controversial
And it's obviously for the main country parks, our major source of income.
And there are other income streams from it.
But our country parks, it's important that they remain self -sufficient costs from a financial point of view.
So, I mean, it's always going to be a market -driven thing that we need to charge enough to continue to keep the parks in the condition that they're in,
and make them attractive.
And we do benchmark with other parks
and how much they're charging.
So if there's anything you want to add to that Richard.
Thanks Peter, thanks for the question.
So the only thing I would add is we think very carefully
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:46:33
around our price point for all fees and charges
to make sure that we're able to promote access
and we're not presenting barriers for residents
to take part in this case in culture and leisure activity.
There are annual permits for the country parks as well
for regular users of the parks, which we think provide value for money for, as I said, for
those regular users that are there, in some cases on a daily basis, making use of our
country parks facilities. Just in terms of the cash flow savings for
Libraries Flex. So the Libraries Flex decision was last time around in terms of the budget.
In the 25 -26 budget, we've got a saving of 460 ,000 pounds. So what you're seeing in this
budget proposal is the additional residual saving that will bring through
into next year so the overall saving for libraries flex is four hundred and
Cllr John Chilver - 0:47:31
ninety thousand. Thank you we're slightly over running on time but I'm just
squeezing Councillor Huxley if we could keep the question and answer short please.
Cllr Andy Huxley - 0:47:42
Thank you chairman I'll try to do that. Councillor Andy Huxley, Alesbury East
its own theatre issues.
I can only talk about Waterside rather than Swan,
but it's on attendance and usage of the theatres.
What figures we have on footfall, if you like,
through the theatres.
From a sort of vantage point opposite the Waterside,
There is, well, from my views, the theatre doesn't appear to be used on a permanent basis all the time,
through shows not being put on or whatever, what figures we have to substantiate that sort of view, if you like.
Thank you, that's an interesting question.
Cllr Peter Brazier - 0:48:41
I don't have figures for the individual attendance.
I have the headline figure for all of our theatres and
museums of 440 ,000 as I mentioned at the opening.
Okay, comment on that PTA.
So thanks for the question.
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:49:00
So for the water side, the visitor numbers were just over 200 ,000 for this last year.
Actually, the feedback that we've got from the operator is it's one of their best performing
regional theatres in terms of numbers of visitors, income, levels of usage and utilisation.
There are always opportunities to make more use of that and we're actively engaged with
the operators to help promote access perhaps for community groups in quieter periods.
But the overall headline for the water side is it's a very well performing facility,
high levels of usage and income and in a place which is very financially
sustainable. Great, thank you very much. I've been there twice in the last month
Cllr John Chilver - 0:49:42
and enjoyed all the performances that I've attended so I'd certainly recommend it to
anybody thinking of going to the theatre. So that brings us to the end of the
session. Thank you very much to members and officers for their attendance
And we start again at 11 o 'clock to discuss the health and wellbeing portfolio.
Thank you very much.

4 Culture and Leisure (Councillor Peter Brazier)

Cllr Isobel Darby - 0:50:15
Inquiry task and finish group.
And we're looking now at the health and wellbeing portfolio.
So I'm delighted to welcome Councillor Isabel Darby, who's the cabinet member for this portfolio,
and the Deputy Cabinet Member, Councillor Carol Heap.

5 Health and Wellbeing (Councillor Isobel Darby)

And the officers in support are Craig McArdle, who's the Service Director, supported by David
Munday and Emma Wilding.
And again, we have Dave Skinner, our Head of Finance, supported by Fiona Jump.
So welcome to everybody.
and I'll start by asking the cabinet member to highlight the key areas and risks in the portfolio,
and then we'll follow with committee questions. Thank you.
Cllr Isobel Darby - 0:51:05
Thank you very much, Chairman. Good morning to you, the committee, and to anybody who is watching online,
and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
We work hard both within this directorate and across the council with our various partners in the health and social care sector, together with voluntary and community organisations, to ensure that all our residents live healthy, independent and fulfilling lives.
As you heard yesterday, adult social care is one of the four largest areas of spend
within the council, received by a very small percentage of our population as shown on page
103 of the report.
It was heartening to learn that in the recent budget consultation, Your Bucks, Your Say,
53 .7 % of respondents to that consultation ranked this area as their highest priority.
I think that's really important. It's important that these services are high
quality, safe and effective for those who receive them whilst also being
financially sustainable, delivering value for money for all our council taxpayers.
I'm pleased to report that we're delivering on our current savings and
additional income target of 9 .7 million in this current year. At the end of
two we were reporting a positive but modest underspend and this continues our
track record from previous years but there is no room for complacency there
is a high degree of risk in this portfolio. The savings proposed in the
MTFP are not without this risk. There will always be challenges, increases in
demand, cost and complexity, provider failure and changes imposed upon us by
national government, but we have a strong track record of delivery.
Our modelling for growth in demand in terms of numbers and complexity and our estimates
for inflation are sound and have served us well in previous years, and we're confident
that this will continue in this MTFP.
We have a strong team who are always looking to the future for innovative ways to keep
expenditure under control.
We benchmark against our nearest statistical neighbouring authorities and learn from best practise.
Recent examples include things such as commissioning more block beds, keeping voids in those beds to a minimum, and reviewing how and where we can deliver care.
In line with our Better Lives strategy, there's been a move to less restrictive care.
The focus is on prevention, early intervention, and person -centred support.
This benefits both the service users who enjoy greater independence and also reduces costs,
delivering value for money to our residents who fund this through their council tax.
Earlier this year we suffered a significant challenge with the collapse of NRS, our community equipment provider,
and I am particularly proud of the way the team minimised the impact of this.
Exploring alternative suppliers as soon as there was significant concerns of this happening.
Working across portfolio areas with colleagues and customer services to deal with the exponential increase in calls during the transition to the new provider.
Public health is a very important part of our Better Lives strategy.
Supporting residents to enjoy improved physical and mental health.
thereby keeping people well and reducing demands across a number of our service areas.
Although our grant is one of the lowest in the country,
David and the team not only focus on delivering those services
mandated by government, but also develop innovative initiatives such as healthy school neighbourhoods and community health workers
which support our most vulnerable communities.
I could go on Chairman, but I'm going to finish now to allow time for discussion and questions.
Thank you.
Thank you very much indeed.
Cllr John Chilver - 0:55:12
Just ask the service director and the head of finance
if there's anything they want, and the deputy cabinet member,
if there's anything they want to add before we move
to questions.
The questions now, I think.
And first hand up, I think, is Councillor Tett.
Thank you, Chairman.
This is an incredibly important portfolio,
partly because, as Isawel said, it
It affects the lives of some very vulnerable people.
You know, this is significantly important for everybody
who's impacted by it as a client.
But it's right.
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:55:44
It's a very small client base.
It's about 5 ,000 people out of a population of 560 ,000.
So it's a tiny proportion of the total.
And we're quite often asked as local counsellors,
what do I get for my council tax?
And actually, the reality is an enormous proportion
of that council tax goes to one or two key services
that very few people actually experience.
So scrutinising this budget, which is now over $300 million,
you know, is really important.
So, you know, that's just putting it in context, I think,
for anybody watching online.
I'm just aware that this portfolio obviously has a lot
of internal issues, but it's impacted very substantially
by national policy, and the two I'd like to just focus
on specifically now are, first of all, the reforms to add
social care within the so -called Casey review.
Louise Casey is the government sort of do -it -all supremo who
gets drafted in whenever there's a tricky issue to review.
That is due to report this year in 2026 for its interim and then
in 2028 for its final report.
I'd like to know, first of all, what networking have you been
doing with Louise Casey?
Presumably you've given input.
Presumably there's regular dialogue with the DHSC,
the Department for Health and Social Care, civil servants.
What assumptions have you made about the impact
of that on the budget that we're being
asked to scrutinise today?
Because clearly, it could have a quite dramatic effect.
We're trying to understand whether it's a robust budget,
but actually, without knowing what central governments can
do, we as a committee are flying a little bit dark.
So what insight can you give us, first
to warn the Casey Review and its impact on the budget.
And secondly, within the DHSC, Westreeting has organised a big
reorganisation of the health service.
And I know you work, because it's a health
and well -being portfolio, you work very closely
with the health service with a lot of joint funding,
like the shared better care fund, and there's a lot
of continuing care where, you know,
there's a danger of co -trans.
What assumptions have you made, given the reorganisations that
are taking place within the integrated care systems and
the integrated care boards, about the impact of that on the
pressures that you will have financially, both in terms of
just general day -to -day, but also potentially cost -shunts
over the border and the impact on the Better Care Fund?
Sorry, quite a long explanation.
I'm just aware people watch this and they won't necessarily
understand it without that sort of, you know, that bigger picture.
Thank you.
Yeah, thank you very much, Martin, for that question.
Cllr Isobel Darby - 0:58:36
And, you know, as I alluded to in my opening speech, you know, changes that are foisted
upon us by national government are a huge challenge because we don't know, we have no
control over them, we have plenty of input into them, but we have no control over what
happens eventually.
And I will ask Craig to go into that in a little bit more detail in a moment.
But what I would say is that we have an excellent relationship with our local health colleagues.
And we have achieved some really good results in terms of cost savings because of that really
close relationship.
And I believe that we are very well placed because of those relationships, which have
are in the best place possible to deal with those uncertainties.
I absolutely welcome the case in review.
We've been waiting a long time.
And in a way, it couldn't come soon enough.
But obviously, it's got to be thought through.
But we know that we've got this bubble that is just
getting bigger and bigger.
And we are doing our very best as professionals
to reduce that demand, to reduce the cost of serving that demand.
But you know, we are, if you like, in a bit of an envelope with that.
But I think I'll hand over to Craig now to add a bit of meat to the bones on that.
Yeah, thank you, Councillor Tett.
Two really challenging questions to open the baton with, so thank you.
Thank you for that.
In terms of the first one, in terms of input into the case review,
it's still at its very early stages.
Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care - 1:00:12
We've been linking with the CCN, as you well know, the local government.
The local government association, the LGA, and then Southeast ADAS, which is the association
director for adult social services as well to input in terms of that.
The case reviews also got a very active website so you can see some of the initial thoughts
on that.
The key thing about the case review though is the interim findings are, you're absolutely
right, in 2026 this year.
We don't know when this year.
But the key bit, the recommendations coming out must remain affordable, operating within
the spending review settlements remaining this parliament.
So that translates as there's not going to be any additional funding for adult social
care.
And that's absolutely a fact, and I think people need to understand that.
Hence the preset becomes really important for this local authority and every other local
authority across the country as well.
That phase two longer term reports back in 2028 and again,
that's, timing's interesting in terms of that because we're coming
to the end of the life cycle of this parliament as well.
So the honest answer is it's very, very unknown at this stage,
but it will be within the existing budget envelope.
What we do know is from recent government announcements before
Christmas, they're setting down some policy areas that we should focus
on around high -cost quality care, very much around independent living, and then working
in partnership with our health partners.
They're also setting down, as part of that, some more performance indicators to track
how local authorities are performing their adult social care duties, but there's been
no announcements for additional funding accompanying those requirements as well.
That's a national context.
I should also say at the moment as well the government is consulting on a fair pay agreement,
which will also have implications for this sector potentially.
The first fair pay agreement, if it goes forward in its current form, goes in for 28 -29.
And that sets out a fair pay agreement for adult social care workers, amongst other things,
and a national negotiating body as well.
But we are presently inputting into that consultation, very much based with our partners, the CCN
County Councils Network around that has done a very strong response back and the local
government association because there's a number of issues on that.
That as it would come through at the moment would impact in terms of this MTFP at the
end cycle.
Government maintains that that will be done within the funding envelope as well, the $4
billion they've given us nationally, $500 million is being referenced to that.
So you can see there's quite a lot of moving parts nationally, Councillor Tect.
Did you want to ask me any follow -up questions on that before I come to the health part?
I don't want to hog all of this, I'm sure colleagues have lots and lots of questions.
Cllr Martin Tett - 1:03:14
Are you saying that the government has fully funded the impact of the fair pay agreement and also the national minimum wage increases?
I just want to be I think we should just be reassured as committee
That actually there's going to be no additional pressures from either of those two changes on your budget
So the fair pay agreement is out for consultation at the moment
So we don't know the outcomes of that council attacked and I think it will be some significantly advised
Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care - 1:03:36
But they would say it's within the existing funding arrangements, which has been set down as part of the FENT spending review
So there could be an overspend due to that the the views of the county councils network amongst of us is the 500 million
and that they've highlighted in the initial consultation is not adequate, and that's the
message that the sector's going back with, if that makes sense.
And then the ICB changes.
Yeah, in terms of the ICB changes, so quite a lot's going on in that space at the moment,
and again, quite a lot's unknown.
And some of where their functions, their statutory functions, will be delivered from at a future
date, whether it's through another health provider, is unknown at this stage.
We're in very close dialogues with the ICB.
The key thing, I think, as Councillor Darby sets out here
is our partnerships with other health parts of the system.
Principally, Buckinghamshire Healthcare Trust, for example,
and primary care as well, building those networks
at an integrated level as well.
As you well know, Councillor Tett,
the ICB has been in a state of flux since its inception,
So, this is probably under the state of that flux in terms of that, and we're used to managing
it.
The specific point around cost shunting, I think it was the words you used, and CHC,
continuing healthcare.
I would make the point that continuing healthcare is a legal right of people as well, and it's
defined in legislation.
We've got some really good staff who we've invested in who are specially trained in continuing
healthcare.
Tiffany, Donna's French, who's the service director for the service, is also well versed
in continuing healthcare as well.
So we're very robust in pushing back if we believe someone's eligible for continuing
healthcare.
We're also very clear on our legal limits as well.
Section 22 of the Care Act really specifies what we should fund around adult social care
and healthcare taxidermy, ancillary and incidental in that respect as well.
So, we're very clear on that and giving legal literacy training to our staffs as well.
It's something we keep under constant review though, Councillor Tett, because as I said,
this starts from a rights point, rights -based point of view from my perspective.
The Better Care Fund, sorry, just to, that was my question as well.
Cllr Martin Tett - 1:06:01
And there's always, because it's a shared fund between local government and the health
sector, the risk, I guess, with the pressure on NHS budgets is they try to claw more of
that into the NHS rather than into local government.
Yeah, there's something called the NHS minimal contribution to social care that's been maintained.
They're not actually uplifted as well.
Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care - 1:06:19
What we don't know though, council tech, and sorry to be so, there's quite a lot of moving
parts which I generally don't have the answer to, and it's something as the director of
adult social services you have to navigate is that they're looking at the better care
grant conditions again, not as yet published as well.
We are led to believe that will be very much focused on integrated work and where most
for our Better Care Fund is anyway,
and integrated neighbourhood working as well.
But it's something when the guidance comes out
that we'll be absolutely attuned to in terms of that.
But for the next 12 months,
we're expecting the minimum uplift to be uplifted.
Thank you very much indeed.
Councillor Dali.
Cllr John Chilver - 1:07:00
Good morning, I'm Christina Dali from Beckonsfield Ward.
Cllr Christine Adali - 1:07:03
In the capital programme,
I've seen that there is some investment plan for adult social care, which I assume is for
Seeley's and Buckingham, sorry if I don't remember that correctly.
What mitigations have been built in into the adult social care programme in general if the
general costs within the sector rise in the same way as they did for children's centres
in the past and currently are in the vet sector, which I don't think it will be that far down
the line that the adult social care sector will be seen as an investment possibility
and the costs will rise as well.
What mitigations have been built in and, sorry to throw this one in, is it the money saved
on Burnham really worth the risk down the line?
Because I don't see it that far down the line just generally looking at it.
And second part of my question is, given the visibility you have on the needs within the
children's social care sector, how well is the transition now being planned going forward?
Because I know that that was one of the things raised from the consultation, the peer, the
review you recently had, sorry, the name's gone.
How well are you planning going forward?
And I know from families that they have to reapply again
for their PACS when they are
in entering the adult social care sector.
Is that being looked at?
Is that still a need?
Because that would save probably on stress for the families
and also on officers' time.
Because from children's social services
to adult social service,
the needs probably won't move that much.
So that might be a potential saving opportunity,
which will also take stress out for the people involved.
Thank you very much, Councillor Dali, for your questions.
If I take the second one first, if I may,
Cllr Isobel Darby - 1:09:12
in terms of the transitions from children to adults,
this has been highlighted both by Ofsted
and by the Care Quality Commission
in terms of their recent inspections.
And we now have a transitions team where we are looking very closely at how we can improve
the transition journey from children into adults.
And this is one of our KPIs that we look at.
Sometimes we get children at quite an advanced age of their childhood, and so we don't actually
manage to get this done in time.
but we are continually looking to improve this and looking
at working back to starting to plan at the age of 14
for those who we know about.
So rest assured that we are taking this very seriously.
This is a priority for us in terms of ensuring
that that transition is smooth,
and we now have this joint team to look at that.
In terms of the capital programme, I think you were saying,
The question was, this may cost more.
Principally, in the capital programme, you've got 1 .1 million.
Cllr Christine Adali - 1:10:30
So, firstly, is that enough for the works that will be necessary in Seeley's
and the conversion from a former school to now a daycare centre?
Just thinking on the building costs alone.
And also, there's nothing down the line.
So do you still have the cash receipts from which,
once you're allowed to sell Burnham,
where's that money that was raised there going?
Because I couldn't see it in the reserves or anything.
Or is that still held up by the judicial review?
I'll let Emma sort of go into the detail on that.
However, I would say that the most important thing
Cllr Isobel Darby - 1:11:07
of this review is that we are providing the right services
in the right places for our most vulnerable adults in these in these both
daycare and respite centres and that is that is why we are moving forward
with the plan as it as it was approved by cabinet. So I am convinced that what
we're doing is the absolutely the right thing in terms of the money this was all
Costed and I will let Emma go into more detail on that because she is the money person
Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care - 1:11:47
Just just to say around that the capital allocation in there is for
based improvements at the
Centres we propose to retain but also for a new respite facility as well
There is an element of contingency in there. Some of those funds are coming out this financial year as well
which clearly is in this MTFP in terms of get those some of those improvements going
long term. We've also in the past probably in the last 18 months or so we've we've we've done some
spend to save initiatives around capital as well so we've worked with a voluntary sector provider
as well to get additional beds in in our residential and nursing provisions as well
because that's a good way for us as well and as as a service we're also very heavily dependent
around capital on our disabled facilities grants as well.
They're really important for us because they help people live
at home, that's our overarching strategy.
And if you see the shift in balance of care,
that's what we've been very successfully achieving
over the last few years is really developing home care.
So, DF, disabled facilities grants are really important
to us as well and there's about 200 of those
which are completed annually every year.
Emma, anything around the budgets particularly?
Emma Wilding - Head of Finance, Adults & Health - 1:13:05
Just to say that the total amount for the capital programme is 1 .6 million. There's
500 ,000 in this financial year and then there's a further 1 .1 million in next financial year
and as Craig said there is a contingency built into that although we've got a lot of quotes
already for that and moving on with that work already so I do believe it will be sufficient.
And the other part of the question was looking at the future development of the adult social
Cllr Christine Adali - 1:13:34
care market, because you've seen it with children's services.
It was very worthwhile outsourcing.
We've taken them back.
Currently, if you look at the vet costs, they're exploding because it's suddenly an investment
scene.
the next one most likely is adult social care.
Have you got a contingency for that or are you thinking of that already in the future?
Because the costs will go up at some point rather swiftly.
Thank you very much. On that we are very aware of that situation.
It is monitored absolutely regularly.
Cllr Isobel Darby - 1:14:11
At the moment we believe that we are, by actually going to providers,
we are doing the right thing, the most cost effective thing.
but that is constantly under review.
There may be a time when there is a change,
but we will be ready to anticipate.
Now, if I just sort of go back to the NRS situation,
you know, our team has their finger on the pulse.
They are looking at things.
They know the risks.
I mean, it's interesting that, you know,
we are looking at giving certainty to providers
by buying more block beds.
That helps them.
That helps them be sustainable. We
use providers some providers who are not -for -profit, so
We are looking all the time at this situation and you know
We were discussing only the other day is there going to be a time that comes when we need to have our own
Own services, but we do not believe that this is time at the present time. I'll hand over to Craig
Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care - 1:15:20
It is a very different market in adults to children's, that's the first thing to say.
And the extent to reliance on the private sector and the voluntary sector is absolutely
core to the way that adult social services are delivered as well.
We have, I think across Buckinghamshire, something in the region of 274 regulated provisions
by the Care Quality Commission.
So you can see the scale of that.
Our independent workforce is something like 13 ,000 as well.
So it's a completely different scale,
which means there are often providers who leave the market
as well as those new market entrants as well.
So it's a different base in terms of that.
But it is something that we're absolutely attuned to.
I think it's something that you keep under review.
We've got our in -house re -abundant service in -house
as well because we think that's really important
to keep really close to us,
working really closely with our hospital discharge colleagues as well.
And then also, as this committee will know also, our base services which are
catering for the most needy across the county as well. So it will be a mixed provision,
is my own answer. I think we've got some great providers across the county as well,
some really strong ones as well. We can always think about the negative experiences, but there's
some really great providers who really want to work
in partnership with us and share the same values
and ethos that we do around that as well.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Council Wilson, I think you're next.
Cllr John Chilver - 1:16:48
Thank you, Chairman.
Good morning.
I have a few questions as you might think.
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:16:54
First one relates to fees and charges on page 34
of our PAC.
We have a schedule of all the major fees and charges changes
for the council.
And I think one of the first ones on there
is adult social care charges going up 7 .04%.
And I wanted to understand what benchmarking had taken place
with other authorities.
How is that number derived?
because clearly we're looking at broadly about a 5 % increase across the council,
summing up some down, but clearly this is a very sensitive area and when you take that in conjunction
with efficiencies of existing packages for example, I suppose one of the questions that many residents
and people concerned about their loved ones is, you know, are we paying more for less coming
into this so you know those existing packages savings by the end of this
MTFP period are about 4 .6 million pounds so it really is could you could you
provide some answer in terms of how do we get to that fee increase number
because clearly it's running ahead of inflation running ahead of the council's
charges and then some reassurance that that residents are not getting charged
more for less in terms of undergoing those reviews with smaller and smaller care packages.
I then have some other questions, Chairman.
I shall play my other hat at an appropriate point.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Stuart, for that question.
Cllr Isobel Darby - 1:18:42
And I am going to pass straight over to Emma on that because she knows all the numbers
and how they get worked up, so I will hand over.
So, I think the 7 percent that you're referring to is where we have the total income for adult
Emma Wilding - Head of Finance, Adults & Health - 1:18:55
social care, and then the increase in income, and then the derived percentage.
So, largely what's driving that increase in income is the growth in numbers that we are
expecting.
So, the overall numbers are going to go up.
So, as well as having additional costs and the growth that we've built in for that, we
expect that we will have additional income.
And we use, the way we've modelled it is that we've used,
there is quite a steady percentage that we get
in terms of how much income we get back
for every pound we spend.
So we use that percentage.
And that's actually quite steady nationally.
So we benchmark that as well.
So most of that growth is the growth in numbers.
The growth in how much we've actually upped our fees by,
by, we've put that in line with how much inflation that we are giving to providers.
So it's around 3 .5 percent.
However, people will only pay for what they can afford to pay because everybody, if it's
a care package, they will be assessed and they will only pay what they can afford to
pay.
There are some charges to do with setting up a deferred payment agreement, for example,
where we do have a flat rate, and that has been increased by the general council 5 percent.
So it's either 5 percent or it's in line with how much we're giving providers, or it
but the main reason it looks high is because of the increase in numbers.
Thank you.
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:20:36
I read the table differently, so perhaps we can change the labelling next year on that.
And in terms of the efficiencies on existing care packages, how can you please give residents
some reassurance that they're not being reduced?
I think it's, thank you to Councillor Wilson, I think on that one, obviously care packages
Cllr Isobel Darby - 1:20:58
are reviewed and if there is a better way of doing something, then it will be, you know,
less hours or less people coming to care,
then obviously the cost of the care package
would be adjusted accordingly.
So it wouldn't be a case of somebody saying,
we're giving you this care, you're gonna pay this,
whatever kind of care we give you.
Yeah, that's absolutely right.
Councillor Wilson, it would trigger financial reassessment
of that particular package as well,
Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care - 1:21:29
so they're not paying for those hours
they're no longer receiving.
Thank you.
I think it's just important that when residents are looking at
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:21:40
this budget and viewing this webcast that they kind of sense
what is behind the numbers on that.
I'd like to talk about public health, if I may.
So obviously the big push with the whole integrated care system
is in terms of focus more on prevention, focus more on
community -based care, try and get people out of hospitals.
And I think, you know, it has been stated,
we kind of get given a public health grant
and we get told how we're going to go and spend it.
And given what I think Buckinghamshire is trying
to do collectively with our partners, you know,
it's kind of be a little bit on the front foot here in terms
of neighbourhood health, neighbourhood health hubs.
We've got a pilot coming.
I think it's a really, really important area that perhaps we
haven't historically given as much focus, and I'm pleased to
see that we've got a more detailed breakdown in the pack.
Question on page 111, which is our public health data, it lists
a whole lot of numbers, but I have no sense of whether that's
good or not, so we provide the absolute number, but we don't
give a sense of whether that is delivering against any of the goals of that £27 million.
So I think that would be really interesting and useful to qualify that in some way.
And because I don't know if that number of health cheques is a good number or a bad number
compared to our peers, what have you.
There is a other grant and additional grant, and I know the additional grant was a late
entry into the budget process with more detail to come, but it's quite a substantial part
of it.
Is that discretionary or is that also prescribed by government?
And I'd be really interested to understand when the plans come forward on that.
And the final point on public health is we're using some
public health reserve and given you won't have been in previous
sessions, but concerns expressed about in terms of use of
reserves gets wants and we've got some additional grant
funding coming in, presumably you'd committed to be using
the reserve before we knew about the additional public health
grant, but, you know, can you just talk about the reserve,
what our position is with our public health reserve so that the committee can
have some sense of we're not burning all of the the reserve this year and how
does that sit alongside the additional and other grant funding so it's a really
important part of our initiative to help deliver the overall health well -being
strategy so I think it'd be useful to have a little bit of focus on that
please, thank you. Thank you very much Stuart for that. We couldn't underestimate
Cllr Isobel Darby - 1:24:52
the power of public health and how important it is and I'm glad that you
have highlighted that because it is incredibly important. You know the
portfolio is health and well -being. The majority of our spend goes on a very
small number of our population but actually we are responsible for the
population as a whole as well and that is where public health absolutely comes in. Getting to those people
before they need our services, getting to those people before they develop so many multiple long -term conditions that they cannot live
independently and so it is there's no way you could you could
stress enough the importance of what happens in public health is helping people to look after themselves.
And I would like to thank David for the amazing work.
I mean, every meeting I have, it is, we've got this initiative,
we're doing this, or, you know, we're doing that.
And there's so much that's being done with so little,
because I think I said in my opening remarks,
the public health grant that we get is one of the lowest.
And it is so important that we do so much with it.
And I think I will hand over to David to sort of go
into a little bit more detail on everything and to sort
of answer your substantive questions.
Thank you, Councillor, and thank you for your question,
Councillor Wilson.
David Munday - Director of Public Health - 1:26:13
So maybe just to kind of run through, first of all,
in terms of the numbers that are contained within the PAC
in terms of activity, that slide's there really
to give a feel alongside kind of adult social care in terms
of some of the key areas of activity.
And I think you're quite right to ask the question, well,
is that what good looks like and what's
that mean in terms of outcomes?
So we have a public health outcomes framework
that this data is taken from, and that's available publicly.
There are national targets that are included there,
and it also compares Buckinghamshire
to other authorities within the southeast,
comparator authorities, and ones similar to our population
in other parts of the country as well as nationally.
So we get a really good picture in terms of the outcomes
and in terms of what we're delivering for residents
through that outcomes framework.
We then report specific ones of those through to cabinet
in terms of the corporate kind of cabinet reporting
and also in a more detailed way within the health
and wellbeing board, quarterly updates in terms of delivery
of that health and wellbeing strategy.
There are indicators, included ones listed here,
that are reported through into the health and wellbeing board.
So apologies, it isn't quite as, maybe as clear as it could be in this pack, but
we are very clear on needing to report on outcomes and
on that kind of positive offer for residents.
Can I just -
Yeah, sorry, of course, yeah.
Obviously, those people who are looking a lot at the health data.
Yeah.
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:27:51
But this report obviously is circulated amongst a diverse group, and
I think it would be very helpful to have those reference points
in going forwards, because not everybody is then going to go,
well, I wouldn't know where to go for a necessary
of that public health report.
So I think it needs some context is my point.
Yeah, noted.
David Munday - Director of Public Health - 1:28:19
On the point in regard to the overall public health table,
so that's on page number 106 within the pack,
which shows then that additional spend funded by the Public
Health Grant, which I think, Councillor Wilson,
is what you were referencing.
So within that line, there's about $1 .4 million,
which is already kind of, which is ring fence
for specific spend already and kind of set by government
and isn't actually new money.
So prior to the local government funding settlement
announcements in December, the authority was already receiving
two specific areas of kind of grant funding, sorry,
to support work in two specific areas,
which were outside of the main public health grant.
So this is kind of grants within grants.
Those were relating to some additional work to support drug
and alcohol reductions in drug and alcohol harm,
and that was based out of the national strategy called
from Harm to Hope, and then also to support smoke -free and
tobacco control efforts.
So what was announced in December
was a continuation of those two specific grants
but rolled into the public health grant.
In later this month, we're expecting confirmation
to be published by Department of Health and Social Care, which
would lay out the ring fence of how that $1 .4 million
must be spent specifically on drugs and alcohol.
that's about 1 .1, and then the tobacco control,
that's about 0 .3.
So that is kind of, has to be within those particular areas.
That does then give some additional headroom,
so it's about 700K in the 26, 27 allocation, and again,
for the subsequent two years, which isn't yet allocated.
It will be up to us as an authority to determine
where we think that will get the greatest outcome in terms
of the preventative effort that you highlighted
in your question and improving kind of health
and well -being in the county.
We can choose to do more with some
of those mandated services that you described.
We can choose to do some additional work outside
of those mandated services, but it must fit
within the overall terms and conditions
of the public health grant.
And I'm happy then just to come on to the reserve part as well
if that's helpful.
So one of the, and this sounds a bit idiosyncratic, I think.
One of the consequences of a public health pandemic was the reserve that we have
in Buckinghamshire in terms of the public health grant actually increased
at the time of a public health emergency of COVID.
And the reason that happened is those mandated services that that grant must be spent on,
at least a high proportion of it,
were not running in their usual ways,
because clearly the whole system was diverted
to responding to the pandemic.
So the reserve in Buckinghamshire,
like it did in nearly every authority in the country,
increased.
What we have agreed with the Department
for Health and Social Care is a reserve utilisation plan that
brings that reserve level down from, I think, within the pack.
It sits at just over the $6 million mark,
brings it down over the next three years to a significantly lower figure of around 500 ,000,
which would, which can be used to, again, within the ring of the fence of the public
health grant, but to forward some of that innovative work to do some of the kind of
collaborative working that we're describing and to be improving outcomes.
So within each of the financial years, there's an allocated amount that is being utilised
is to kind of get best outcome
and to kind of drive that reserve down.
Thank you very much indeed.
I think I've got Councillor Pohl next.
Cllr John Chilver - 1:32:24
Thank you, Chairman.
Councillor Wilson has asked the question
Cllr Chris Poll - 1:32:30
that I wish to ask,
but I would just like to say to Mr. Mundy
that is the most comprehensive and satisfactory answer
we've had on use of budgetary reserves in the whole of the two -day session so
far so thank you very much for that.
Cllr John Chilver - 1:32:51
Any other questions? That's it. Right, Councillor Crabtree. Yes hello thank you.
Cllr Anna Crabtree - 1:32:59
So I was going to ask about agency staffing but first I just wanted to
clarify something that came up earlier in Emma Wilding's comments about capital
spend because in the capital programme table that we've got the day centres
number is one million and thirty seven thousand but I don't think that tallies
with what you were saying about the one year and two years spent is that right
yes sorry it was just so it's just under 1 .6 million overall and there's so
Emma Wilding - Head of Finance, Adults & Health - 1:33:26
that's not what we've got in our plan because there's five hundred thousand in
the current year in 25 -26 and that's for future years.
So that the one point, yeah sorry,
I rounded it up slightly, but it's the figure
of just over one million in your pack
is added to the 500 ,000 in this year.
And that's adequate to do the work
that's required on the day sentence.
To do the work, yes.
So we started it already and it will continue into next year.
Okay, thank you for clarifying.
Thank you.
So then the other question I had was about agency staffing.
Cllr Anna Crabtree - 1:33:58
We can see on page 39 or 31 of the PAC, depending on which way you look at the numbering, there
was 16 million per year on agency staffing.
I just wondered if Councillor Darby could tell me how much of that related to adult
social care, because we don't have the split in our PAC.
And are we recruiting the permanent staff we need and taking the best value route to
service delivery, given the number of agency staff we're relying on?
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Councillor Crabtree.
Cllr Isobel Darby - 1:34:30
The, I'm informed it's about 3 million.
We have, we have generally about 35 agency staff.
That's currently 41 because we have taken
on some occupational therapists as agency staff
for a specific programme.
That is a temporary programme.
So obviously very keen to keep the number
of agency staff low.
That's really important.
It's important especially in terms of social work. We need continuity with for our
vulnerable people. They need to be talking to the same person, you know, as much as they can.
So we try and do that as much as we can. So it is low and I think it's realistic and I
think there's a good reason why it's gone up recently.
Thank you very much indeed. Do you want to? No.
Cllr John Chilver - 1:35:20
Councillor Dobson, did you want to add? I just wanted, sorry, I very rudely didn't
Cllr Isobel Darby - 1:35:27
pass on to my officers to see if they wish to add anything, but they don't.
Cllr John Chilver - 1:35:31
Fine, great. Thanks very much indeed. I think I've got Councillor Mater next.
Thank you, Chairman. I'm Councillor Nithim Hatta for Aylesbury West. So I have a few
Cllr Nidhi Mehta - 1:35:40
questions. The first one is regarding the better care grant. As we know that it will
be absorbed into fair funding in later years. So my question is, what risk does this create
for health and wellbeing services? That's one. The next one is, which services are most
dependent on this funding? And the third one is, what is the mitigation if allocations
So these three questions are for the better care grant.
I have two more.
So if you want to answer first, and then I can go
on to the next questions.
Okay.
I'm going to ask Craig to go into the detail on that.
Cllr Isobel Darby - 1:36:22
But all I would say is that whenever we have a budget
challenge, we find ways to improve the situation.
So if we get a budget pressure like that, we will just have
to work even harder at what we're already doing.
It's getting more and more challenging, but we have to, by law, provide services to our
most vulnerable people, and we will absolutely continue to do that.
But I will hand over to Craig for the detail on that.
Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care - 1:36:53
In terms of the types of services that are funded by it, it's set out, we have lengthy
and detailed conversations with our NHS colleagues about where best to use that fund.
The Better Care Fund is, funds both health services
and adult social care services as well.
So, quite a lot of the Better Care Fund,
the focus is always on adult social care, but the grant,
which is also, because it's an NHS grant as well,
also funds some of the community health care services
in Buckinghamshire Healthcare Trust in terms of that.
For us, it focuses on things like re -ablement.
It focuses on things like carers.
It focuses on things like occupational therapies in terms of that.
Wherever there's that join up and interface with the, with our health colleagues is where
we want to focus the grant.
The grant is very much around a couple of main areas because we have to get our plan
signed off by NHS England.
It has to go through a very detailed insurance process every year.
First, it has to go to the Health and Wellbeing Board for sign off for local ownership and
And then onto this assurance process, as I said.
And there's a couple key metrics that they focus on.
One is discharges out of hospital, which we've been very successful in achieving a much better
rate through our transfer care hub, which has improved flow out of hospital.
And then admissions avoidance.
And that admissions avoidance can also be around avoiding admissions to residential
care as well, which we're absolutely focused on as well.
So that's the essence of that.
So those are the grant conditions that we're focused on.
And I'm sorry, but I missed the third part of your three -parter.
The third one was, what is the mitigation for allocation of these?
Cllr Nidhi Mehta - 1:38:43
So I think the mitigation around...
When it reduces, basically what mitigations do you do when these allocations are reduced?
Is there any plan?
Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care - 1:39:01
In terms of the grant reducing, as I said, we think at this stage that the grant is given,
is secure.
What we don't know at the moment, I'll get, because this is, it probably refers to the
table on page 107, the addendum, and I'll get Emma just to speak to that because it
is fairly confusing for members of the public in particular.
But in terms of, it relates to Councillor Tech's points earlier, we're absolutely
assured of better care for the next 12 months.
What we don't know is that the changes in grant conditions are coming out in January.
We think we're already aligned to those in terms of our integrated neighbourhood working,
but it's something that we will need to review when it comes out in terms of that.
The government is committed to a better care fund. We think it will have a different title.
Emma Wilding - Head of Finance, Adults & Health - 1:39:52
Yes, so the better care grant of 6 .2 million, is that the one that you're referring to that's going to be absorbed?
Yeah, so that, like the one below it of the 7 .3 million, these grants, so we already have
both the expenditure and the income in our budget at the moment.
But because they're going to be absorbed and not sort of ring -fenced anymore, this particular,
this is just part, the Better Care grant is slightly, is just part of the Better Care
So it's only part of it that's going to be absorbed like this.
But the absorption, so the money that you see going into adult social care on these
two lines is to remove the income element.
So we will still have the expenditure element, so we will be no better off and no worse off
as a result.
So although it looks like it's increasing our budget, it is increasing our base budget,
but it's not increasing our overall power to spend
because we've already got that income in there at the moment.
It's quite technical, but I hope that explains it slightly.
Thank you.
My next question is about carers.
Cllr Nidhi Mehta - 1:41:08
So we know that the House committee,
the select committee is aware of the renewed focus
on support for the carers.
So my question is, how confident are you that the budget will
ensure carers of all ages are properly supported?
And I have one more question after this.
Carers are absolutely the backbone of our care system.
Cllr Isobel Darby - 1:41:37
There are so many unsung heroes who often work 24 -7.
They don't get any time off, and it is absolutely important that
we support them because without them,
we will have a lot of people requiring
some very, very expensive care.
So there is absolutely no way that we underestimate
the support that they give to this system.
I mean, they are volunteers.
They probably don't look at themselves as volunteers
because they're mainly family members.
But it is absolutely imperative that we support them.
We have various contracts.
We've got a contract with CarersBucks at the moment to
provide support for them, and they do a lot of things
to support.
They provide help, and I know that that is true because
I'm a carer myself, and I have used them.
We also have something called Mobilise, which is an online
tool, again, which is incredibly useful.
I think one of the most important things as a carer,
and a lot of people just come into that without knowing,
is to know that there are people out there who you can turn to when you need them.
And so I can assure you that there is absolutely no way that we underestimate that.
And I believe the support that we put in is the right support.
And again, a lot of this is early intervention so that people feel that they can care for loved ones
because that support is there.
And similarly with our very, very most vulnerable adults,
The day centres the overnight respite that is incredibly important to support those carers
Do you want to add anything?
Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care - 1:43:20
I think you've covered it. I think the carers strategy is really important for the county. It's multi -agency multi -partnership
It was co -produced with carers as well
It's got a comprehensive action plan each individual organisation has their own responsibilities as well as a large employer
We employ a number of carers, and we do actively support those as well.
And I think the oversight of that will definitely be through our HASC board, who often shows
a very keen interest in making sure that we deliver for carers.
Thank you.
And one last question, if I may.
Cllr Nidhi Mehta - 1:43:57
This is, as we all know, that prevention is always better than cure.
So, what proportion of the budget is allocated to the
prevention agenda, and do you think it is sufficient to
deliver the core aim of supporting people to live
healthier lives in the community, and how are you
measuring the success of this strand of the
Better Life Strategy?
Okay, so I think my first thing to say is probably not
Cllr Isobel Darby - 1:44:24
enough, but there isn't any more money, because a lot of
Our budget is absolutely tied to care that we need to provide
under the Care Act.
So, you know, it's a statutory responsibility.
But all I would say is that the prevention work that we do,
and we do with partners, and a lot of it is done with partners,
health, voluntary, community sector,
is really, really important.
I think I would go to, probably ask David to add some detail,
oh sorry, Craig and then David to add some detail
in terms of monitoring that?
Yeah, thank you for the question.
Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care - 1:44:59
It's really important in terms of that prevention offer.
It very much starts for us with information and advice.
So we've done an awful lot of work on our website,
making sure that information's out in libraries
and with our voluntary community sector partners.
Giving people the right choices, the right information,
really helps early on in terms of that stage as well.
And as Councillor Darby references earlier,
We have a fabulous customer call centre, contact centre,
who really provides great information
and advice as a first point of contact.
I think there's a number of ways that we both promote prevention
but also re -ablement as well.
In terms of prevention, I'll hand over to David in a moment,
is the public health grant, David and his team's done an
awful lot of alignment of the public health grant
to supporting adult social care.
So he'll reference in a minute our new prevention service,
which is just about to go live this week, this month,
this end of March.
And then we've also got things like the Healthy Ageing
grants, which are really a community -based focus in terms
of that.
So we've done an awful lot of work.
That bit of the public health grant we can
is aligned to support in what we would call the critical four,
critical five in terms of that so that we're really
promoting independence.
So I'll let David speak to a little bit more
to put some flesh on that.
We're also really keen about promoting independence as well.
So when people come through to us,
they come through a point of crisis in their lives.
So we want conversations which are positive with them.
So Tiffany's service very much promotes something
called strength -based practise.
So having a conversation with people
to see what's important to them in their lives
and how we can support them from a position of strength,
not from a position of weakness as well.
And that gets people back on their feet as well.
And we have a fabulous in -house re -ab
service and we track their, the amount of outcomes that they achieve in terms of reduction
in packages of care.
How many people after their intervention no longer needs care?
And so we track those as national indicators as well.
So we're really proud of those services as well.
But a big piece of our approach is absolutely the public health focus as well.
And David, I just want to add a little bit.
Yeah, thanks, Councillor Darby.
Thanks, Craig.
So, a couple of things just to add from my point of view.
David Munday - Director of Public Health - 1:47:20
I think it's really clear that there are definite wins, win -wins in this space.
So, when you improve people's health and wellbeing, you also reduce the risk that they will need
adult social care.
And hence, it's, there's intelligence in joining up what we're doing in public health with
what's happening in adult social care, as you might expect.
A lot of the public health work then that contributes in that space is kind of the leading
light is our healthy ageing strategy, which is something that we, brings together a number
of strands of action that helps us in that space.
Three things that I would pick out.
Firstly, then the adult social care prevention service that was just kind of referenced.
So that will be launched in March.
It will be delivered by Age UK Bucks.
And that is specifically looking at how you can provide kind of holistic wrap around support for people who are either on the margins of care or who are looking like they're deteriorating but don't yet need adult social care support.
So sometimes that's because of things like loneliness and social isolation and that causes quite a quick, can cause quite a quick deterioration.
It can be to do with postural instability and the risk of falling.
There can be other factors which you can intervene on and avoid the need for, or at least delay
the need for, kind of statutory social care.
So that service will launch in March with some very clear indicators in terms of both
activity numbers, but also outcomes for those service users of that service.
The second thing just to point to then is we do some funding through Hearts of Bucks
to support in the kind of healthy ageing fund as we call it to really help support some kind of grass root initiatives in that kind of preventative space.
And then thirdly, and we were discussing this at the HASC committee recently, when it comes to dementia prevention,
The NHS health cheque, which is one of those mandated elements we must deliver with the public health grant,
that is primarily a cardiovascular disease cheque and kind of health cheque and MOT for people between the ages of 40 and 74.
That's exactly the age you should be focusing on when it comes to healthy ageing.
So healthy ageing kind of starts at 40 is kind of our mantra.
But what's good for the heart and good for the cardiovascular system is good for the brain.
And if you can reduce those cardiovascular risks,
you reduce the risk, particularly
of vascular dementia.
And modelling suggests up to 45 percent of cases
of dementia are preventable.
So we do quite a lot of work in that space to try
and reduce dementia prevalence because we know that's a clear
challenge for the carer, but obviously significant
for the individual and the support service
that the individuals then require.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Huxley, next.
Cllr John Chilver - 1:50:17
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Andy Huxley - 1:50:21
On page 111, under the heading Public Health,
there are a list of attendances or whatever.
One of them being 1873 assessing stop smoking,
support. One of the items missing to my mind is vaping. Do we have any concerns
there and if so what are we doing about it? We absolutely do have concerns about
Cllr Isobel Darby - 1:51:01
vaping. I think everybody thought vaping was an excellent idea as a substitute
for cigarettes but unfortunately a lot of the people who now vape are people who
never smoked in the first place.
And so it sort of backfired a little bit.
So we want people to be absolutely nicotine free.
And we are doing an awful lot in that area.
There is a new drug that we are looking at,
which can be used to stop the craving.
And I've actually recommended it to somebody
I know who stopped smoking and is now vaping and hates vaping.
So it is all inclusive.
But I will hand over to David for more detail.
And thank you.
So, it is exactly the right question to ask
and exactly interesting comments
David Munday - Director of Public Health - 1:51:44
because I don't think anyone quite perceived how vaping would
kind of progress when vapes first kind
of appeared however long ago.
We know that we see significant health harm from tobacco
in Buckinghamshire.
And that means that people die earlier than they should
and the years they live that kind of shorter life
are in worse health directly because of the health impact
of tobacco.
There therefore is a small cohort of people
where as a kind of a harm reduction
or a harm minimization approach,
but not perfect kind of prevention if you like,
you do want to move away from a tobacco cigarette
onto a vape if that's what they can manage.
So for the right cohort of people
through our smoking cessation service, we do support using vapes as a quit aid for that reason.
That is by no means saying what we want to be seeing is then kind of children vaping in parks
and that increase in use that we've seen among children and young people, and I'll touch on that in just a moment.
The other thing we're then doing within the service itself, as Councillor Derby alluded to,
is there's a drug that's been available for a while, but there's been supply issues,
and it's now back available in the UK called vorinocline.
And instead of that being a typical nicotine replacement
therapy where, as the description would say,
you're taking away the nicotine from a cigarette
and you're replacing it with a patch or with gum
or an other way of more safely introducing nicotine
into the body, vorinocline blocks the receptor
in the brain that is craving the nicotine
and means that you can make a quick attempt
but without the need for that kind of nicotine replacement.
And that has got really good outcomes,
and that is something that is endorsed and recommended
by NICE, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
On the kind of preventing people that were never smokers,
picking up vaping, that is a trend
we've seen within the kind of youth and kind of children
and young people space.
We've commissioned some specific work
within schools in Buckinghamshire
to raise the profile kind of educationally of what the harms of vaping are, the challenges of it.
And we've also responded to the government's kind of consultation on bringing in restrictions on the advertising of vapes to young people
and that kind of mandatory sale age of kind of over 16 as well to try and kind of reduce those numbers.
So it's a bit of a complex picture, but our eye is absolutely on avoiding vaping where people have never been smokers,
but for a very small proportion of people using it as a way of getting them off that harmful tobacco.
My concerns really are more with the vapes that still have nicotine in them, you know,
Cllr Andy Huxley - 1:54:37
and people, if you like, going on to something with nicotine
in it at an early age, if you like, as well.
Yeah, and the vast majority of vapes do have nicotine in.
David Munday - Director of Public Health - 1:54:50
When we're looking at that kind of harm reduction approach,
the fact that they haven't got the tobacco in means we know
they are less harmful because the tobacco is
the real kind of lethal part.
But I agree with you in terms of what, of course, we want
is people not to be exposed to nicotine either.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Dhillon?
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr John Chilver - 1:55:14
Cllr Dev Dhillon - 1:55:16
I'm going to start with challenges and risks.
Ever since I've been in this Council,
I've seen that this budget, all this very complex
and very important portfolio, always go above the budget.
It doesn't come near the balances.
And where we've got challenges and risks,
We just know that NRS withdraw their services.
We rely on a lot of agency and some another companies
which they provide us the services.
Probably one of the most used portfolio.
Is there assumptions made in the portfolio that anything happens
like what happened to NRS that we can manage our portfolio?
And secondly, with increasing pressure on the hospitals,
where we see the corridor beds now, the transfer care fund,
who actually pays or what funding do we get
if we try to help them?
And my final part of that one is I've often been asked
by my local residents that from decade we are paying 2 percent
on the precepts because we have central funding grant
and then we have a better care fund.
and then third one is the local residents.
This has been going for decades.
There's an accumulative what percentage of funds
that the general community is funding onto this portfolio,
and is there any site in future
where people can say I'm only paying my rates,
what the inflation is, but not above the inflation?
Sorry, could you just repeat the last piece
that you said I wasn't clear?
On rates, there's a 2 % increase of the adult social services,
and that has been going on for roughly a decade.
So there must be accumulative compound funds
that how much money the community is funding
into this portfolio, into their rates, and is there any way
in future where they can't or they can get away with it?
And how many councils nationally pay,
charge this 2 % levy on adult social care? On the 2 % adult social care levy I think
Cllr Isobel Darby - 1:57:35
that is something which just as I think the leader alluded to yesterday, councils
are almost expected to increase their council tax by the maximum that they are
allowed to and similarly with this it's almost baked in in terms of how the
but it is the world that we are living in.
In terms of the cumulative effect, I must admit,
I don't know whether Emma can shed some light on that,
so I'll pass on that one and we'll come back to the rest.
Yeah, I think we'll take that question away,
if that's all right, and get back to you
on the actual numbers, thank you.
Emma Wilding - Head of Finance, Adults & Health - 1:58:13
I would say that I hope you can see
Cllr Isobel Darby - 1:58:20
that every single penny that is raised is spent well
and is absolutely scrutinised in terms of, you know,
do we need to spend it?
And I can absolutely say we do need to spend everything.
In terms of provider failure, you said, you know,
where are we at?
All I would say is in this year we have had three provider
failures, well, definitely three, the biggest probably
NRS, then we've had a care provider for a number of
care homes, and then we've had one care home which closed.
And I think in the first, in my view,
the most important thing at the time that these things happen
is to ensure that we have continuity of care
or of provision for whatever service is being provided.
And I am really pleased that when we had a company called
Ambient that failed and then stopped trading,
We had a transfer to Agin Care.
It went very, very smoothly.
The people receiving that care would not have noticed.
We also had, I think, a care home, I think, in Burnham,
which an Abbeyfield which closed.
And again, we had clients there, and we made sure that they,
we relocated them to suitable places,
and they weren't left without care.
So that's the first thing, but in terms of the budget,
absolutely, it does cost money, but we have to make sure
that we have find ways of absorbing that and that is what we do. I'll hand over to Craig here.
Yeah can I just give a clarification because we're very proud of this, Councillor Dillon,
Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care - 2:00:00
is last year we balanced the adult social care budget and so we're not always overspent. We were
very proud of that. We worked really hard with the directorate to balance the adult social care budget
and all things being equal, fingers crossed, we will balance the adult social care budget this
So we're really proud about that.
Lots of adult social care directorates are in that position across the country as well.
A lot of that comes down to actually this council and the way it sets a budget.
And Emma's work in particular is really strong.
And I'm very proud of Emma's work in terms of forecasting what the budget will be.
It's been published as best practise and that should give this committee some confidence
that we actually get in our forecasting really, really, really well.
done really well and Emma's work has been published by CITFA in terms of that planning,
financial planning, but also then about how we monitor the adult social care budget through
the year and again that's been published as a case study as well because we get real -time
information on our budget as well which allows us to intervene earlier.
So you're absolutely right, this budget is hugely volatile and provider failures and
will happen and that's why as a director we then have to wrap around to bring
forward additional plans of different different actions to make sure that we
do balance as well some of those provider failures as well sometimes we
we actually that as well because we're we're maximising our block contracts for
example in terms of that but so we all the time we're absolutely monitoring our
budget and taking additional actions if we have to to budget I just want to make
at the point that we're really proud of our term last year.
Was your second point out of three?
Thank you.
I know my concern is there's a huge pressure
on this portfolio.
Cllr Dev Dhillon - 2:01:53
And it's very much reliant on outside.
Because one of the things I can see,
if the fuel duty has been taken off,
this is probably one of the portfolio
where the care workers use mostly their cars
and private providers.
They will all affect.
So end of the day, that cost has to come somewhere.
And it's always good to have that contingency to say, you know, if that happens, yes, we are there.
It's full of challenges.
Yeah.
It absolutely is full of challenges.
I think we're attuned to that.
Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care - 2:02:29
But it does start, and I honestly believe this, with sound financial planning in the first place as well.
We will never get it right because it is too volatile, too complex, et cetera.
but we've got some very sound principles that Emma set down
in terms of looking at the complexity,
looking at previous year's data, looking at the cost of living
increases, et cetera.
So we give ourselves the best possible chance
to deliver this budget.
And the other way you do that is through the monitoring.
So it is hugely volatile.
It is two things keeping me awake.
It's not as a director of Adult Social Services.
One is safeguarding.
The other is the budget.
Those are the two things that absolutely keep me awake
every night.
but we have a relentless focus on it in terms of that.
That transfer care hub is real partnership approach
in terms of the way we fund it as well.
So we have BHT funding in terms of their ICP funding
and our own funding as well around that
to really work for it.
Again, that was an area of focus.
Three years ago, we were spending 13 million pounds
in that area.
We're now spending a certain nine to 10 million in that area
so we had a relentless focus on trying to get
that right -sized as well because we had people as a result of discharges in the
wrong places in the system. If we can get people home first time that really helps
them which is the most important thing and then the cost as well.
Thank you very much indeed. Before we move on to second questions from the
Cllr John Chilver - 2:03:55
committee we have two elected members in attendance in the chamber and I just
like to ask them to indicate by raising a hand if they wish to ask a question at this
stage. I can't see any hands up, so anyway, you're very welcome to the debate. And I have
Councillor Wilson to ask a...
Thank you. I'm looking at page 112, which is the revenue split for adult social care.
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 2:04:27
I don't know what page you've got for that, but it's the kind of one of the early charts.
In the nicest possible way, community services budget is the one that's going down.
And I wanted to understand, is that based on recovery from the situation we've had in
25 -26?
So where we had a budget of 3 .8 million, and that's heading down to 2 .9 million by 28 -29.
So is it that 2526 is inflated for community services?
We're trying to work out which page.
Cllr Isobel Darby - 2:05:16
It's revenue budget health and wellbeing portfolios page 112, 104.
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 2:05:21
Cllr John Chilver - 2:05:24
Clarify, we're using the big numbers at the bottom of the portrait page.
104 in the bottom right hand corner. 104 in the budget. Okay and the question was on community services.
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 2:05:38
Community services. So that relates to our changes in the day centres.
Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care - 2:05:41
Councillor Wesson. Okay that's why I just wanted to cheque. So yeah that's the savings coming through as planned.
Thank you.
Cllr John Chilver - 2:05:53
Is that it, Councillor Wilson? Councillor Paul I think is it?
Thank you Chairman. I'm going to try and make some sense of my scribbled notes. I will say
Cllr Chris Poll - 2:06:05
this in our closed wash up session at the end but I think this is a fantastic team.
I think they're delivering huge challenges and I would request that one of our outputs
of this process is that we ask our MPs through Outbox to lobby hard for any grants that we
can get because this team is delivering.
And we've heard from the transport section yesterday that because we spent more on road
repairs, we received more grant.
What concerns me is that this team can deliver to their budget, not overspend.
Government may assume that we don't need any more money or even that grant is reduced.
but it's clear the work that is being done
is incredibly important and very, very valued.
To back up my assertion that this money
is required to help Buckinghamshire,
if Buckinghamshire is viewed as a whole,
it excludes those areas of opportunity bucks,
which are four or five areas,
where I understand life expectancy,
I forget whether it's men or women,
is there's a disparity of 10 years
between the most deprived and the least deprived.
So I would just, I wanted to put that
in the public forum now, but I will request
that we put that in our wash up notes later on.
Thank you.
Can I just thank Councillor Powell for highlighting that
because everybody tends to look at Buckinghamshire
Cllr Isobel Darby - 2:08:03
as this affluent county where everybody's very well off,
and that isn't the case at all.
And we have some incredibly deprived areas.
And I'm really proud of the work that we
have done in some of our opportunity box wards
to try and make life better.
And some of these things won't necessarily
take effect for a number of years.
And I think that's one of the reasons why, perhaps
in the past, money hasn't been spent.
because in politics you're only around until the next election.
And I would hand this to the government as well,
in that actually fixing social care,
actually fixing the health system,
you know, it's not something that will win you the next election
because people's health is through their life course.
And stuff that we do as Buckinghamshire Council
with our health partners,
which perhaps helps young children at school
in terms of our healthy school neighbourhoods, for example,
that will take years to have a real effect,
but it is so, so important.
So thank you for highlighting that we have got
areas of deprivation in Buckinghamshire,
and those residents are just as important
as those who live in the more affluent areas.
Yes, Catherine Pole, I can confirm that your suggestions
Cllr John Chilver - 2:09:24
will definitely be included as we develop our report.
Catherine Crabtree.
Yes, thank you.
Cllr Anna Crabtree - 2:09:32
I'm looking at page 118 or 110 if you're looking at the horizontal part.
There's a mention of safeguarding referrals which intrigued me because it says the council
received safeguarding referrals at twice the rate of similar authorities.
And I wondered if you could just elaborate on that, perhaps tell us where those referrals
are coming from, what they relate to, and whether we should consider this as a red flag
for other issues that we should be addressing or considering within the budget.
Thank you.
Shall I go first?
Cllr Isobel Darby - 2:10:06
I think it does say that many referrals don't relate to safeguarding issues.
So I think we have trained our partners really well to flag things up.
And I think that's good because if anybody's got a concern, yes,
you need to talk to somebody about it.
But I think that some of these are coming through the door
as safeguarding referrals when they are probably
more of a lesser concern.
So they're logged as safeguarding referrals,
then triaged, and then are not.
So it's a good thing that we are getting referrals.
But if you like, it's a negative thing
that they are being put through the safeguarding system.
Sorry.
I think you perhaps missed the point of my question, which
is, if they're not safeguarding referrals, what are they
and what should we be doing about them?
And where are they coming from?
Cllr Anna Crabtree - 2:10:55
So it's been a focus of attention
Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care - 2:11:00
for a good number of years, two or three years.
I know it's been on Hask's radar as well in that time.
So there's two aspects.
One is safeguarding concerns, and that's
what's referenced there.
And we are high nationally in terms of safeguarding concerns.
I will answer your question, I promise.
And then they then go through, after they've been looked at, to something called a Section
42 inquiry, which is part of the CARE Act.
And that's your more formal safeguarding procedure and inquiry that's termed in terms of that.
So Section 42 inquiry.
Those are the true safeguarding ones.
Those we are absolutely where we should be in terms of the benchmark and in the PAC nationally
in terms of those.
So that way it gives me, as a director of Ad Hoc Social
Services, with statutory responsibility, some assurance
that that's the case.
The other point is around those concerns which don't turn
into Section 42 inquiries.
They used to be in different buckets.
One was Section 42 inquiries.
The others were welfare cheques.
So people that might be concerned,
but it wasn't a safeguard inquiry
about somebody's welfare.
Maybe they're struggling with their living conditions, et cetera.
So they've come in as well.
And then the third bucket was around ones which were inappropriate, to be honest, in
terms of those.
And sometimes they can be quite, they weren't appropriate to come through.
We've worked hard with our partners to get those down.
So it's mostly around now concerns and the welfare concerns.
Let's call them that just for ease.
And the section 42, safeguard inquiries.
The big referrers of those are ambulance service and our police colleagues as well, and we're
not unique in terms of that, certainly around our geography in terms of that.
So we've done an awful lot of work training with those, but it's still an issue.
So we're just about to engage an organisation called SCAI, Social Care Institute for Excellence,
to come in and work with us and do a bit of an independent review about our pathways to
see if we can streamline it any further in terms of that as well.
Because it does put pressure on our social workers as well.
Because what we're really good at is looking at all those concerns as they come through within the 48 hours as well.
And that's something CQC commended us on in terms of that triage.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Pétt.
Yes, thank you Chairman.
Cllr John Chilver - 2:13:30
Cllr Martin Tett - 2:13:34
It's a health and wellbeing portfolio, not an adult social care portfolio.
So this question is about the health side of it again.
This afternoon, we're doing a scrutiny
of the planning function.
And this is a little bit of warm up for that, actually.
There was an excellent piece of scrutiny work done,
I can't remember by whom, last year on GP surgeries
and the funding for GPs and how we can ensure that there is
adequate future GP provision across all of the county,
particularly in areas where it's under provided at the moment.
And the issue always comes back to things like funding.
Can the portfolio holder maybe tell us a little bit about what
she or her team are doing to ensure there is adequate input
to the planning function to ensure that the necessary
funding for GPs and other health facilities is provided so that
given that we've got to find 95 ,500 new house sites across the county,
how can we reassure our residents that when those houses are being built
that the GP surgeries and the hospital facilities and the other health provision will be there for them?
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Martin. Yes, well it is interesting.
I'm looking at both Chris and Stuart who were involved in looking at the planning
Cllr Isobel Darby - 2:14:56
And it is an absolute minefield.
It is incredibly complex because GPs are basically
self -employed individuals or companies
that provide GP services.
And so although they are part of the NHS,
they're kind of almost self -employed consultants
to the NHS, I would sort of put them as.
And we've talked to the ICB about how do you plan for it.
And it is really, really tricky.
and we have made it very clear to planning that it's absolutely imperative
that we have to have the health services, not just GP surgeries, but medical
facilities included in any plans, but at the moment we're, you know, we're a long
way away from sort of looking at settlements, whatever, and people think
well a small development requires a GP surgery and these days it probably does
because of the way that GPs are changing the way they work.
However, they also need more floor area because we have a shortage of GPs.
We have a lot of GP associate, physician associates,
and various nursing staff who do a lot more consultations now.
And what we learned in the deep dive that we did was that these people,
therefore your GP's appointment is 10 minutes and your health care
professionals appointment is 20 minutes and so you're almost if you if you're
losing a GP and replacing them with another health care person you're
actually going to need two rooms rather than one to get through the
same number of patients but as I say it is a minefield because the council
itself has no real control over who is going to come and provide that care so
all we can do is sort of dictate to developers there needs to be healthcare provision, but
you could end up with an empty surgery with nobody willing to take it on.
And that is a problem for, I hate to say it, but the NHS to get its act together and sort
out how GPs work and how they provide care.
So sorry, not a hugely helpful answer to you, but hit me with some more.
Just to come back on that, I mean, I think almost anybody around this table on this side
Cllr Martin Tett - 2:17:22
will tell you that whenever any development comes forward, the issue is always infrastructure.
If you put it aside, don't want it anyway.
But it's always transport and health provision.
And I'm still struggling a little bit, because obviously we're wearing a finance hat rather
than a policy hat per se here today.
When we meet the planning team,
how we understand as a committee,
what are the key processes and enablers
that ensure that as the housing agenda comes together
and the local plan comes together,
the input from this portfolio
helps drive the necessary infrastructure specification
such that actually we can reassure our residents
that it will be there when it's needed.
And I'm understanding it's complex.
What I'm not sure of is what the answer is.
Yeah, I mean it is.
I'm sure Craig can help us.
Cllr Isobel Darby - 2:18:22
It is a challenge and the, I think we're not
down to the nitty gritty and it will be health that will have
to put some input into individual plans as well.
And I think they're in a, well we know that they're
in a state of flux, but I think it is very clear
that we absolutely need to be putting down markers
in terms of this development,
or if this development is an addition
to something that's already there.
So I've got one in my patch at the moment
where one of the provisions is money
to extend a doctor surgery
because there will be need for more.
But absolutely, when we have this huge influx of houses,
it has, I would agree with you,
it's got to be infrastructure first.
and I believe or hope that the planning team absolutely have got that message.
Craig McArdle - Corporate Director for Adult Social Care - 2:19:19
Good. Craig. Just to say, Councillor Tett, I think that the review that Councillor Darwin,
Councillor Powell led on highlighted two main aspects. One was how the systems work together
and how we influence planning policy notes, which I think we've got better on in terms of that,
And I know David and the team have been really active in that space.
We've also influenced quite heavily
the types of care and support accommodations that are required.
So I think that that join ups happen.
The fundamental weakness is still the second part, which is how how they
how they fund it in terms of that from the NHS.
I can't come from Section 106 contributions.
And I think that was the point that we noted last time as well.
And often the funding coming down for NHS centrally isn't adequate to build those as
well.
And that's still an inherent weakness in the system.
Councillor Tepp.
Thank you.
Councillor Wilson.
Yeah, I just wanted to pick up on this point because I was involved in the review.
And last week, the Health and Adult Social Care Select Committee met with the cabinet
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 2:20:22
member for planning and the deputy cabinet member for planning, following on from the
consultation response the committee submitted with a number
of recommendations and suggestions both developed
within the committee but also in conjunction with the integrated
care board who've also submitted their own consultation response.
So it's something that we are particularly focusing on because
I think the ensuring that this does happen is absolutely
critical and one of the challenges that Jonathan isn't here anymore, but that the growth infrastructure
and housing select committee is the integrated care board can't hold capital. So we have
put forward some proposals in terms of that are counted under Schedule II, Section II
of the 2006 NHS Act that other local authorities are using. So there are different mechanisms
that maybe can open the door.
Thank you.
Are there any other questions from the committee at all?
Cllr John Chilver - 2:21:30
If not, I think we can end this session
with 10 minutes to spare.
So I'd just like to thank members and officers
for their attendance, participation, and contributions.
I thought that was a very useful and worthwhile session.
And we meet again at 1 .30 to discuss housing
and regulatory services.
So I'll see you later.
Thank you very much indeed.

7 Housing and Regulatory Services (Councillor Mark Winn)

Cllr John Chilver - 2:22:09
I think it's okay now.
Welcome everybody to this next session of the Budget Scrutiny Inquiry Task and Finish
Group and this afternoon we're going to look at housing and regulatory services.
So I'm delighted to welcome the cabinet member,
Councillor Mark Wynne, together with the deputy cabinet member,
Councillor Gary Hall.
And officers attending are Service Directors Steve Bambrick and Richard Barker,
and Fiorello Mugari, who is the Finance Officer for the Service.
and as ever we also have Dave Skinner, our head of finance,
and his deputy Fiona Jump.
And we also have Councillor Jonathan Walters,
who is the chairman of the growth infrastructure
and housing select committee,
which is responsible for scrutiny of this service.
So without any further ado,
I think we can hand over to Councillor Wynne
to present his budget proposals highlighting key areas and risks and
then we'll follow up with committee questions. Thank you. Good afternoon
Chairman and good afternoon members. My portfolio covers services that touch
Cllr Mark Winn - 2:23:47
every part of life in Buckinghamshire so we have Housing and Homelessness that
looks after those at risk of or in homelessness, looks after rough sleepers,
It manages Butts Land Choice and the Ministers of the Disabled Facilities Grant.
Environmental health, which keeps communities safe from things like lack of hygiene and food preparation,
or protects residents from others who might be causing a public nuisance or a danger to others.
And we're heavily involved in enforcing new protections for private renters.
Trading standards are joint service with Surrey County Council,
promoting fair trading and protecting consumers from harmful products or fraud.
Licencing, who regulate gambling, alcohol and entertainment premises, and introducing
new policies or regulations from everything such as mobile home sites to street trading
and taxi fees and charges and regulations.
Registrars and coroners who support residents through Order of Life's key milestones.
Crematoriums and cemeteries, who provide a service that gives respect and dignity to
those in their saddest times, but also contributes funds to the Council budget through the cremation
service and covers most of their ongoing maintenance costs through the funds they generate. Each
of these services makes a real difference to the lives of our residents. There is considerable
cost portfolio working, such as licencing with the ASB team or with the police and licencing
or between environmental health and housing and trading standards. There's also considerable
work that takes place that positively impacts on others portfolios within the critical five,
such as children's services where the housing team is working closely with the team there
to make our care leavers ready to move to and sustain the tenancy. They're working with
adults and the NHS on things such as hospital discharge or rough sleepers.
For today, I will focus on one of the biggest financial and operational challenges we face,
temporary accommodation. Across the country councils are facing huge pressure.
Government subsidy for TA has been frozen since 2011 while rental costs and
demand have soared. Nationally households in TA have surged from 84 ,740 in 2019 to
132 ,410 today, a 56 % increase. The LGA
warns that 25 % of councils may need emergency barrel -outs within two years, citing TA as
a key pressure. The funding gap by 2030 is estimated at $3 billion. Here in Buckinghamshire,
homelessness has increased by 75 % since 2020. And as of December last year, 392 households
are in TA. Costs for TA vary dramatically from no cost for our Councillor in TA to £58
per night per person for bed and breakfast. So controlling costs is critical. Our strategy
for controlling costs focuses on six key objectives. One, reducing the costs of TA. So we've negotiated
better rates and introduced new revenue streams for Council TA facilities. Had these measures
not been implemented, the Council would have spent an additional £4 ,000 per night. This
4K is nearly £1 .5 million on an annual basis.
Second one, reducing the length of stay in TA. We've invested in dedicated resettlement
officers to provide active case management for households in TA accommodation. We have
We have targets in place for this where we look to achieve 60 instances of households leaving TA every month.
In recent months the team has had great success in overachieving this, with 222 households moved out TA in quarter three, the most recent three months.
This is an average of 74 per month, so we're on track on our targets.
Third one, increasing lower cost options for homelessness.
We're expanding council and registered provider TA facilities and bringing more supported
accommodation contracts online to move people out of costly bed and breakfast or nightly
paid.
Expanding the private rented offer.
Through expanding the Bucks Let scheme, we are working practically with landlords to
provide high quality homes for residents who might otherwise struggle.
We've launched a new landlord forum to strengthen our engagement and collaboration with landlords.
Five prevention of homelessness at the front door.
Preventing homelessness is a key objective.
By year end, we forecast that prevention service is on track to achieve over 600 homelessness
preventions.
Six delivering affordable housing.
Over the past six years in Buckinghamshire, 3034 affordable homes, an average of 506 per
year have been provided.
That's met our target within the housing strategy.
But the majority of additional affordable housing delivery happens as part of new house
building on development sites across the county.
As part of this, we are ensuring that collected affordable housing S106 funding is going to
be rapidly reinvested in affordable housing delivery.
For the Imagine Local Plan, the Local Housing Need Assessment identifies a need for 33 ,600
affordable homes over the next 21 years, which is around 1 ,600 per year.
The new local plan will deliver higher rates of affordable housing per year and will also
have new specifications.
In a change I personally pushed to ensure that these high quality affordable housing
products are there like social rent, affordable rent and affordable home ownership.
We will be prioritising social rent at 50 % of market price rather than the so -called
affordable rent at 80%.
This is to tackle the affordability crisis faced by many and helping recruit key workers
and for the expansion of businesses within Buckinghamshire.
Financially TA though does remain a risk.
Our current year budget has been under pressure from the beginning of the year where we started
in April with a higher demand than planned for, although this has been somewhat offset
by additional grant funding that we've received.
Our action plan is on track to deliver more than $1 .6 billion in savings this year.
This has been done for additional revenue mitigations, active case management to the
resettlement officers, and increasing the number of cost -effective TA units the Council
can utilise, thereby reducing dependence on expensive bed and breakfasts and hotels.
In summary, while the pressures are significant, our proactive measures are putting us in a
better positioned than most councils, such as Bedford Borough, where 869 were listed
as in TA, 90 % of them in expensive B &Bs, or Slough with the highest rate of house odds
in TA outside London, with 25 house odds in TA per 1 ,000 households.
Instead in Buckinghamshire, we are reducing costs, moving people at the expense of B &Bs,
accelerating move on and expanding affordable housing.
We are a stronger position than many councils
and with continued focus,
we can turn one of our biggest financial risks
into a real success storey for Buckinghamshire
and help to turn around the lives of residents
at low point in their life.
And we can move TA as one of the critical five,
but there's much more work to do.
Happy to take any questions, Chairman.
Thank you very much indeed.
Cllr John Chilver - 2:31:54
I just asked the service directors and director of finance and deputy cabinet member if there's anything they wish to add.
It seems not so we can move straight on to questions. Councillor Snave?
Cllr Trevor Snaith - 2:32:13
I have to say what you're trying to achieve is commendable if it's possible and that that's the challenge because
because affordable rents are always a problem,
and social rents, which we need, are the solution.
And I think you've mentioned that.
The question I've got is, how are we actually
going to achieve that?
Do you work with your planning department
to maximise the work they do with the developers
to ensure that they're delivering
the maximum number of social rent properties?
That's the first question.
Thank you, Councillor Snape, for that.
Yes, you are right to highlight that there are challenges
Cllr Mark Winn - 2:33:02
to achieve in that, but one really good thing
that I have seen is that Homes England
are themselves coming on board with that,
and are prioritising social rent.
So the grants that they give are mostly for social rented
at that 50 % of market rate,
rather than the 80 % of market rate,
which affordable housing was at.
So that's very much an area that they're pushing.
But we are working closely with planners.
We've got an improvement plan to look at that.
And I think probably, if I pass over to you, Steve,
on that, you could probably talk about that a bit more.
Yeah, thank you and so just to say I think
Council when mentioned I think in his in his opening
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 2:33:44
Around some of the work that's going on in
development of the new policies for the new local plans, so of course
That's all in for that's all informed by up to more up -to -date evidence
And it be through that process where we will be able to establish
the policy around what type of affordable housing mix
we expect to see on new development sites.
And it's provided those policies are contained
within the local plan,
that gives us the greatest opportunity to deliver,
whether it be social rent or other types of tenure,
taking those forward.
So the work that's going on at the moment
is both in relation to when we're dealing
with speculative applications,
there's consistent work across both housing and planning,
but also there's considerable joint work
and things like the housing needs assessment,
for example, is jointly commissioned
by both housing and planning to make sure
that the evidence base that supports our eventual policy
in the local plan is supporting what's needed
by our communities.
So that's the work that's ongoing at the moment.
Just really to add to that, the local housing needs assessment did find that 40 % would be
Cllr Mark Winn - 2:35:06
at the affordable level, so that is pushing that. And it has split it down into social
rented, so the majority of them are at the social rented level, so that evidence is there
within the local plan.
Councillor Snave, you had a second question?
I'll just say good luck and hold a second question, let other people have a chance and
come back in for me later.
Cllr Trevor Snaith - 2:35:27
Councillor Tetz.
Cllr John Chilver - 2:35:31
Thank you, Chairman. Just before I get into my question,
Cllr Martin Tett - 2:35:35
I just wanted to pay public credit to, I think,
two of your services that I've had experience of relatively
recently for completely different reasons.
One is the Cravatoria services, who I find really, really
excellent, frankly.
And the other is the registrars, two ends of the extreme,
I know.
But both of them I found absolutely first class
in terms of their customer service and the professionalism with which they've dealt with
people.
So real credit to them for that.
My question is actually about, and it's budget related, but it stems from the national legislative
picture.
And it's referred to in passing in the overview, but the so -called Renters' Rights Act that's
come in now, and I know it hasn't been fully enacted yet.
It's gone through Parliament, but it'll be introduced in stages.
But it is introducing, alongside the budget changes to the taxation of buy -to -let landlords,
really quite penal costs and obligations on people who rent out property privately.
Almost everybody I know who has a buy -to -let property is selling it.
You know, weekend conversation, I couldn't find any of my friends who have properties
who are going to hang on to them, they're all going to sell them.
And I think there's an unintended consequence of which the government will want, which is
that the private rented market will shrink significantly.
And I guess bringing it around to the finance question, what modelling have you done on
the demand for TA and indeed subsequently the pressure on the rented portfolio from
our providers to take into account the new pressures arising from the consequences on
the private rented sector of the new so -called Renters' Rights Act?
Thank you, Councillor Tett, for that question. It's a very difficult one to predict what
Cllr Mark Winn - 2:37:35
the effect will be on landlords. As I said, we are trying to work closely with them to
to try and sort of get up more homes within that sector.
But obviously if more people leave that sector,
it does put more strain on the registered providers.
It's something that we are monitoring.
The sort of the review of the in -year budget
highlighted that section 21,
which I know is just about to go or has gone,
that section 21 has been a factor
in quite a lot of the home -assist rate
as it's gone forward,
but the difficulty in predicting the real effects of that,
I don't know, we'll just have to keep monitoring that
and keep taking mitigating factors as we go through
to try and work through on that,
but Steve may have some more.
Just before Steve does,
can I just reiterate my question,
and thanks to Mark for his comments,
but my question is what modelling have you done,
because what worries us,
on this side of the table,
Cllr Martin Tett - 2:38:36
we're not looking at your policy,
we're looking at the finances, yep.
And we need to be satisfied that the numbers in the budget
reflect the potential strain on the service.
So I presume, knowing this bill's been going
through Parliament, you've done at least some modelling
on the likely consequences, maybe some scenario planning
or whatever, looking at highs and lows.
And how can you reassure us that the numbers here
accurately reflect the potential scenarios
for what might occur in the private rented sector.
So thank you.
So I think just to go back a step in terms of the modelling
Cllr Mark Winn - 2:39:17
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 2:39:21
that so we across the service we actively monitor the numbers
in temporary accommodation and the numbers that are presenting
at the front door on a weekly basis across the whole service.
And of course we are also monitoring that both weekly
and then monthly and then reporting that through to Cabinet as well.
We use that evidence and we've got quite a considerable amount of evidence now over the
last three or four years to be able to look at where there may be certain trends and where
we may be able to also look at kind of seasonal trends that impact on the numbers presenting
in temporary accommodation.
One of the things that I think we've been able to identify over that period is that
there are always interventions or, you know,
there may be kind of government policies,
there may be kind of macro interventions.
So for example, you know, the war in Ukraine
had an impact on the number of people
coming into the country,
resettling people from Afghanistan, for example,
had an impact.
And also the decision of the government
to grant UK status to people from the Chagos Islands,
for example, had an impact on the number of people
arriving in this country, and in some cases,
either claiming homelessness or putting pressure
on housing stock in certain parts of the country,
and booking, which has not been exempt from that.
We've used our evidence as part of our understanding
of the historic data, and we've also used evidence
around information across the sector about what the impact
of the government policy might be
in relation to the Renters' Rights Act,
it's very difficult to be able to predict what that is.
We've certainly introduced, because we anticipate,
given our historic rate, we've introduced a slight increase
in the number of people that we would anticipate
having to accommodate in temporary accommodation,
and that's reflected in the numbers.
But we will, of course, need to make sure we continue
to monitor that as closely as possible on a weekly basis
to see whether those modelling predictions are correct.
But as I say, there are a number of factors.
Renters' rights is one of those, but there'll
be a number of factors, some of which we may not be aware of,
that we will need to respond to throughout the year.
Just very briefly respond, I completely
understand that there will be unforecastable events
like the war in Ukraine.
Cllr Martin Tett - 2:41:48
I completely understand that.
And it's very hard to model something that you don't know is going to happen.
I guess my focus on the Rent to Strike Act is it's been well known.
It was in the government manifesto before they were elected.
It's been going through parliament for 18 months now.
The changes in the budget were some time ago now.
So I would have hoped that the service could have done, I'm going to call it scenarios,
on the impact.
It could be high, it could be low, it could be medium, whatever.
And hopefully, you know, there can be confidence given to this committee in terms of its finances,
but, you know, you have taken into account at least a best guess scenario on what that impact is likely to be.
And again, to confirm, that is what we've done throughout the modelling exercise.
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 2:42:41
We've looked at different scenarios and we've made an assumption of a slight increase in growth
As a consequence, not just of rent,
the point I was making was it's not just
as a consequence of renters rights,
there will be a general trend upwards,
certainly based on our historic data and information,
renters rights will contribute to that as well,
and that is built into the modelling.
So we have assumed an upwards trend
based on a number of different factors,
and that's what's been built into the budget.
Thank you.
Councillor Gali.
Good afternoon.
Cllr John Chilver - 2:43:18
I've got a couple of questions.
Cllr Christine Adali - 2:43:21
The first one is on homelessness.
Sorry.
On page 116 in the budget pack or 124 in our packs, under it's the revenue budget, under
homelessness, there is a positive budget out turn planned for this year of 2 .2 million.
In 2026, the expense is doubling and returning to negative budget out turn.
And then it's improving again and beyond positives again.
Could you please elaborate a bit on what's happening on that budget line?
because I couldn't find anything relating to this in the pack and I would appreciate
some information on that.
Page 116, homelessness from current year up to 2028.
Sorry, I'm just checking we've got the right page, that's all.
Cllr Mark Winn - 2:44:40
Yes, in the budget packets 116 in the landscape version and 124 in the portrait version of
numbering.
Cllr Christine Adali - 2:44:50
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 2:45:05
Sorry just so this is the net budget for the service I think so I think where you've got
the increase that's been obviously where we've built in the net increase through
the impact of the increased demand for the temporary accommodation and then as
you move through the budget period the impacts of the savings that are also
contained in the more detailed of the a way you then see the the net decrease
Come impacting on the budget as well. So the more detailed pages further on set out the kind of the ins and outs
I guess so that but what this provides you with is the overall summary of the budget
So this is based at the six point six is the additional
Cllr Christine Adali - 2:45:59
Expense planned on the temporary accommodation
Yeah, yes, yeah
And I'm also just noticing that apart from 26, 27, every year has a positive out -earn,
so the situation seems to be looking quite healthy.
That's the right way of putting it.
There doesn't seem to be a financial pressure, let's put it like that.
Yeah.
I mean, as we highlighted, we are taking measures.
I mean, one of the things we are doing is bringing on extra TA.
Cllr Mark Winn - 2:46:33
So as a result that would be TA that is run by the council and the cost of that is zero to that.
So you've got people that could have been in expensive bed and breakfast,
nightly paid, who are then coming out of that and going into our own accommodation.
So that's a cost saving there.
Thank you for that.
And the other question was, and I'll come back later with something else,
Cllr John Chilver - 2:46:56
Cllr Christine Adali - 2:46:58
On the home choice register you state that you've got four thousand three hundred and eighty applicants
I assume some of those will be single people but some of those will be families
that so how many people does that represent in total and
How many children are part of that just out of curiosity?
I'm not sure we have that that those figures down, but you're quite right to point out
Cllr Mark Winn - 2:47:24
They are households. It's not just a single person
That way of getting that figure sent that'd be much appreciated. Yeah. Thank you
Cllr Christine Adali - 2:47:40
Thank you very much and council waters
Thank You chairman
Cllr John Chilver - 2:47:44
I'm gonna go back to
talking about
the number of affordable
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:47:50
that are gonna be built as part of the local plan.
The current target has been 500,
of which there's a split between affordable
and affordable social rent housing,
and that's been a flat figure,
which I never thought was a particularly high target
originally, and I stated that in the council chamber.
Obviously we're now looking at, with the local plan,
with the numbers we know we've got there,
1 ,600 a year is the plan,
of which I'm presuming for what you said,
half of that is going to be affordable rent, social rent.
If I carry on.
Obviously with that,
have we modelled, coming back to modelling again,
How we model basically when we think that level of 1 ,600 should start kicking in.
So it's not going to be this year, but you obviously in your mind, it's the local plan,
but we've also got quite a lot of sites coming through well before that.
And we have a housing number which is with us now, so presumably we should be hitting
that 1 ,600 now.
So anything we're not doing on that is a deficit.
What is the modelling that's been done in terms of once we get to that level, how is that
going to positively affect our budgets in terms of being able to house people easier
than we are now, or is it going to be neutral because the sheer growth of the population
is going to finish up as a neutral figure so we're not going to get a benefit, which
is taking away the levels of homelessness and families which need to be in accommodation
and giving us that flexibility.
I don't know what modelling's been done
and at what point do we start seeing
some positivity on that.
Obviously, thinking about you've got the changes
which Councillor Tett was talking about,
which is how people are gonna rent their properties,
but there has also been a change where
younger people, a lot of them who in the past
who would have gone into purchasing their own properties,
are in rented accommodation
and as years go on are probably now less likely
to actually purchase their own homes
and those numbers coming forward,
particularly those needing social housing as they get older,
are likely to increase.
So there's a whole lot of modelling there.
Not wishing to skew it because it's quite difficult
to get a feel for the modelling coming out
of the things we might know,
but there's quite a lot of modelling there.
I'd like to know whether we're actually predicting
as we go forward in the years,
we're gonna start to see some positivity.
Cllr Mark Winn - 2:50:50
Yeah, the numbers, first of all, social rented within the local housing need assessment,
it's 59 % if I remember rightly.
So that is a high figure that's within there.
In terms of them coming on, that is probably outside the MTPF period as the plan comes
forward, as the plan matures, as the plan happens.
But I mean, you talked about young people that are renting, for example.
This then will give another avenue for them.
We know they're struggling with the price of rents, etc.
And obviously, affording to buy a home is an impossibility for
quite a lot of people.
So actually having them at social rented level is what we should be aiming for.
And what I've always believed that we should be aiming for, mostly we've built
them at the affordable level, 80%,
we've now had a chance within the local plan
to actually set a policy and actually set
that that's what happens.
And that will be a positive for things like homelessness
as we go forward, because there will be different options
that people have to go into as the sort of plan
matures, as it happens.
John, sir, add to that.
If I may, so just to be very clear,
so the housing needs assessment is obviously
a piece of evidence that will support the development of a local plan policy
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 2:52:08
and we don't have an adopted local plan policy at the moment that is being or or
can be implemented so and and well it you know once the local plan has been
through that process and has been adopted then obviously that will be the
poll whatever that policy says in terms of the proportion of affordable housing
and the tenure of affordable housing that will be required,
what we will be seeking to deliver.
And at that point, obviously, we'll be building that
into our plans and processes as part of the modelling work.
As Councillor Wynne has said,
I anticipate that the large proportion of that delivery,
whatever that policy is, will fall outside
of the MTFP period because the local plan adoption
and is not anticipated until 2027,
and then we'll move into implementation
of the plan at that stage.
So, but once we get to that stage,
once we understand what the policy is
and what we're expecting to be delivered,
then of course we will want to build that
into our projections as well,
because of course the level of affordable housing
will have a significant impact on the availability
for those people in need,
and those are the people that we are dealing with
on a day -to -day basis through this service?
So in reality, the target we've still got now
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:53:37
is the 500 affordable overall,
and that's gonna continue until adoption of a local plan,
so that isn't gonna change.
But what we do have already is the total housing numbers
which are in place at this point in time,
and that's why we don't have the five -year housing supply.
So already we are in the figures
that we need to create in the local plan and not to be looking to increase the
number of social rented properties within that period and particularly
affordable above that 500 particularly with all the speculative sites seems a
little bit odd. So I think it's just two things here we've been danger of
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 2:54:24
conflating them I guess so the the whatever the council target might be for
delivering affordable housing is different to what we might deliver
through the planning system on affordable housing because of course the
planning system will be applying the the most up -to -date policy in terms of
Affordable housing provision and it will take into account
What the local needs might be on a case -by -case?
Basis and that can be informed by things like today housing needs assessment
But those assessments don't carry the full weight of an adopted policy
Because they don't form at the moment part of council policy
So there will be cases on a case -by -case basis through the planning system where we will be seeking to negotiate a level of
affordable housing, we'll be seeking to maximise that
through the planning process,
regardless of what the policy says.
There's a separate piece of work
that will develop what the new council policy will be
in the new local plan, which will of course then give us
a more consistent approach when we're dealing
with those applications post adoption
of the new local plan.
Whilst we're in that period in between,
we've got that parallel running, I guess, at the moment.
but where the planning system does not take
the council target for a delivering affordable housing
and apply that with kind of the weight
of an adopted local plan policy.
It's a target, but of course we're applying
whatever the current local plans say
in those areas on individual cases.
And just to add as well,
and I think we've discussed it at the time,
that the 500 is not a hard and set target,
Cllr Mark Winn - 2:56:15
is not set in stone that that's the target one.
If we can do over, why not let's do over?
That's what the local housing need actually shows
that there's evidence that we need over that.
So we've got, so for example I mentioned
S106 funding for affordable housing.
We can use that as well to try and push up
the social rented level.
Also Homes England, as I said,
Their policy now is to favour social rented so they could be elements will also push it up
but would also hasten to add that or
Caution that a registered providers do have pressures on their budget
They do have things like achieving net zero. They do have things like achieving a web floor which are
actually sort of
Provocative to them to try and push them forward and they real priorities that they have to do
So that may have sort of adjusted downwards
some of the amount that they're building on affordable
as we're going forward.
But hopefully as those things catch up
and they catch up with those programmes,
their programme will build forward.
And with us, the local plan going forward,
1 ,600 a year is what's in the local house need assessment
and 59 % of that is social rented.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Dhillon.
Thank you, thank you, Chairman.
Cllr John Chilver - 2:57:44
Cllr Dev Dhillon - 2:57:46
Councillor Wynne, I'm looking at on page number 130 opportunities and you just mentioned now
there's a paragraph which says, delivering affordable housing, the council will invest
in S106 developer funding to a renewal programme to provide additional affordable housing unit,
the key priority for housing strategy.
I couldn't see any funding.
Where is that funding that we are thinking to or speculating
to invest into the housing, affordable housing?
That's my one question.
And the second is, you also mentioned in your opening
remarks about securing TA for 58 pound a night.
Do you pay it on a nightly basis, pay as you go,
or do you do the block booking on that one
to secure the site because you don't know
when somebody's going to come at the council door
and knock and say, well, I want accommodation tonight.
And finally, what different are you doing
with private landlords that they should trust
the local authority because unfortunately,
what my experience tells, that the landlords
do not have a very good experience with local authorities
to renting their houses.
I'll try and take each of those questions.
Cllr Mark Winn - 2:59:08
In terms of nightly paid, we do block booking on that.
So we have negotiated down the rates
that we were paying quite considerably.
So the rates we were paying are much less
than we were before.
So we are doing that rather than just doing a spot rate.
And councils that are doing the spot rate
are the ones that are really struggling on their TA.
I mentioned Bedford Borough, for example,
when 90 % of them are in bed and breakfast, nightly paid,
they haven't barely any of their NTA
or any TA that's provided by the registered providers,
so their finances are struggling as a result.
So we're both trying to build more of our own TA
to try and reduce the cost and reduce the numbers
in nightly paid, and we're trying to reduce down
those rates for block booking.
Now I'm forgetting you have a question, sorry.
Your first question was about the S106 funding.
Yeah, the S106 funding.
And you said page 132.
I haven't got 132 have I?
Sorry, it's 132 on this one.
We've got different page numbers on the page from different things.
It was referred to in page 122.
to two of the budget,
one three O of the meeting pack.
Yeah, the one 106 funded there is from affordable homes
where developers have provided housing.
So what we're going to do is be using that funding
as we go forward to try and provide more affordable homes
as a result.
And like I said, there's an opportunity to make more of those social rented at that level.
And your third question about people leaving the landlord market.
We are trying to work together with them.
We're trying to discuss what issues they have, what problems they have, and trying to solve
those.
So we have a landlords' forum that's going to be meeting regularly to go through with
landlords and to try and manage some of the issues that they highlight to us.
So really we're trying to set up a good package with our landlords to try and tempt them to come in and help us with our possible tenants.
If I can come back onto block booking. What percentage of rooms do we have empty every single day that we don't use but we pay?
Cllr Dev Dhillon - 3:01:41
and hasn't anybody calculated for ad hoc pay as you go?
Or block booking, what are we saving for budget purpose
so that we know that yes, we are making
the best value for money?
Sorry, we don't do, we don't have a number,
I'm quite right in saying we don't have a number
of homes that we do, of TA that we do,
Cllr Mark Winn - 3:02:05
and be a bed and breakfast that we do on that basis,
but we have a price.
So, whilst it's not block pushing in that sense, we have a price that we go to.
We've negotiated down that price with the providers that we use, rather than have a
whole number that could be sitting empty, that we're paying for.
Thank you.
Councillor Paul.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr John Chilver - 3:02:34
Cllr Chris Poll - 3:02:37
The cabinet member and I have had conversations up to now about the canal network,
which I believe in my ward, one particular parish, is the largest, longest section of Navigable Canal in the county.
So the question of people living in cars in quite big groups has been raised before.
The question I have to do with budgetary concerns is with those living in cars but also those living on the canal,
are they all registered to pay council tax?
do we know how many there are because anecdotally there appears to be a lot more than I believe
are actually registered and paying council tax. Now I realise it's partly through Canal and River
Trust regulation that people can moor up for longer than two weeks but do we rely on the
Canal and River Trust for that information or do we have that information ourselves? I'm not sure
that's quite my portfolio I think that's more the resources portfolio I'm just focused on. I'm not
not the one that collects the council taxes.
More of a rub on some of the other candidates.
Cllr Mark Winn - 3:03:52
We certainly don't have that information.
I don't know whether others do,
but we can certainly have a look outside of this.
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 3:04:01
There's an information we can provide to the committee
in relation to that,
but we certainly don't have that information to hand today.
That's fine, thank you.
It just came up anecdotally
that there is a very large population living on the canal
and not suspected of paying council tax.
and as it's a housing and homelessness portfolio,
Cllr Chris Poll - 3:04:22
it was my assumption that at least in part,
maybe something to do with you, the cabinet member.
Thank you.
I think it comes under the resources portfolio.
Right, this is a perennial problem, Chairman,
Cllr Mark Winn - 3:04:38
where we got cross portfolio issues
Cllr Chris Poll - 3:04:41
and this might be another output
that I'll suggest in the session later.
Cllr John Chilver - 3:04:52
Yes, thank you. I don't know if our head of finance would be able to get the answer from the revenues and benefits team.
I'll take that one away.
Is that it, Councillor Paul? Councillor Maytak.
Thank you, Chairman. So I have a few questions on regulatory services.
Cllr Nidhi Mehta - 3:05:08
First of all, it's commendable that the regulatory services generate a positive income across
the multiple areas.
So my question is, can this be further maximised?
That's the first question, and then I'll keep coming.
Cllr Mark Winn - 3:05:35
To answer that question, some of the fees and charges are statutory, so they are set
essentially. Some do rise and they're rising by mostly 5 % where they are. But there are
other fees where it depends on, they run on a cost neutral basis. So for example, taxi
licencing, that's cost neutral. So any increase will cover the cost of administering taxi
licencing for the service, if that helps. Anything else?
Can I also say this is part of the fee setting process for I think all of our services.
We do look at benchmarking as well.
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 3:06:11
So where we have the ability to set fees which are beyond the statutory or because we're
not ring fence to make sure that we're not exceeding cost neutrality.
We also need to bear in mind what potential other opportunities people have.
So for example, the registrars will be a good example where
You know, we do set the fees at a very high level and actually we understand from doing the benchmarking
We do we're at the upper end of what neighbouring authorities will charge, but we're also very aware
That people are not obliged to necessarily use the registrars for example in Buckinghamshire. They can go elsewhere
So we do also need to make sure we while setting the fees at a high level and maximising the income
that we don't become uncompetitive in the process as well.
So we do take that into account
when setting the fees through this process.
Things such as the crematorium service,
they're in an actual market with actual private providers.
Cllr Mark Winn - 3:07:17
So if we set our fees too high, we will then lose out.
So we need to balance that against that.
So we actually make money and cover the cost
of the services we go through.
So now, as we know that the regulatory services,
they rely increasingly on fees and charges.
Cllr Nidhi Mehta - 3:07:37
The question now comes is, how resilient is this income
if the demand starts fluctuating or fluctuates?
I mean, it's a real sort of wide range of services
that they cover.
I mean, you've got everything from sort of registrars,
Cllr Mark Winn - 3:07:56
birth and death to the said crematoriums, dog thieves and sort of this whole plethora
of different things that it covers.
So they're not really sort of demanding that.
They are a service that someone wants.
Someone's people are going to be born, people are going to die.
And the same said that would affect, registrars would affect the crematorium service, I suppose.
It doesn't really depend on demand that much.
It's not that demand net apart from where there is a market,
such as the crematorium service, I would say.
If I may, if that's okay, I would just add that actually we've seen,
and if we take a backward look within regulatory services,
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 3:08:48
there is a high degree of resilience actually in terms of income levels,
partly for the reason that the cabinet members said and other members have noted in terms of the
customer experience. So our cemeteries and crematoria service is a really good example
of that where we've seen income levels consistently increasing year on year and the demand for our
regulatory services is remaining quite high. As the cabinet member mentioned earlier, many of those
regulatory services are, need to be managed on a cost recovery basis as well. So if income levels
were to drop, which isn't the case, but if that was to be the case, we would need to
make a corresponding reduction in expenditure to make sure that balances.
It's probably worth pointing out as well, I mean, taking the crematorium service for
Cllr Mark Winn - 3:09:36
example, they have been through a modernization of what they provide, new chapels have been
done up, new burners within the crematorium, and that has all been funded out of the fees
that they've got forward.
So there hasn't been any additional funding required
because they've been able to fund it as they've gone forward
because they put the reserve in to actually cover those costs
as they go through, which is amazing to see.
I agree.
I mean, when you said income might fall,
then what happens to the enforcement capacity then?
Cllr Nidhi Mehta - 3:10:10
In that case, because you just mentioned.
So it's a hypothetical situation, I suppose.
But within regulatory services, we
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 3:10:22
will balance resource against demand.
So in the event we have a spike in licencing activity
or licencing applications, there's
an opportunity to increase income through that process.
And we would resource up.
And as I say, if the reverse was the case,
we would need to balance those resources as well.
As part of a previous MTFP budget saving for this area,
there was a reduction in staffing costs,
which was delivered the financial year before this one.
So that's already happened,
and that was partly linked to that issue.
But as I say, going back to your original point,
we see a high level of buoyancy in terms of demand,
and that's reflected in the income that we've generated
over the course of the last couple of years,
and that's set to continue through this MTFP period as well.
So based on your response, does that mean that there is a risk
of reactive rather than proactive regulation?
Cllr Nidhi Mehta - 3:11:21
No, I don't think so.
So as I said, I would say over the course of the last few years
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 3:11:31
and for this MTFP period, we see demand remaining
fairly constant.
We've got a, you know, a robust integrated arrangement
to our regulatory services. We have a management team that brings licencing, environmental health,
trading standards together under one roof and that brings some operational resilience to those
services as well. So I don't foresee that as being an issue at all. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Cllr John Chilver - 3:12:01
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 3:12:06
Council Wilson. Thank you. Good afternoon everybody. I wanted to pick up a question on the
landscape page one, two, three.
Are you there?
So it's a capital programme?
Okay.
So if I read the narrative support to the numbers,
the capital investment into cemeteries and the Chiltern and Bearton crematory
is around improvements on our existing facilities rather than any additional
facilities given potentially opportunities that may or may not exist
in that. So at the moment any additional capacity is outside of the plan is
very effectively what you're saying at the moment.
Obviously, as you said, we're in a private market,
so there are opportunities for private providers
to come in into areas where we may or may not
be able to get a return, and therefore,
a return on investment over a period of time.
So it would be useful to have an update on that.
And then the other element on the capital programme
is a disabled facility grant.
And I note that that is declining over the MTFP period.
And obviously I'm mindful that product cost,
staffing costs, and all those other bits and pieces
are increasing.
And we have demographic cohorts that are increasing.
and whether or not we have sufficient capital
to meet the demand there for those disabled facilities
requests and how we might manage that.
What is driving the thinking behind the fact that we have
a decreasing or flat amount of money in the budget going forwards
for what I think is a very valuable service to residents.
in fact life -changing, critical, but whether or not given inflationary costs
we have enough funding in there to provide those facilities. Thank you.
Thank you Councillor Wilson for that question. The disabled facilities grant
Cllr Mark Winn - 3:14:43
is a government grant that is given to us. It is based on that, so we are tied
to what the government provides on that figure. It's a very valuable grant,
as you quite rightly say, for example, at the moment,
winter pressures that our hospital are facing
and the sort of increasing flu costs.
We have an officer that's working,
that has been actually paid for by the NHS actually,
who's working to try and sort of move people
out of hospital, so inter -hospital discharge
to work on that, and then to look at how their home
could be improved, so they're moving them out first,
and then looking at disabled physicians grant.
So yes, that is a vital grant, but unfortunately it is a government grant.
So we are tied to what the government provide.
And as you've heard in such a fair funding review,
as I had had effect on grants from as others will have mentioned.
And grants have been combined within this area as well.
And criteria have been made a lot stricter.
So we are very much tied to that.
In terms of the crematorium at Chiltern, it was at one stage one of the busiest in the country.
So it really does sort of push its weight and is a big sort of element in the market.
It's whether or not you could push that capacity a bit further without sort of having an absolute conveyable system of people going in, people going out,
which doesn't then give people the dignity they require.
We have sort of looked at,
but it's a very early stage
actually building another crematorium,
but that's such an early stage
so it's sort of can't mention that,
where we are with that,
but that is being looked at as a possibility.
So yeah, there could be room for expansion
within the service in that way,
rather than just expanding existing ones that we have,
because that would then affect the service
that people receive within children,
which I think is really, as Catholic Tech,
quite what he mentioned, is really exemplary.
And everyone that goes there praises
the service they provide.
I thought that might be the case.
I am aware of quite a lot of private activity
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 3:17:04
in certain parts of the county that are also looking
to take advantage of the opportunities presented there.
The disabled facility grant does concern me because this is one of those cross portfolio
matters where from the health, you know, we had the health and well -being in early on.
Their strategy is about keeping people out of hospital, making sure they can stay at
home, that they can remain independent, and all of that puts pressure on a budget like
this because part of staying at home is having the capacity to cope.
So, equally, all part of the NHS strategy, you know, and again, the better lives is getting
people out of transfer care and into back home.
So, every direction of travel in the health system is going to put pressure on a grant
that is flat, and in real terms, declining both inflation, you know, from both natural
inflation but also inflation of cost base.
So, I understand that it's a government led,
but to my mind, that, you know, is a real question for me,
is we just don't, we have a mismatch between our health
and wellbeing strategy, the NHS strategy,
and the money we have available to support residents.
And that is a significant concern for me.
Do you mind, Chairman?
Can I just give you a little bit more clearer, I think,
around the DFG position.
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 3:18:43
So over the last four years, we've completed just
over 700 schemes, effectively, which is averaging
around 175, 180 per year.
There is a, I feel like, a kind of waiting list or a backlog,
which is around about 150.
And that has been reducing over the last four years as well,
in terms of the backlog.
So clearly, if more money were available,
then potentially there's more that can be done
to reduce that backlog.
But I think the evidence is not suggesting
that backlog is increasing.
It's going the other way.
But of course, over the course of the MTFP,
as you say in real terms, the amount of money available
is likely to be less.
And we'll need to be able to look
at ways in which we can do more with less effectively.
The other thing to add as well in the local housing needs assessment, it does also identify
Cllr Mark Winn - 3:19:42
that area of keeping people within the homes, of actually having homes that are fit for
people to live their whole life within it.
So as part of that, we hope that more developments come forward than that.
And if that part of the plan is adopted, then that will cover that area as well.
And that's very much something we've shared with the planning as a health and adult social
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 3:20:08
care select committee shared with the planning team that we need more suitable housing.
And we hope that that's included in the process. So my concern is it's not
what has been in terms of dealing with the backlog, it's what the direction of travel for the health
care system is going to be, I think is going to put a lot more pressure on this grant.
in a good way to get people back at home
than we currently have.
And I think this is,
in fact, colleagues earlier questions,
the benefits of having a three year settlement
and other clarity is we kind of understand
a little bit better the direction of travel
from funding available.
The downside is we then have to manage within that envelope
against a changing landscape,
whether it's renters' right reform or a shift in health NHS
priorities.
And our ability to flex within that three -year settlement,
I think, is typically the answers we might get
at budget scrutiny to a question is, well,
that's not going to happen within the next 12 months,
but we can address it at the next budget cycle.
The ability to try and deal with some of those issues
is going to become more constrained
over a number of these where there are some uncertainties,
not just on your portfolio, but across the board.
Thank you very much.
Dave.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr John Chilver - 3:21:43
I think probably this grant is illustrative
of a number of other grants, which is,
we see them reducing over time from previous allocations,
David Skinner - Director of Finance & S151 Officer - 3:21:53
and maybe with some slight, very slight,
in terms of the CSR.
I would clarify the point is that the
disconnect may be apparent between the
government's agenda in terms of funding
prevention and the amount of money they
are putting into it and us having to
respond to that changing landscape.
I don't think it is necessarily a council
disconnect.
I think it is maybe a government
disconnect in how we are going to
having to live then within the envelope that we are being given by the government in terms
of to deliver that agenda going forward. As you say, I think there is a benefit in terms of
certainty, in terms of kind of some of the certainty that we receive in these grants,
but also it does set out then the challenge in order to live within those.
I don't disagree, but obviously on this side we're thinking about the residents in terms of
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 3:22:55
and how that then impacts on their priorities.
So I don't disagree that this is perhaps
imposed and there's a disconnect,
but we have to deal with the fallout.
And just to come back on your point,
which I do agree with, of course,
that you've heard about the fair funding review.
Taking 44 million out of the budget
Cllr Mark Winn - 3:23:18
is not gonna benefit us,
and there will be these things like that as a result.
and that needs to be recognised.
Not everywhere in Buckinghamshire is streets paved with cold
as the government thinks that they are,
and this redistribution to other councils
is divisive on things like this,
and will affect people as a result.
Historically we had underspends on this budget line.
Cllr John Chilver - 3:23:50
I'm just wondering, is that a factor, apparently?
I'm just wondering if the current next year's figure includes any carry -forths.
We will cheque on the outtrend but we are trying to get the, as has been mentioned, the funds
Cllr Mark Winn - 3:24:10
out there quicker and to make it much more efficient as it goes forward.
So the funding does then get spent.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Crabtree.
Yes, good afternoon.
Cllr John Chilver - 3:24:21
I'm interested in the housing register and the books home choice numbers
Cllr Anna Crabtree - 3:24:24
So we've got some portfolio key data in this report that show
400
Sorry four thousand three hundred and eighty live applications, which says from September October 2025
This looks like it's substantially lower than last year
Whereas we're seeing that
Unemployment is higher on the leaders portfolio. We saw those numbers
There's more households in temporary accommodation this year than last year
And I just wondered if the housing register numbers are actually lower
Or if they've just been rebased and they're expected to really to increase because I noticed there's been the the recent re registration project
Because it looks like incongruous with the wider economic picture
So I wondered if you could tell us how it's changed in the last quarter of 2025
Because obviously these numbers are a little bit behind and what we're doing to work to bring that number down further. Thank you
Thank you. I haven't seen the latest quarter figures, but the numbers have risen from when
Cllr Mark Winn - 3:25:21
we did that registration exercise. People were asked to re -register and we changed our
policy on a lot of things. So a lot of people got more priority, but some people got less
priority. So for example, if you weren't resident in Bucks for the last five years, you would
then become basically a catty because we need to prioritise the people within
Buckinghamshire on the shortage of housing that we do have. So and also we
were we were very much an outlier compared to other councils with other
councils having sort of figures from that were much higher than the Niles so
if we had a lower figure people were there coming towards us. I mean for
For example, we had people that were placed here by London boroughs.
Brent was one that spun to mind.
And they were making offers to them, things like Darlington and Bridlington,
which to anyone, they're just unacceptable offers.
And people were refusing them.
And then they were coming to us because they were then disposing their
homelessness duty to those people, which I think is wrong and
was morally wrong to have made such ridiculous offers to people way outside where they came from.
So the numbers have risen since that registration period, but I think the policy that we've got now
is right. I mean, for example, Oxford City, I know, has a thing of just six months. As a result,
they have the worst sort of rate of trying to find a home, the worst weight of trying to find
the social home and basically in the country, which I don't think we want to go down that
Sorry, can we just go back to the original question?
Does any of the officers have any idea of what the number is at the end of the year
or further down the year?
Cllr Anna Crabtree - 3:27:18
Because I feel like the number we're looking at, this 4 ,000, I'm being told it's not accurate,
but it would be really helpful to just know more accurately what it is.
Yes, so certainly the latest number is still around the 4 ,600.
It's slightly higher, but around the 4 ,600.
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 3:27:33
And we, so I think as the cabinet member is saying,
the number has obviously risen from the point at which we did the
allocations policy and people were required to re -register onto the system.
And we can't say for sure, we can't guarantee, but it feels now like we've
reached the point where those rises have settled and we've reached the new level
effectively as a consequence of that allocations policy.
Cllr Anna Crabtree - 3:28:08
Thank you, that's very helpful. So the second part of my question is, what are we doing to bring that down and do we think it's going to decrease substantially in the next few months?
Cllr Mark Winn - 3:28:19
I mean, obviously I've highlighted the affordable homes that we've set out that we need to build, so registered providers, as I said, have been building more affordable homes.
We have been moving more people through Bucks Home Choice, so we've got figures on that, don't we?
Yes, we can provide you the figures on what they are over the last few years.
It's well over 1 ,600 I think is the figure, but we get that exact figure for you.
So we are doing that and the local plan, as I said, will have 1 ,600 within it.
Well, that's the proposal anyway within the local housing needs assessment.
plus we are looking at the S106 funding
and trying to fight to provide more affordable homes
in that way.
We're also trying to prevent people from being homeless.
So for example, as they present themselves
at risk of homelessness, working through with them
to try and find them a permanent tenancy
or to try and keep them within the tenancy that they have
so they then don't be going on those figures.
But it's also right to point out
the ones on those figures are not just those that are homeless, they are those in housing
need, so they may need an extra bedroom, etc. They may even need to downsize in some cases.
So we've tried to look at our policies as we go forward. So for example, if you want to downsize,
you then become a higher category, a higher priority to enable people to do that.
And I've spoken to councillors where that has happened, and people have been moved on about
out of the home that was like a three bed home to the one bed home that they now required.
Thank you. Before we move on to second questions, we have two
Cllr John Chilver - 3:29:59
elected members in attendance. I'm just wondering if they could indicate if they wish to ask a question.
Councillor Morgan, welcome.
Thank you, Chairman. I really appreciate you allowing us to ask a question. I've got two
questions. One is that I noticed there's no S106 funding coming in for the latter years
that I could see in the budget. I think there's 10 million coming in in total over the next
but only in those first two years.
I think there's a large amount coming in in year one of about 8 million and
the rest coming in in the second year.
Unless I've misinterpreted that and that S106 is something else.
It's not what's coming in, it's actually what's in the budget.
Cllr Mark Winn - 3:30:54
So this is money given to by developers.
They've not, for example, been able to provide the sort of affordable homes,
one on that site, so they've then given us funding to compensate.
This comes from that.
So until those developments come forward,
you're not gonna get the money in the later years.
That's how it works.
So of the 10 million pound,
how much do we think we would be able to build in terms of affordable homes?
We're working through on projects.
Cllr Mark Winn - 3:31:28
We've asked the risk providers to provide us with and other housing associations to provide us with projects and we're working through on those projects.
We will be doing quite a lot of work on that in the future.
Okay, thank you.
And my last point was about crematorial services.
Cllr Susan Morgan - 3:31:41
I'm not understanding actually whose responsibility is to provide them.
I don't know if it's a statutory responsibility of this council or not.
Certainly the Elsbury town parish, as we know, have really struggled for cemetery space.
We've now got outside of that parish, Berryfields, Buckingham Park,
Hamden Fields is going to be built, potentially Woodlands.
And I need to know whose responsibility it is to provide cemetery space for those people,
Because currently, where you live within the town boundary,
where I live outside of the town boundary,
I would have to pay double if I passed away.
And that's, you know, with the cost of living crisis,
it's definitely something that's on people's minds,
you know, in terms of those costs
not being passed down to their families.
And I believe it's something we could be securing
through potentially S106 or even SIL
to look at those investments.
and I see no ambition in the budget to provide those services.
You know, where are people going to be buried?
And it's fine, you know, building more crematoriums.
And I know we aspire to build another one, hopefully.
But we really need to look at cemeteries,
because, you know, certain religions require burials.
Not everybody can be cremated.
Thank you for your question, Councillor Morgan.
It is the burial authorities
of responsibility to provide those services
Cllr Mark Winn - 3:33:14
and to make a bid towards a local plan to do so.
I do know, for example, that Buckingham Town Council
have recently built a cemetery
which is outside the boundaries of their council.
So it can be done and it is done by others.
We did the High Wycombe Town Committee,
of course, of funding, we built the Penn Road Cemetery
which is outside Wickham, but that's for people from Wickham and the local council, Hazel Mersner,
were offered the chance to come forward in that and they declined. So again, if you're from
High Wickham, you would have a lower burial cost than you would if you were from Hazelmere.
But that's, it is the burial authorities responsibility in Elsbury, that's Elsbury Town Council.
But outside of that boundary?
Well, it's to provide for the town.
So, yeah, it will be the local parishes then to actually push that forward.
Yeah, I'm not sure there's anything more I can add there, Mark.
So, I would just note that obviously we have cemeteries that this council is responsible for as well as part of our capital programme.
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 3:34:27
It does include opportunities to increase the capacity of those cemeteries, but yeah, very much the responsibility of the burial authority.
And we would look to work with them to make sure there's sufficient capacity.
Overall, about 90 % of our services are through cremation and about 10 % through cemeteries.
Thank you very much Councillor Morgan for your question. I think we can move on to second questions now.
Councillor Snaith I think you indicated.
Cllr John Chilver - 3:34:57
Cllr Trevor Snaith - 3:35:05
Yes thank you. I've been listening intently to your social housing strategy and using S106.
I'd be interested to know if you've modelled in all of this the fact that you want to deliver 500 homes or whatever
but what's the mix going to be? Is it going to be four to five bedrooms, which are going to be more costly?
Are they going to be for key workers as well? You talk about key workers in your plan.
And also, have you considered the locality and the need and where they're actually going to be?
And all of this has an impact on your costs, and I just want to know what's modelled.
And the second part of the question, I'll go with it now, is are you working with other departments
such as acquiring unused council buildings that could be converted into housing?
You know, just these sort of things. I'd like some answers, please.
Thank you, Councillor Snape, for that question. In terms of the numbers, the numbers were in the
Cllr Mark Winn - 3:36:09
housing strategy, there's a local housing needs assessment
which has done a lot of that background work
of what the requirement is as well in terms of tenure
as well, as well, I've mentioned tenure,
obviously social rented, but also the size of properties.
And the housing strategy that we had as well
also identified sort of where there were shortages
in terms of the size of bed homes and that type of thing,
two free beds, whatever the requirement was.
but yeah, I sort of can.
Yeah, so if I may, so I think just in relation
to your first question about the kind of mix
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 3:36:47
of homes and the tenure, and of course it will be dependent
upon the specific locations as to where developments
are taking place and specific circumstances on site.
So whilst we're not, as part of these budget proposals,
proposing any particular sites to come forward then we're not in a position to
be able to say to you today this is what the mix is going to be this is what the
tenure is going to be and of course who's delivering those sites because
actually it will almost certainly not be the council that's delivering it might
be the council that's facilitating either through the investment on section
106 or through the use of its assets to make sure those things can be delivered
but in general it will end up in the private sector or registered providers
Will be providing those properties and at that stage when we get to site specific issues will then be looking at
You know the mix and the tenure and how that fits with policy and local needs assessment
etc and
We and but we do
work very closely with
Colleagues across the council and closing in our cannot property and assets team so that we're able to look at opportunities
and the council and the cabinet will regularly consider opportunities where
there are sites that are no longer operationally needed by the council and
the council will then be able to consider what other opportunities are
presented through those sites whether it's for you know market disposal or
whether or not we look at other opportunities on the sites including
housing or affordable housing provision or key worker provision those are all
decisions that the council will take when it looks at the disposal of sites
within its operational estate that it's no longer necessary to keep. Thank you
very much indeed. I think we have to bring this session to a close now
Cllr John Chilver - 3:38:47
because we need a short break before the next session. So I'd just like to thank
all members and officers for their attendance and participation. Apologies
which is for those who weren't able to ask their questions,
but do please send them in by email
and you will get a response.
We start again at three o 'clock
looking at the planning portfolio,
so back again in a short while.
Thank you very much indeed.

7 Housing and Regulatory Services (Councillor Mark Winn)

Cllr John Chilver - 3:39:23
Good afternoon and welcome to this,
the fourth session today.
In this session, we're going to be looking at the planning
portfolio.
So I'm very happy to welcome the cabinet member, Councillor
Peter Strachan, and the deputy cabinet member, Councillor
Michael Bracken.
And they're supported by officers, the service director,
Steve Bambrick, Fiorella Mugari, who is the finance officer
for the service and as ever we have Dave Skinner and Fiona Jump from the finance
team and we also have Councillor Jonathan Waters the chairman of the
growth infrastructure and housing select committee. So I think without any
further ado I'm going to hand over to Peter Strachan to present the his budget
highlighting key areas and risks, and then we'll move on to questions afterwards.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Chairman.
I will start, if I may, by just giving a short brief just to give our subsequent discussion
Cllr Peter Strachan - 3:40:37
some proper context, if I may, Chairman.
Firstly, in terms of overview, the planning portfolios responsible for the delivery of
number of statutory and regulatory functions, including planning and building control, and
the monitoring and management of developer contributions.

8 Planning (Councillor Peter Strachan)

The portfolio also has significant income targets related to discretionary services,
aimed to reduce dependency on the taxpayer.
A key activity for this portfolio in the years ahead will be development of the new Buckinghamshire
local plan for adoption by the end of 2027.
Local plans set the foundation for sound and robust planning decisions.
Around 11 ,000 planning applications are received every year, making the planning function the
third largest in the country.
The portfolio also includes a planning enforcement function and a building control service.
The budget proposals in this portfolio have been drafted post the government's announcement
on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, known as the MPPF.
The key points about the latest MPPF include mandatory housing targets restored for local
authorities, the introduction of the grey belt land concept within the green belt for
development where it contributes minimally to green belt purposes.
Presumptions in favour of sustainable development, affordable housing, infrastructure provision
and modern economic development emphasis.
These will have an impact on service delivery and on the budgets for planning.
For example, fee structures and income are likely to change and there is likely to be
and additional resource requirement of funding the planning income.
The main budgetary impacts and risks of the MPF on the service are expected to be, firstly,
the need to take forward and deliver the local plan for Buckinghamshire to a revised programme
overseen and monitored by government, then an increase in the type and scale of speculative
of planning applications everywhere and also an increase in the number, type and scale
of planning appeals.
In combination, this will place additional resource pressure across the service, which
will require non -statutory activity to be deprioritized and or more resources applied.
The budget proposals presented here include an assumption on additional planning income
from standard inflation level increases in statutory planning fees and efficiencies across
the planning service, which will be delivered through reduced staffing from 27 -28 linked
to the automation and streamlining of processes.
And we will continue to deliver the books local plan within the existing budget.
The portfolio priorities, if I may briefly run through them,
to measure and track performance to ensure that planning applications are processed in a timely manner,
both meeting statutory requirements, but also so that applicants can have confidence in achieving planning decisions
in a predictable time period wherever possible.
and to achieve an efficient, effective and customer -focused operating model
across Buckinghamshire Council by leveraging the full capabilities of the
One Uniform system and associated digital tools. And to continue momentum
to achieve delivery of the new local plan for Buckinghamshire with a Reg 19
submission by December 26 in line with our local development scheme and
statement of community involvement. Also support efficient and effective
planning committees would serve the needs of the community at a local level
and to deliver improvements to member engagement with planning including the
delivery of a wider training programme and drop -in sessions as well as ensuring
that planning committee members have the guidance and support they need to make sound decisions.
Also to support the continuing development of neighbourhood plans across the country,
across the county and deliver efficient planning enforcement across Buckinghamshire which is
responsive to residents' reports.
Also, to continue work by the Planning Improvement Board to deliver lasting and consistent improvements
to the planning service.
To efficiently manage the collection, reporting and use of developer contributions, including
Section 278, Section 106 and SIL to ensure optimum delivery of the infrastructure needed
to support new developments.
and finally to take forward the introduction of a community infrastructure levy sill in the north of
Buckinghamshire thereby
harmonising the arrangements throughout the county and
I will leave it there chairman if I may and
Obviously any questions are welcome
Thank you very much indeed. Is there anything that the service director?
Member or head of finance wish to add before we move to questions
Cllr John Chilver - 3:46:29
If not, then happy to take questions from the committee and
Councillor Cribb gee
Good afternoon. Thank you. Um
My first question was about planning enforcement. So looking at last year's budget
Cllr Anna Crabtree - 3:46:43
I see there was a line item for the budget expense for planning enforcement, but it's not included in this year's
Table set out on page 127 or 135 depending on which numbering you're using
So it's a starting point. Could you explain to us where that expenditure has gone?
Thank you.
So last year, there was a planned saving
in the enforcement service of 100 ,000 pound,
Cllr Peter Strachan - 3:47:08
which has been brought back in, so that we have not
reduced the enforcement service as was initially planned.
So where is the expenditure recorded
in this table on page 135?
Cllr Anna Crabtree - 3:47:26
So I'm not sure we when you say expenditure so there was a saving that
was projected in last year's MTFP that's been removed so there's there's no
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 3:47:36
longer an expectation that that saving will be made from the planning
enforcement function. So I'm looking at the table of revenue budget planning
portfolio and it has three headings building control, development management
and strategic planning policy and management.
And last year there was a fourth line
Cllr Anna Crabtree - 3:47:51
that said planning enforcement.
But this year there is no fourth line.
OK, so I think these are just obviously budget areas
for the service.
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 3:48:11
Since last year's MTFP, or last year's budget,
the service has been through a service review.
These are the new service areas. So enforcement
Or the enforcement function if you like comes within the development management area of budgets. Perfect. Thank you very much
Thank You councillor Dali
Cllr John Chilver - 3:48:37
Thank you, I had a very similar question
Cllr Christine Adali - 3:48:42
But let's go on to the next one. The other one is staff related to you just said that from 27 28
There will be reduced staffing
Because you will introduce some AI tools on which level of planning
Complication or size of planning application are those AI tools actually comparative to a planning?
Officer given just thinking back to my own board. There's some really big ones coming through that are quite
involved, which will have a lot of input from the residents, loads of input from the residents,
and how I can't see an AI tool dealing with all levels of applications.
Are they just doing the normal, I have an extension to my house, I want to change my
into a room or do they also build with the really big ones
that are coming through because planning tends to require
a lot of experience.
So I thought that staff retention and kind of containing
the experience with in -house would be quite important
with the housing targets in the MPPF.
Could you just explain a little bit how that's planned?
Yeah, if I may. So the first thing to say is that the, and you'll see in the tables
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 3:50:12
on page 137, for example, that the saving that we're anticipating from the introduction
of use of AI is not projected until the second year of the MTFP. So it's not something that's
projected for next year. And that's partly because we don't yet have a tool, if you like,
that's kind of off the shelf that we can readily say,
we're gonna use that particular tool
and we're gonna apply it immediately.
It's something that will need some preparation
and some implementation time.
But as a general principle, there's no expectation
that at the end of any planning decision,
there won't be a case officer.
But there will be opportunities to make efficiencies
through things like summarising comments
that are made on planning applications and even in some cases on some of the
on some of the more straightforward applications report writing or delegated
report writing but but that will not be the decision -making exercise the
decision -maker will remain and it's still intended that the decision -maker
will remain a case officer on all cases whether they be minor or complex but
there will be efficiencies through the process
that we anticipate we can apply.
And that's the efficiency that's projected here
in the budget.
I'm really glad to hear that.
I just reworded my question based on what
Councillor Strachan said in his introduction and summary.
I interpreted it that way.
So I'm really relieved to hear that that was not the case.
Cllr Christine Adali - 3:51:42
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Councillor Powell.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr John Chilver - 3:51:53
Cllr Chris Poll - 3:51:57
So, in these sessions we've been interested in the effects of the proposed introduction
of Sill in the north.
Now the expectation is that that will pay for infrastructure, social housing, increased
uplift for parish expenditure.
infrastructure. That money's going to go everywhere it seems, but it clearly isn't. I don't think
we're going to get any money, it seems we're not going to get any money from government
towards infrastructure and even if we were on the old figures for the local plan of 65 ,500
not 95 ,500 new dwellings, it's clear that we need infrastructure. I was going to ask
in the last section, the portfolio holder for housing with an ambition to increase the
number of social developments, social housing developments, what he would say to you. I
would cheekily ask you the same question, what would you say to him about his ambition
to increase from 500 to more than 1 ,300 social housing units per annum will
still square that circle. Yeah let me let me have a go at that and then I'll turn
to the service director for some the corporate directors for some detail. I
think I think to give this some context we have to recognise that the last time
Cllr Peter Strachan - 3:53:29
that housing to this level was built was in the 1950s when we built council estates with
public money.
This government has got very little intention to spend any public money building housing
and it would like the developers to do that.
I don't think being realistic we would expect the entire infrastructure requirement to be
met by Section 106 and CIL and there will have to be significant lobbying to government
to get public money to assist that cause
because the amount that we will raise
will simply not be enough.
Because when we look at infrastructure in the round,
we obviously include health, we include education,
we include roads, we include the entire gamut
of infrastructure that's required.
And it would be totally unrealistic for me to city
and say that all of those requirements
are gonna be met by what we get from developers
in either section 106 or Sill and in the future Sill throughout the county. So we
will have to work very hard to lobby our MPs and government to get significant
contributions if the plan is to work as we need it to for the residents. Steve
do you want to add anything to that? Thank you. If I may, so probably important just to be
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 3:54:57
very clear that the introduction of SIL does not mean that 106 would disappear
so we'd still have the ability to secure section 106 contributions. It's a
decision for a later date as to what that structure looks like in the north
when it's introduced but in the south of the county where we already have
SIL we do have both regimes so you know we are applying SIL and we are also on
the major sites securing section 106 agreements.
The important thing under the CIL regs is that you're not able to secure CIL and
106 for the same piece of infrastructure effectively, you can't double dip.
So that would be something that would be an important factor going forward.
So there will be provision, and again, I'll go back to
an answer I gave at a previous session.
That's part of the local plan process.
there will be an approach where we will need to assess,
first of all, where the development is likely to go
across the county, what rise that gives
for infrastructure requirements across the county
and in local areas, how that might be funded,
whether that be through section 106,
whether that might be through CIL,
or whether there's a requirement
for infrastructure providers themselves,
or utility providers, for example,
to pay for some of those costs and what the gap is in order to be able to provide that.
And it's that gap that we'd then be in a position of being able to talk to government,
Homes England and others about how that might be filled in order to be able to develop the
county in a sound and robust way.
But in some extent that's the process, but we're at the very beginning of that process
as part of the local plan development.
If I may, Chairman.
Again, I think the expectation is that Sill
is gonna be a panacea, and that, you know,
one question is when will it happen?
Cllr Chris Poll - 3:56:59
Do we have the resource in this MTFP
to get that actioned as soon as possible,
getting Sill into place in the north?
Because, you know, I think that's what people are expecting,
that with all these houses coming there won't be it won't be detrimental to
everybody's quality of life by commuting visiting the doctor and so many other
things. If I may so a couple of things I think so as I said earlier we've got
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 3:57:39
already sill in the south of the county that I think it's in the pack brings in
around about 6 million a year and you'll see from the pack as well that we've got some projections as to
how we might also be phasing in the sill across the whole of the county
towards the end of the MTFP period. The current process for sill is that we are anticipating
a consultation in the summer of this year on a potential charging schedule for sill in the north
and then subject to that consultation,
we would then go through an examination
with an independent inspector
who would then make recommendations for us to adopt SIL
and the anticipated adoption date is
in the first quarter of 2027.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Tarrant.
Yes, thank you very much.
Cllr John Chilver - 3:58:43
And I actually want to just follow on what Councillor Powell's just been talking about
on infrastructure.
Cllr Martin Tett - 3:58:47
I've got two lines of questioning.
If I just talk about infrastructure first, and I'd like to, if possible, follow on a
different area.
When you have a new local plan, in fact, pretty well any application for development of any
size, but particularly with a new local plan with 94 and a half, sorry, 95 and a half thousand
new properties, this is going to be ginormous.
And there will almost undoubtedly be a number of new settlements as a result of this.
The first thing any local person asks is, what about the infrastructure?
And they don't just mean, oh, there's a new playground with a couple of swings in it.
I mean, what they fundamentally mean is, where are the roads?
And if these are new settlements, they could well be in the middle of what are currently
rural areas.
They'll need roads not just in the settlement.
They'll need roads improvement to the settlement from, say,
Aylesbury or Buckingham or places in Oxfordshire
and so on.
These are very expensive.
On top of that, obviously, the utility companies, but also,
and we talked to Councillor Darby this morning
at some length about the issue of health.
And this is GP surgeries.
How do you fund GP surgeries?
How do you actually fund the ongoing revenue cost
of those GP surgeries?
And also what about the hospitals, the health trust,
you know, where are the new beds going to come from?
Because if you add, you know, a very significant increase
in the population of the county, there are going
to be more people who will need health facilities in hospitals.
Given that the plan, I'm sorry, I'm going on,
because I'm conscious people watch this,
who may not be familiar with it, as you obviously are.
Given that the plan has to be found sound
by the planning inspector has to be deliverable,
you will need to demonstrate to that inspector
that all these numbers add up.
Yep, so just to re -emphasise Councillor Powell's question,
if you add all of these requirements
for infrastructure together,
my suspicion is it comes to a very large amount of money.
Far more than you're gonna get
from the community infrastructure levy or section 106.
And particularly when a quarter
of community infrastructure levy will probably go to parish councils for hanging baskets
and swings and things like that.
So what has the cabinet member been doing to date, yeah, to lobby government?
Because I think this money is going to have to come from government.
It would be really good to hear what he's been doing to actually say, look, if you want
95 and a half thousand new houses, you have to give us the money to fund these things.
Otherwise, we just can't deliver a deliverable plan.
And remembering, of course, the developers will always be back,
claiming the viability, they can't deliver the affordable housing,
etc., etc., etc.
So I think just to help us have confidence these numbers add up,
could you give us a little pen portrait of what you've been doing to lobby those
particular government departments to get the money that the residents of this
county will need for these new developments?
So thank you. Can I...
And please correct me if any of my assumptions are wrong.
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 4:02:07
No, no. And I just wonder whether it might be helpful to outline a bit of the kind of
process that's followed in engaging infrastructure providers, again, perhaps for the benefit
of those people listening as well.
So again, as part of an answer to it in a previous session,
I refer to the fact that preparation for the local plan,
we will need to produce what's known
as an infrastructure delivery plan,
which will inform, if you like, the council
before adopting a plan and a planning inspector
what the infrastructure requirements might be.
As part of pulling together
that infrastructure delivery plan, we are required to engage with infrastructure providers
in order for them to be able to inform us as planning authority about what the infrastructure
needs that will arise from the development of the provision.
Now of course you'll understand that until we get to a stage where we are actually saying
this is where the development is going to go in the county, those infrastructure providers
will find it very difficult to be very specific about,
well if you're gonna put 10 ,000 houses there,
it's gonna mean this many roads
and this many GP surgeries, et cetera, et cetera.
And so we are not at that stage at the moment.
We are not at the stage where we are saying
this is where the developments will go.
Of course, Councillor Strachan's referred to the fact
that we have a local development scheme
and that local development scheme will have us publishing
what's known as a Regulation 19 plan later this year.
We anticipate as well being in a position probably in the next
Two months I would say
To be able to be a bit clearer about where we think the sites if there are going to be sites across the county where?
They might go that will also give us the ability to have those very specific engagements with infrastructure providers
through that process
So that they can inform that that plan
As I mentioned in response to the question from Councillor
Poll, what that process will enable us to do is to be able
to map out where those infrastructure requirements are.
We'll be able to also then have a separate conversation
with promoters of individual sites because of course,
this is a plan led system so we're putting together a plan.
We'll be talking to the promoters of sites and saying,
if your site's gonna be developed, it's gonna need this
level of infrastructure because that's what the infrastructure providers are telling us we will then look at ways in which that might be paid
for and that might come out to the the proceeds of the developments
And it may come out of section 106. It may come out still it may come out of the areas
We are also then required to do what's known as a viability assessment of the plan
Because it may be that developers are saying to us at that stage. We can't afford to provide all of that infrastructure out of this development
we will have that independently tested as part of the plan preparation process
to cheque whether actually that's accurate or not.
If we get to a stage where we've got sites that are potential sites for a plan
that are not viable and cannot provide the necessary infrastructure,
that's a position that we would be presenting to a planning inspector eventually
that might be a position that says, well, we know the target is 95 ,000
But we can't provide that number because actually we've got no mechanism for
delivering the shortfall in infrastructure that our infrastructure
delivery plan is showing.
We'll also at that stage, and I'd anticipate way ahead of that once we've
got a bit more information on infrastructure delivery plan,
be having conversations with organisations such as Homes England and
obviously with government as well about what that gap is and
whether there is other provision from government
or from other agencies that might help fill that gap.
Finally, just come back,
because I think this is such a massive financial issue,
and assuming just hypothetically
that we want a local plan adopted, say, by late 2027,
Cllr Martin Tett - 4:06:15
then that falls within the timescale
that this committee is looking at financially.
So I think it's relevant to this committee
to ask these questions.
And timescales are very short.
So we're looking here not just at roads,
but we're looking at health, GP, surgeries, as I said,
all that gamut.
Those discussions need to be having been started,
I would argue, in broad terms, obviously not site -specific
by now.
And I know a little bit from my own background
that you tend to operate in two ways.
You'll have the chief executive and senior officers working
with the civil servants, and then normally
the political lead, the portfolio holder, whoever,
working in with government ministers.
And I guess what I'm looking for,
maybe this committee's looking for,
is some reassurance that the financials of this
are being flagged to government in broad terms,
to say, look, if you want these houses delivered,
we're gonna need a shed load of money.
That's why we got the, what was then called
the Housing Infrastructure Fund from the previous government,
172 million, you know, we need something
probably significantly in excess of that
to actually balance the financials
by the time we get to that local plan
within this budget period.
So I'm just looking for reassurance that we've engaged
both at a senior civil servant level, Steve,
and also at a senior political level
through the cabinet member to give us the reassurance
that the financials are, if not sound,
are at least being managed in a sound way.
And again, just to give, perhaps try and give you some of that reassurance, so there is
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 4:08:00
ongoing engagement with government departments, both at a political level and at a, if you
like, kind of civil service level.
I think it's a matter of public record that when the council or when the cabinet agreed
what's known as its Regulation 18 plan,
which was out for consultation
towards the end of last year,
there was certainly an exchange of political correspondence
between the leader of the council
and the minister for planning
in relation to the preparation of the plan.
And the leader has been very clear
in making sure that the government understands
the difficulty we are finding
in developing a plan to deliver 95 ,000
and the infrastructure ask that we think.
And again, we can't be certain about what that ask is
until we get to the stage of knowing what the sites are,
but the anticipated level of an ask
that will come to the government
or Holmes England or whoever.
So that is very much on the radar.
I'd like to come back and I'll be following you both.
Thanks, we'll move on to second questions later.
Councillor Wilson.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Martin Tett - 4:09:19
Good afternoon, everybody.
Cllr John Chilver - 4:09:23
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 4:09:29
Mine's probably more prosaic question on the finances in the budget and relates to the
spending we've got in the line item that is called, just find the right, strategic
planning policy and management. So this as I understand it is the team that
deliver the local plan and I note that we have the same amount in for 26 -27 the
year, the following year and the year after that. And my question was in the
context of adoption of the local plan for Buckinghamshire by the end of 2027,
are we going to require that level of funding resource? Because I also note
that a good proportion of that is funded out of reserve. So we've got a
a substantial contribution in year one,
another contribution in year two,
but then there's no funding out of reserve for year three,
so that's all coming out of the council's revenue budget,
its funding for that year.
Given that we are now working on a three -year settlement,
obviously we have to, what we do now,
we have to live with for a period of time.
Obviously we can make adjustments year to year,
but it is what it is.
So could you just comment on the fact
that we have the same number in across all of the years,
whilst I'm sure that we don't plan for slippage
in delivery of the local plan,
I recognise that there's always a potential,
but in terms of the funding from reserve,
it would suggest by the end of the plan period
that all of that is gonna have to come out
of the council's revenue budget, so.
So if I may, so the expectation in local plan preparation is that the local plan should
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 4:11:28
be kept up to date and again the expectation nationally is that, and this has been the
expectation for a long period of time, is that it should be reviewed at least every
five years and you'll be familiar I'm sure with the fact that there's also a separate
expectation that the council should be maintaining at least a five -year supply
of housing land and part of that is informed by how up -to -date your local
plan is and the allocations in your local plan is. So whilst of course we
anticipate being able to adopt the new local plan in kind of towards the end of
year two of this MTFP period I would also anticipate that we will be in a
of needing to start or commence a review quite quickly soon after that to make
sure that we can maintain a position where we have an up -to -date supply of
land so we can defend against speculative developments but also so
that we can ensure that the local plan remains extant and up -to -date because
and again our experience with this local plan has been we started this process in
effectively 2000. Now there have been a series of changes nationally that has
that has impacted on the on the process for the local plan
but nevertheless
you can probably anticipate that there will always be changes that happen nationally always be things that throw you off course
and here we are sitting in 2026 and we are anticipating adoption in 2027. So I think it is
is prudent for us to assume that there will be an ongoing
process around local plan preparation and review
that were required.
Obviously as we get closer to that date,
we might look a bit more specifically at what those
detailed requirements might be, but at this stage,
three years out from that, I'm anticipating that there will
be a requirement to maintain and keep that local plan
up to date.
I have no doubt there'll be requirements for updates
there will probably be changes to the MPPF,
there will probably be new supplementary planning documents
that we'll need to work on.
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 4:13:40
I just wonder whether or not having six million pounds in
for all of this, but you know,
you've put forward your best guess
as to what you think you may require
for a point in the future.
And on the development management budget,
budget, does that take into account the much vaunted increase in planning fees that will
allow us to add in planning offices and other bits and pieces that we've heard about?
I note that the way I read the commentary was that it was the current, the historical
planning fee allowances.
So have we provided for, or is it an opportunity to the budget, the increased planning fees
that we've been promised?
And equally, does it take into account
the proposed reduction in administering planning
committees for smaller domestic sub -10 dwelling applications?
Because presumably, there may well
be some cost savings to be achieved
through those reductions as well.
Or do those sit outside of this financial plan at the present?
I think as I mentioned, if I may, in my introductory comments that the budget proposals, and I
Cllr Peter Strachan - 4:15:08
quote, include assumptions on additional planning income from standard inflation level increase
in statutory planning fees.
So the budget as a whole does account for an increase in fees.
I read that to mean we've had a planning fee regime historically, and we've increased that
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 4:15:27
in line with inflation, as opposed to the government has been talking about a step change
in planning fees that would allow local authorities to try and address some of the time taken
to process planning applications.
So I don't know if that's been finalised yet in any kind of legislation or statutory notes
or instrument or...
So there was an increase in statutory planning fees
that was earlier this financial year, which
has had an impact on this particular financial year
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 4:15:59
and has been taken into account in relation to the numbers
that are before you today.
There's an anticipated future increase.
We don't know what that will be.
And that will be something that we'll
need to reflect in the future.
And so that's not been specifically
taken into account.
But in terms of the one that has happened to date,
that is reflected in these numbers.
And planning committees?
Yeah, so, and again, we've looked at this before,
and the actual level of saving is not very significant
in the wider scheme, and so I think it's probably fair
to say we haven't adjusted the numbers specifically
as a consequence of changes that might mean
that fewer applications go to committee.
I mean, if on the basis of experience and evidence,
that turns out to be a more substantial saving
than we would anticipate,
and it's something again that we would want to reflect on,
but at this stage, it doesn't feel like an area
that we would be able to make a substantial saving from.
For those watching, that's because this authority
typically has a high level of delegation on decisions
relative to other authorities.
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 4:17:17
So very few planning applications currently come through
to planning committee in this authority
relative to other authorities.
I know that was the case some time ago.
I presume in this term of council
that's potentially continued.
Yes, and again, to give some context,
I think because there is a high level of delegation,
I think across the board nationally
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 4:17:43
My understanding is the level is normally around about 95 % of applications
And this council is around about 96 97 % so whilst it is higher it is
It's worth putting in context the fact that across the board nationally the level of delegation is also very high
Thank you very much.
Councillor Wharton's next.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr John Chilver - 4:18:15
I was going to talk to some of the issues which Councillor Tepp raised in terms of infrastructure.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 4:18:20
That is going to be incredibly important going forward.
He has covered a lot of areas there.
The area I'm going to look at is particularly in terms of the costs of appeals and that
seems to be an ever -increasing challenge to the Council,
because I think we seem to be looking at getting costs very
easily and very significant costs.
We also have applicants, particularly
on very big applications, and another one
at the moment, which might well go to appeal
for non -determination, where I think some large sites
basically have taken us into appeals where the applicants think it's better to go to
the inspector quickly and then have far less things to deal with.
So those costs, whether we get costs against or not, immediately give us costs.
And I can see the amount of funding that you put in there, because it's not something that's
really funded anywhere, but really from our reserves.
And whether that is enough in terms of where we are, or whether it is going to give us
It's a situation where we almost have to step back
in terms of upholding what we believe is our policies
because if they are challenged,
that could create a huge amount of cost.
I think before, there's been certain lines
where we felt certain areas have been really important
to defend and then we might lose it at appeal,
but at least we felt that that was important.
So that, I think, is a question mark.
The other area, again in terms of funding,
on the local plan, we have got a very tight
deadline to achieve.
And I don't know many local plans that actually
have come in within the periods of time or the deadlines.
And it looks in terms again where you're taking
money from reserves for some of that.
If things went on longer, I'm not quite sure
how the repercussions of that have been taken
into consideration or whether there is enough contingency there that you feel that you could
cover that going forward.
They would be particular areas I'd like to have a view on.
I think turning to the question of appeals to start with, we are very aware of the appeals
position and recognise that we're moving into new territory.
Cllr Peter Strachan - 4:20:52
I don't think we would ever state we wouldn't fight an appeal because of the financial aspect
of it, but we have a very careful considered view about how we deal with appeals and we're
confident at the minute that we can meet any cost that arise from appeals without current
arrangements.
In terms of the local plan timing, yeah, it is a significant challenge and there aren't
many days that we don't consider it and its progress and decide how we could do things
better to make sure that it gets over the line by the time it needs to. So we're very
aware of both of the aspects that you mentioned Councillor Otters and give them due attention.
Steve do you want to add anything to that? If I may just on the local plan piece so the timetable
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 4:21:49
that we are currently on requires us to submit the draught local plan for
examination by the latest December of this year. We know because as I mentioned
to Councillor Tett earlier we are in contact regularly with government so we
know that we are not the only authority that are also on a very similar
trajectory and we also have the benefit of having regular visits from
representatives from the planning inspectorate to make sure that they can
satisfy themselves that we are remain on the right trajectory. So as things stand
at the moment I am confident that we are and that we can that we can meet that
timetable. If for whatever reason that was not going to be the case then as
with any project we would need to do a gateway review of the project and
understand what the implications might be. Inevitably missing that December
26 deadline means that we will delay, the project will be delayed. As we've
heard today already the staffing costs for the planning team are
accounted for in the budget and a lot of the evidence base that is required to
support the local plan is also accounted for because that's paid for out of the local plan reserve.
So I have a degree of confidence that whilst there will be a delay,
financially we would be able to deliver the local plan over a longer period of time.
The more significant consequence, however, will be the lack of a local plan for
that period of time and the, if you like, the consequence on the place of us not
having a planned approach to development
for an even longer period of time.
That's the more significant consequence
that we are trying to avoid
by producing the plan on the timescale that we are.
Chairman, are you okay if I ask a different question?
Yes. Thank you.
Going back to infrastructure,
one of the key concerns I think a lot of us have
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 4:23:56
who are on planning as committees
are the level of confidence in terms of some of the major providers,
whether that's the ICB or whether it's the sewage companies
or the water companies or various other people
in terms of which are going to be needed to supply.
And particularly the confidence they have when we say
there is a requirement that needs to be done.
What is your view?
how is it going to be done, for instance, for the ICB,
they need to be looking at the 10 -year government plan
of how you actually start to create neighbourhood health
that needs to be built in to what they're doing.
So it's not just looking at how the GP surgeries are now
or how the hospitals are run, it's how they integrate
and with all the other health facilities.
That's a much more complicated thing
that they need to be building in
and making sure that they're getting the funding
off of the developers and calculating that properly.
and we brought that up within the committee,
that there's a level of concern
that actually what they're asking for
would not and cannot deliver what is needed
for the new people who are arriving on sites.
The figures at the moment just don't work
on the small sites particularly.
And I think there's other areas where sewage is an issue,
particularly in the north of the area we know,
where we have sites now where no development
can actually take place or nobody can move into properties
until the sewage works has actually been dealt with
up in the Buckinghamshire area, so Buckingham area.
So I think these things are things
we have to have a better level of confidence
and a lot more questioning of some of the input
that's coming into us into local plan
so that it is robust and I'd just like to
get a feeling of what you do in terms of making sure
that that is much better lined up
with what the needs are gonna be.
So again, I kind of refer you in part
to the kind of answer I gave earlier,
which is in relation to preparing
the infrastructure delivery plan
as part of the local plan preparation.
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 4:26:12
It is imperative as part of that
that we have full and proper engagement
from all of the infrastructure providers.
And I think reflecting back on where we've been as a place,
I don't think that was necessarily always the case in the preparation of the previous local plans that we are now
delivering and and and implementing now so and and also particularly because in parts of the county we are
Dealing with local plans that are very very out of date
We're therefore really only dealing with what you can regard as speculative elements of developments that are not contained in a plan anywhere
infrastructure providers therefore have not had an opportunity to influence them because they're not in a plan
and they are responding to them as speculative applications and they are finding that very difficult to do
and I think that manifests itself as you're articulating in decision makers having to make very difficult decisions
without the necessary information.
So completely understand that and therefore I think it underlines the importance of the plan led approach with a robust infrastructure delivery plan.
With the mechanisms I was describing earlier to support it.
So that we're able to when you get to decision making on those sites.
you've got all of that as background to be able to lean back on and say actually
This site needs this this and this piece of infrastructure
And we're not going to approve it unless we get those pieces of infrastructure in place
And we're not in that place at the moment
But that is where we'd like to get to with the local plan and the supporting evidence
Thank you. I think Councillor Strachan you wanted to come in on this
Did you want to come in say something on this?
Cllr Peter Strachan - 4:28:10
Cllr John Chilver - 4:28:11
Thank you Chairman. I was going to ask a similar question that's been answered sort of partly
in a way. My concern is on page 139 there's a, under the heading of opportunities, it
says a reinvigorated planning improvement board will operate and consider various themes
Cllr Andy Huxley - 4:28:31
which will enable the council to offer a more responsive planning function. I was going
to ask the question about what the impact was going to be on planning committees and
even possibly the strategic sites committee because the planning committee situation appears
It appears to be dissolving a little bit in this, you know, for what I previously exist,
you know, previous, in a previous existence.
Planning committees went on forever and a day and now they're dwindling and I'm just
wondering where this is all going, if you like.
But probably going to answer that very briefly.
but if I can ask a second question on something I didn't know, wasn't aware of, is that we received
70 million in Silland S106 and apparently 700 ,000 of this is transferred to local parishes
and town councils which I didn't know about, but I'm just wondering how this is distributed
and when you think that there are nearly 200 parishes in the county,
how you distribute 700k on that basis?
I mean I think the regulation that you're referring to is that a Town Road Parish Council,
Cllr Peter Strachan - 4:30:11
if it has a made neighbourhood plan, local plan, will get 25 % of its sill paid straight back.
That's correct Steve, isn't it?
Yeah
In less than that if they don't have a neighbourhood plan and we have it we have a team that administer that process
and
it
The challenge the challenge with section 106 is completing the projects on time
The challenge with sill is collecting the money and we have officers who are working very hard and making both of those
platforms more efficient and in many ways it will become less complicated in the future when we've got still throughout the county
But that doesn't mean to say that you can't use section 106 as well in terms of planning committees at the end of the last
administration we reviewed the number of planning committees quite significantly and
Reduce them and if a consequence of this new planning regime that we find ourselves in again. We will review the position
constantly and if it becomes sensible to reduce them or increase them then we will continue to do that.
So we'll continue to review the position and act accordingly.
Steve, do you want to add anything?
Thank you, Councillor Mehta.
Thank you, Chairman. I'm Councillor Nithimahata. I represent Aylesbury West.
Cllr John Chilver - 4:31:36
So my question is basically about staffing again.
Cllr Nidhi Mehta - 4:31:38
We all know that how difficult it is, you know, to retain the staff.
And when I see in the pack, you have mentioned that we receive around 11 ,000 applications
every year, which is like huge.
So there would be backlogs.
So my question would be, what is being done to address this backlog?
And how many basically, how many planners do we have
who are actually locally based,
would know the know -how of the, you know, local.
So that's my question.
So if I can just deal with those two,
Yeah.
Separately, so.
So I mentioned earlier in response to,
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 4:32:29
I think, Councillor Wilson's question,
the fact that there'd been an increase in planning fees earlier in the year.
And we did as a consequence of that, and that wasn't a surprise to anybody in
the sector, that was well trailed and we all knew when it was happening.
One of the consequences of that was we did have a spike of applications that came in
just before the introduction of the new fees, perhaps no surprise there.
And we are still dealing with that backlog of applications, if you like, through the process at the moment.
We've talked about the planning improvement board that's referred to in here.
So we are, through that improvement board, we're looking at changes in the way that we process applications,
changes in the way that we validate applications to speed them through the system.
and also whether or not we can use any additional resource that's available within the service as a consequence of the increase in fees
to be able to make sure we can smooth that backlog down. So that's something that's a kind of short term hit that we anticipate by the end of this financial year we will have cleared.
I think your second question was about local knowledge, I think, for officers.
Yes, basically we've heard that there are staff or
planners who handle the application who are not locally based.
Is that correct?
Cllr Nidhi Mehta - 4:34:02
Or if that's the case, then do we have planners who are actually based?
For example, if someone is applying from Aylesbury,
do we have planners based in Aylesbury?
So all of our teams, and this applies
beyond just the planning team, all of our teams
have an expectation of being in the office
for three days of the week.
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 4:34:24
And so that is the same as it is for every team.
Planning officers specifically are
required to go and visit sites as part of their caseload.
So they will have a caseload of applications,
and they will visit each of the sites
as part of the application.
So wherever their starting point is,
in terms of where they might live,
they will all use the county as a base,
and they will all visit the sites
that they are responsible for in order to be
able to make a decision.
So that local knowledge is definitely important,
but it's applied in all of the cases.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. We're fast running out of time. I think we've got time to squeeze in one last question.
Councillor Tett.
Cllr John Chilver - 4:35:17
Yes, thank you. I just wanted to go back to the topic raised on my colleague on appeals.
The training we do for members on planning committees, you know,
Cllr Martin Tett - 4:35:27
it's very clear that planning and planning decisions is more of an art than a science.
I think that's a direct quote from the induction training.
Two different officers could arrive at different decisions
on the same application.
The current administration was elected on a platform
of protecting and defending the green belt.
I'm just looking for reassurance, and also,
when something goes to appeal, you know,
different planning inspectors come to different conclusions
on the same decision.
So I'm looking for reassurance.
Given that we only have 500 ,000 per year in,
and the planning appeals can be very expensive,
do we really have enough money in here
to deliver on the commitment that
was given to our residents to protect and defend
the green belt?
Given that the whole government has
been, the government nationally has incentivized
speculative applications, virtually every application
says every blade of grass now is grey belt.
And they work on that premise.
So I'm just looking for reassurance in financial terms, not policy terms, just financial terms,
that we have enough money in the budget to really live up to the promise we made to our
residents when we stood for election.
And I'd like a political answer to that preferably, obviously, rather than an officer, because
it's a political question.
Yeah, it's quite true that we live in a very different world now, and we are confident
David Skinner - Director of Finance & S151 Officer - 4:36:55
Cllr Peter Strachan - 4:36:56
that we will defend defendable appeals in a very changing landscape of what the
regulations are and I think we all we all understand the complexity of that
but yes we will we will defend appeals where it is right to do so and of course
you know as well as anybody that every time we approach your appeal we get very
firm KC advice about the likelihood of being successful or not and clearly that
will be part of the decision as well.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I'm apologies, I think we're going to have to stop there.
Dave, did you just want to say something?
Cllr John Chilver - 4:37:36
Just to add to Peter's answer as well, I think you may have missed it, but in the
David Skinner - Director of Finance & S151 Officer - 4:37:47
out -turn report from 2425, we're in the position where we could make some additional
contributions to reserves and the cabinet made a decision at its first meeting in the
new administration, so I think it would have been June time, to put an extra one and a
half million into the planning appeals reserve, I think for the very reasons that you've
articulated.
So you can see that the money is flowing with the manifesto commitment.
Just so I didn't miss it, because I remember recommending that in the proofs administration,
so yes.
Thank you.
So, yes, I'm afraid we have to stop there.
So apologies to those other members
who wish to ask a question.
Cllr John Chilver - 4:38:23
But if you send it in by email, I'm sure it'll be answered.
So I'd just like to thank everybody
who's participated today, members and officers,
and also anybody who's joining us on the webcast online.
Just a reminder that we're not meeting tomorrow.
There's no budget scrutiny meetings.
we will be meeting again on Thursday,
Thursday the 15th of January, starting at 10 a .m.,

9 Date of next meeting

when we'll be covering the last two portfolios.
And also, we'll have another visit
from the leader of the Council to conclude the process.
So thank you all very much indeed,
and I hope you enjoy the rest of the day.
Thank you.