Agenda and draft minutes

To receive apologies of absence.

There were none.

To receive declarations of interest.

Councillor Craig informed the committee that he was a trustee of the Berkley Community Hub who were eligible for the CIL consideration at agenda Item 6. The Chief Executive confirmed that it would not preclude him from vote during the item as the recommendation had been made from the Environment Committee.

Councillors Robinson and Davies explained that they were Members of the Corporate Parenting Group at Gloucestershire County Council (GCC), they had sought advice from the Monitoring Officer and were comfortable taking part in Item 12. 

To approve the Minutes of the meetings held on 23 November 2023.

RESOLVED That the Minutes of the meetings held on 23 November 2023 were approved as a correct record.

The Chair invited Councillor Layfield to make an announcement to the committee. Councillor Layfield, the Chair of the Member Development Working Group, informed the committee that Stroud District Council had been awarded the Member Development Charter accreditation from Southwest Councils.

The Chair of the Committee will answer questions from members of the public submitted in accordance with the Council’s procedures.

Public questions were submitted by Mr Steve Willetts and the responses were published online here. 

See Agenda Item 4 for deadlines for submission.

There were none.

CIL funding helps to provide for any additional demand placed on local infrastructure created by new housing growth, in accordance with adopted planning policy. Funding allocations for the 2023 application round were recommended to Environment Committee in December 2023, which were unanimously approved. These spend allocations are presented to Strategy and Resources Committee for secondary approval.

The Senior Community Infrastructure Officer introduced the report and provided a brief overview of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and the criteria that must be met for projects wanting to apply for the fund. She informed the committee that CIL had received 9 bids for the CIL fund this year and 8 of those that had been recommended for approval and could be found at appendix A. The Senior Community Infrastructure Officer then provided a brief overview of each of the projects recommended for approval and their proposed allocation. There was 1 bid received which was not recommended for support through the CIL fund for which, details could be found at paragraph 2.14 on page 32 of the document pack. She informed the committee that they had already received significant interest for the following year’s fund for strategically important capital infrastructure projects which would likely exceed the available amount. It was therefore recommended to retain the £626,024 remaining from this year’s funding and add it to the following years budget.

Councillor Robinson questioned whether the National Trust had been contacted to explain why they had not been unsuccessful with their bid. The Senior Community Infrastructure Officer confirmed that she had been communicating with the National Trust and we were assisting them to explore other funding options available.

In response to a further question from Councillor Robinson, the Senior Community Infrastructure Officer confirmed that the annual application round runs from early April until September each year, however the council would consider bid submissions outside of the set timescales in exceptional cases.

Councillor Hurst questioned why GCC were not using their own CIL fund. The Senior Community Infrastructure Officer explained that GCC did not have a CIL fund.

Councillor Turner proposed and Councillor Layfield seconded.

Councillors Layfield, Pearson, Turner and the Chair all commended the Officers for the report.

After being put to a vote, the Motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED   To note the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) project funding decisions made by Environment Committee according to the attached report and approve the financial implications of that decision.

The Council is required under the Localism Act 2011 to approve and publish a policy statement on Senior Pay.

The Head of HR introduced the report and explained that it was a requirement under section 38 of the Localism Act 2011 to produce an annual statement which addressed the following key points:

·         The council’s remuneration policy which was detailed in the table on page 36 of the document pack. This showed that there had been a small increase to the headcount due to vacant posts being filled. The decision was made to bring forward the National Living Wage payment increase to December from April (as it was the previous year).

·         Provide a definition of its lowest paid employees which can be found at page 36.

·         Clarify the relationship of pay between the highest and lowest paid employees. The ratio at Stroud District Council is 1:9 which was below the government guidance of 1:20.

The Head of HR highlighted an error within the report where an additional digit had been placed after the salary for the Section 151 Officer which should read ‘£88,884’.

Councillor Green asked what the increase would be if the council had appointed to all vacant posts. The Head of HR agreed to get back to Councillor Green with the figures outside of the meeting.

Councillor Davies questioned whether external staff had received a greater pay increase than the internal staff. The Strategic Director of Resources explained that was not the case. 

Councillor Hynd proposed and Councillor Aldam seconded.

Councillor Ross commend the council for its fair apprentice wage.

Councillor Turner was pleased to see the living wage payments brought forward to December. Councillor Pearson debated the apprentice wage and whether it was enough for young people working full time.

Councillor Braun stated that the council paid a higher apprentice wage than required by central government and that the apprentices were also gaining qualifications.

Councillors Aldam and Hynd commended the report and the council for its status as a living wage employer.

After being put to a vote, the Motion was carried unanimously.

For Committee to agree the content and direction of the Corporate Asset Management Plan and associated Action Plans.

The Property Manager introduced the report and explained that a new framework had been adopted which comprised of a policy, strategy and action plans. She provided a brief overview of the policy and the strategy and highlighted that there were 2 action plans. One General Fund property and one for the Housing Revenue Account property. She informed the committee that they were live documents that would be reported on regularly to both the Strategy and Resources Committee and the Housing Committee. 

Councillor Turner asked whether Members would be able to view the progress via Ideagen. The Property Manager confirmed they would.

Councillor Turner proposed and Councillor Bennett seconded.

Councillor Pearson commended the report and raised a query regarding the garage disposal sites which the Property Manager agreed to provide an update on outside of the meeting.

Councillor Ross commented that there were a few garage disposal sites which were being assessed for the possibility of modular temporary housing.

Councillor Braun stated that it was interesting to see the number of assets owned by the council and how all the ongoing work directly related to the Council Plan.  

Councillor Robinson stated that he had spoken with a tenant who had commended the benefits of the external insulation and the difference it had made to utilities costs.

Councillors Bennett and Turner commended the Officer for their report.

After being put to a vote, the Motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED to approve the Corporate Asset Management Plan.

To propose the establishment of a Market Towns Vitality Fund for Stroud District.

The Strategic Director of Place introduced the report and explained they were seeking approval for £200k to fund the Market Towns Vitality Fund. He provided a brief overview of the fund and highlighted the following key points:

·         The fund would support projects to support the vitality of the 9 Market Towns listed in the report.

·         Discussions with the Market Towns were vital and had helped to formulate the report. This engagement would be used to identify locally led projects within those areas which would qualify for the fund as opposed to using a competitive bidding system.

·         Projects could be individual or collaborative across multiple Market Towns and any ideas from the Market Towns themselves would be welcomed.

·         The Market Vitality Fund would not be a standalone scheme and would signpost alternative funding schemes when and if required.

In response to Councillor Craig, the Strategic Director of Place explained that they had followed the hierarchy of the 2015 Local Plan to identify the Principal Market Towns and District Centres. 

Councillor Green questioned whether the fund was limited per bid. The Strategic Director of Place explained that there were currently no limits on the fund however recognised that it would need to be spread out across the district and would be looking to maximise the impact of the fund through consultation with all the Market Towns.

Councillor Turner questioned whether the final funding allocations would be delegated to Officers. The Strategic Director of Resources confirmed that it would be delegated to himself and the Strategic Director of Resources to decide, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of Strategy and Resources Committee.

Councillor Hurst asked whether there would be any match funding. The Strategic Director of Place explained that there were no match funding requirements proposed and that they would be looking to signpost to any additional funding opportunities.

In response to a further question from Councillor Hurst, the Strategic Director of Place confirmed that the scheme would not be retrospective.

Councillor Ross proposed and Councillor Hynd seconded.

Councillor Davies commended the scheme and debated the effectiveness of the alternative application system against the competitive bidding system.

Councillor Braun explained that through discussions with the Market Towns, they had requested a more informal application process.

Councillor Turner echoed Councillor Brauns comments and added that Town Councils often did not have the capacity to formulate competitive bids.

Councillors Aldam and Layfield welcomed the report as part of the Cultural Strategy and looked forward to collaborative opportunities for the Market Towns.

Councillor Bennett stated that it was a relatively small fund that could do quite a lot across the district, and she as pleased to see that the Ward Members would be kept updated.

Councillor Hynd highlighted the issues that Town Centres had been experiencing with the cost-of-living crisis and welcomed the fund along with any additional funding opportunities.

Councillor Ross stated that she was pleased to see that it did not utilise the bidding system and echoed Councillor Bennetts comments above.

After being  ...  view the full minutes text for item SRC.050

To set a Council Tax Support Scheme for the period 01 April 2024 to 31 March 2025.

The Strategic Director of Resources introduced the report on behalf of the Revenue and Benefits Manager and provided a brief overview. He explained that the council continued to adopt the governments default scheme which meant that there were no changes to the level of support offered however there were 2 minor changes outlined in section 3.2 and 3.3 of the report. He drew the committee’s attention to paragraph 3.4 of the report which stated that we were exploring the possibility of a county wide Council Tax Support Scheme however any further information on this would need to come back to committee for approval.

Councillor Green questioned why the consultation hadn’t generated much interest. The Strategic Director of Resources explained that it wasn’t unusual to see a small consultation response especially when there were no changes proposed.

Councillor Turner raised a question regarding the change detailed in paragraph 3.2 and whether it would have a financial impact. The Strategic Director of Resources stated that they were not anticipating a significant change.

Councillor Davies questioned whether there was a large variance between Stroud District Council and other local authorities. The Strategic Director of Resources confirmed that a number of local authorities had reduced their schemes however many of the Gloucestershire Council’s continued to offer 100% support.

Councillor Bennett proposed and Councillor Braun seconded.

Councillor Aldam commended the report and stated that a lot of residents were struggling with the cost-of-living crisis and this support was vitally important to them.

Councillor Ross echoed Councillor Aldam.

Councillor Hynd commended the cross party support for the scheme.

After being put to a vote, the Motion was carried.

RECOMMENDS TO COUNCIL that it adopts the scheme for 2024/25

The meeting was adjourned for a 5 minute break.

To implement a Council Tax Premium on second homes from 01 April 2025 and amend the Council Tax Premium for empty homes to be 100% for properties empty between one and five years (currently two and five years) from 01 April 2025.

The Strategic Director of Resources introduced the report on behalf of the Revenue and Benefits Manager and explained that the Governments Levelling Up and Regeneration Act gave Local Authorities the power to charge Council Tax in a few key areas such as empty homes and second properties. He then highlighted the following key points:

·         There was an existing approved scheme for empty properties which was approved at Strategy and Resources Committee in 2019, this was set out in paragraph 1.5 of the report.

·         The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act enabled Local Authorities to begin charging a premium after 1 year as opposed to 2 from April 2025.

·         There was a set of regulations due to be released regarding any exclusions and exemptions from the premium which would be brought to committee once published.

·         The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act further introduced a power to charge a premium for homes periodically occupied ‘second homes’. This allowed for a premium to be charge on furnished empty homes which currently was not included under the empty homes premium.

·         1 year notice was required before the second homes premium could be introduced which was the recommendation for committee. If approved, further details on how the scheme would operate would be brought to committee.

·         The estimated figure of affected properties and the estimated income could be found at paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 of the report.

In response to questions from Councillors, Officers gave the following answers:

·         A portion of the generated income would be paid back to Parish and Towns due to the affect the increased Council Tax would have on their precepts.

·         Information regarding any empty properties without an identified owner was not available and would need to be investigated outside of the meeting if required.

·         Approximately under 1% of the total homes in the district would be affected by the proposed charges.

·         If approved, this would be communicated via the press and social media initially and as the scheme developed, homeowners affected would be contacted directly.

Councillor Green raised concerns with the length of time probate can take when a relative has passed away. The Strategic Director of Resources confirmed that could be one of the exclusions identified as part of the regulations.

Councillor Bennett proposed and Councillor Braun seconded.

Councillor Pearson stated that he disagreed with the premium for second homes but supported the empty homes premium.

Councillor Hurst explained that second homes were a problem in the more attractive areas of the district and that it would be interesting to see whether any of the empty properties come back into use.

Councillors Robinson, Ross and Turner showed their support for the report. 

Councillor Bennett welcomed the report whilst there was a housing shortage and explained that the properties affected were wholly reliant on the services of the area however made very little contributions.

After being put to a vote, the Motion was carried.

Section 13A(3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 gives the council discretion to reduce the amount of council tax payable. This can be for individual cases or by determining a class of case.

This report proposes that a class of case is determined for Care Leavers and the existing scheme extends the qualifying age from 21 to 24 including for those from outside of Gloucestershire.

The Strategic Director of Resources introduced the report on behalf of the Revenue and Benefits Manager and explained that it was for the extension of the existing discretionary scheme. He highlighted that the main change was to extend the scheme up to age of 25. The Strategic Director of Resources highlighted that it would also include any care leavers not under the care of GCC who move into the district.

In response to Councillors questions, Officers provided the below responses:

·         Discount can only be applied to care leavers moving to the district from other areas if we have been made aware of them.

·         There were currently 6 care leavers in receipt of the discount, 4 of which were receiving the full amount due to living alone.

Councillor Hurst left the meeting.

Councillor Davies proposed and Councillor Robinson seconded.

Councillor Robinson stated that he had met many care leavers who were very inspiring after they had been through a lot and asked Members to fully support the recommendation.

Councillor Braun stated that there was a universal basic income pilot scheme introduced in Wales which was set up to help care leavers achieve objectives such as attending university.

Councillor Davies stressed the importance of the scheme and how Councillors were taking on the role of corporate parents in order to support care leavers. He further explained that they were looking to expand on the existing comprehensive care leaver package to look into housing arrangements.

After being put to a vote, the Motion was carried unanimously.

To present to the Committee a forecast of the outturn position against the General Fund revenue budget, Housing Revenue Account and capital programme for 2023/24, in order to give an expectation of possible variances against budget.

The Accountancy Manager introduced the report and provided a very brief overview of the report which included:

General Fund Revenue Budget

Net underspend of £311k, the variances were set out in section 3 of the report.

Housing Revenue Budget

Net underspend of £344k, the variances were similar to the quarter 1 budget monitoring position excluding the underspend in supervision and management which related to vacant posts. Details can be found in section 5 of the report.

Capital Programme

Details can be found at section 6 on page 98 of the report.

Councillor Green questioned the savings target of £104k mentioned in paragraph 4.5 of the report and where this would be sourced. The Accountancy Manager explained that vacancy savings would form a large part of the £104k and they would be looking to make smaller additional savings elsewhere in the council.

Councillor Davies questioned the £113k underspend on ICT and asked what the £196k for Electric Vehicle (EV) charge points was spent on. The Accountancy Manager agreed to get back to Councillor Davies outside of the meeting regarding the ICT underspend. Councillor Turner, Chair of the Environment Committee confirmed that the council had EV charge points on its own sites.

Councillor Braun proposed and Councillor Turner seconded.

Councillor Turner thanked the Finance Team for a closely monitored budget.

Councillor Braun echoed the thanks to the Officers.

After being put to a vote, the Motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED To Note:

a)    The outturn forecast for the General Fund Revenue budget.

b)    The outturn forecast for the Housing Revenue Account.

The outturn forecast for the Capital Programme.

To approve the Council’s Capital Strategy.

The Accountancy Manager introduced the report and explained that it was an annual report required as part of the CIPFA Prudential Code. She provided a brief overview of the key points which included:

·         There was a technical change in the accounting for leases, detailed on page 128 of the report which wasn’t expected to have a significant impact.

·         The Capital Programme was linked with the updated Council Plan.

Councillor Braun proposed and Councillor Bennett seconded.

Councillor Bennett and the Chair commended the Officers and expressed their support for the report.

After being put to a vote, the Motion was carried unanimously.

To consider the Council’s financial position over the medium term and set a budget requirement and the level of council tax for 2024/25.

The Strategic Director of Resources introduced the report and highlighted the following key points:

·         The report was prepared on the Governments provisional financial assessment released on the 18 December 2023. Since then, Central Government has announced an additional budget which would be reflected in the updated report for Full Council on any changes will be highlighted in the report and set out clearly.

·         The provisional settlement outlined a Council Tax increase of up to 3% of which, the Budget Strategy has recommended a 2.99% increase. The estimated impact can be found in table 1 on page 138 of the report.

·         The Council Tax premiums as recommended earlier this meeting have been included in the Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP) from 1 April 2025 onwards.

·         There had been a technical change to the business rates as detailed on page 139 of the report.

·         They were anticipating a reform of Local Government funding which was expected to result in a reduction to the councils funding however the Central Government have confirmed that it would be a decision for the next Government to take.

·         The way in which Central Government could reduce the funding to the council would be to amend the formula uses to calculate business rates retention which was why there was an estimated reduction in business rates from 2026.  

·         Table 2 on page 141 of the report outlined the make up of the other grants included in the MTFP. 

·         Table 3 was a full breakdown of the funding for the MTFP.

·         Significant adjustments had been made for, inflations, pay award and Ubico contract as detailed in section 3.

·         Section 3 also provided further detail on income from investments and car parking charges.

·         A number of allocations had been made in the budget for service areas experiencing high amounts of pressure, these can be found at 3.17 – 3.32 and at appendix B.

·         Additional budget has been allocated in relation to the Council Plan priorities. A number of these were already included in the Budget Strategy. These were detailed in paragraphs 3.3 – 3.45 and listed in appendix B.

·         Section 4 of the report details the reserves of the council which had been split into 3 key areas: For funding projects, for specific risks and to cover the risks in the medium term.

·         Details of the capital works can be found at section 5 and further details regarding an adjustment to the swimming pool support fund were anticipated and it was hoped that this could be shared at the next Council meeting.

·         Section 6 provides assurance from the Chief Financial Officer on the budget and the adequacy of reserves. The reserves had come down since before the pandemic but they were now higher than during the pandemic due to retained reserves. There was a clear risk in the immediate term with severe pressure on the Housing Revenue Account (HRA).

Councillor Green questioned what the anticipated wait time would be for the delivery of the new recycling vehicles and what benefits had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item SRC.056

Housing Revenue Account – Revised 2023/24 And Original 2024/25 and Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Medium Term Financial Plan 2023/24 – 2027/28

The Accountancy Manager introduced the report and provided the committee with a thorough breakdown of the report. She drew the committees attention to 2 changes that had been made to the report since its recommendation from the Housing Committee. The first was a movement between the district heating charges and independent living charges due to recalculation of the utility usage in the communal areas. The second change was a movement between the repairs and maintenance budget and the supervision and management budget due to the quality assurance team now sitting under supervision and maintenance. The Accountancy Manager then highlighted the following key points to the Committee:

Rent

·          It was the final year of the 10-year rent agreement which capped rents at CPI+1% therefore the proposed rent increase was 7.7%.

·          This increase would also be for service charges, other than Independent Living Scheme and district heating charges, and garage rents.

·          Shared ownership properties would increase in line with their lease agreements. 

·          It was proposed to charge higher rents in properties with a SAP rating of A or higher as detailed in sections 4.9 and 4.10 of the report and would only apply to new tenancies.

Service Changes

·          The report detailed the staffing restructure that has take took place as a result of the upcoming changes to the housing regulations. This can be found at paragraphs 6.6 – 6.10 of the report.

Housing Revenue Account Medium Term Financial Plan.

·          Table 3 on page 284 of the report showed that a balanced budget could be set for the year 2024/25 however if things continued as they were currently, a balanced budget could not be comfortable set for 2025/26. There are movements that could be made with regard to capital works in order to set a balanced budget in 2025/26 however it was not sustainable long term.

·          Paragraph 9.19 detailed some changes that could be made in order to make savings or increase income to the HRA. Reports would be brought to the housing committee ahead of the budget setting for next year with options for Members to discuss.  

Councillor Davies queried the variance with the Independent Living charges. The Accountancy Manager explained that the variances were due to the changes in usage.

Councillor Davies asked whether there was a correlation between the reduction to utilities costs where work had been completed to improve efficiency. The Accountancy Manager stated that she would need to seek further information outside of the meeting.

Councillor Robinson asked for clarification on where the external insulation of properties would appear. The Accountancy Manager confirmed that the insulation works sat within the environmental works and within special projects.

Councillor Craig asked whether there had been any modelling completed in relation to the increase in garage rents and whether it would prevent any further leasing. The Accountancy Manager explained that a decision had been taken by the Housing Committee to stop letting the garages once the lease had ended. The site would then remain vacant until a time when a decision  ...  view the full minutes text for item SRC.057

A report was circulated prior to the Committee, there were no comments.

To consider the work programme.

The work programme was circulated prior to the Committee meeting, there were no comments.