The report of Councillor John Kent, Cabinet Member for Finance & Education (reporting only on the Finance aspect of his portfolio), is enclosed.

The Mayor informed Members that the report of the Leader of the Council did not include the education aspect of his portfolio and that this was scheduled to be reported to the Council later in the year.

The Mayor further informed Members of a typographical error on page 106 of the Agenda which could be found under the 2013-14 column, in the Community Assets section, the number of historic buildings should have read “2”, and not as printed.

Members received a report from Councillor John Kent, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Finance and Education, and were then invited to put questions.

Members questioned the Portfolio Holder and received responses on the following matters:

·         Councillor Gledhill noted that interest was being saved by borrowing on short term loans rather than long term fixed loans, and stated that the Council was saving somewhere in the region of £2 - £4 million. He asked specifically where this money was being spent and whether it was being put into services rather than one-off projects to save money in the future.

The Cabinet Member advised the Chamber that it was the intention of the scheme to rebuild reserves so that day-to-day revenue did not have to be allocated to reserves. He assured Members that all the money that was now being saved from the scheme was being used for revenue services.

·         Councillor Halden observed that a £1 million saving had been factored in the budget through reducing the Council’s dependency on external fostering placements. He wholeheartedly supported this proposal but remarked that although the Council’s permanency figures for retaining foster carers in the Borough was impressive, the figures for recruiting new foster carers were not as impressive, which suggested that the burden of foster care placements would remain on the more expensive external placements. As a result he asked the Cabinet Member what he was planning to do to monitor this to ensure that the savings would be delivered.

The Cabinet Member stated that progress would be monitored through regular reports to Cabinet from the Portfolio Holder and to the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

·         Councillor Johnson remarked that the Leader promised that he would take a Zero Based Budgeting approach in 2010; however he felt that the budget was still being salami sliced and that the principles had not applied. He questioned what had been the fundamental change in the budget setting process and called for the Cabinet Member to fulfil his promise to deliver Zero Based Budgeting.

In response, the Cabinet Member stated that some of the principles of Zero Based budgeting were used in the budget setting process, however he felt that the full use of the Zero Based Budgeting approach did not work in the Local Authority setting. He observed that vulnerable children and adults needed to be protected and that Zero Based budgeting was not needed to realise this. He remarked in that the 6 years of the Conservative Administration they also did not use the Zero Based budgeting approach and expressed a view that this was because they were also aware it did not work in the Local Government environment.

·         Councillor Purkiss asked for a report to be prepared on Garages in Thurrock and felt that if they were realistically priced the Council could generate further income.  

The Cabinet Member stated that this could be investigated by the Cabinet Member for Housing as Garages were built on Housing land, however he observed that garage sites were being used wherever possible, for example in Seabrooke Rise new homes and assets were being built on the site. He requested that the Cabinet Member for Housing to discuss with Councillor Purkiss if he had any specific sites in mind in order maximise these assets.

·         Councillor P. Smith asked for clarification of the localisation of the business rates scheme which had been portrayed as a way of giving Council’s extra funding. He asked how this would affect Thurrock in the years ahead.

In response the Cabinet Member explained that Business Rate localisation was complicated, but in broad terms Central Government had agreed that 50% of any new business rates raised will go back into Local Government. It was reported that this process had begun in 2012 and government had assessed the amount of business rates needed to deliver services, following which it was anticipated that Thurrock required £29 million. It was explained that every rate over that amount was subject to levies and charges to take the money away from Thurrock and give back into areas that were not experiencing the same volume of growth. This meant that Thurrock kept approximately 29% of new business rates received instead of 50% and had to contribute 50% to any business rate loss, which included £2.5 million from the closure of Tilbury Power Station.

·         Councillor Redsell questioned which sport clubs had been assisted in the transfer of recreational land and how much they had benefited from the transfers.

The Cabinet Member remarked that Aveley Football Club was being offered assistance to relocate to Belhus but he did not have more detailed figures available, however he stated that he would provide this information following the meeting.

·         Councillor B. Rice stated that the scale of the Conservative cuts were unprecedented and that coupled with the localisation of business rates would have a significant impact in Thurrock, which was in addition to the 10% year on year spending cuts at an estimated £37 million. She congratulated the Portfolio for reaching a balanced budget but warned that some services would be significantly reduced or cut altogether.

·         Councillor B. Little drew Members attention to table 6 in the supporting financial information which compared ‘numerous’ Highways Land and Infrastructure, and felt that this was difficult terminology to use.

The Cabinet Member agreed at the unfortunate phrasing and assured the Member that he would provide him with a more detailed list to study in more detailed.

·         Councillor S. Little stated that the 2,556 figure she had received on the number of garages in Thurrock through a recent Freedom Of Information (FOI) request differed to that outlined in the report which was 2,745. She questioned why there was this discrepancy.

It was explained that it was likely because some garages had been sold off and a number of garages had been demolished on the Seabrooke Rise estate in the interim, however the Cabinet Member requested that the Director of Housing to investigate and advise on the difference.

·         Councillor Johnson wanted to establish a fact, in that some Members had stated that £2.4 million was being taken out of reserves to balance the budget in 2014/15. He felt that the term of balancing the budget was not strictly correct if reserves were being depleted to close the deficit.

The Portfolio Holder briefly summed up the report and stated that reserves were not being used in an unplanned way and reserves were in fact a contingency.