Agenda and minutes
PDF 214 KBVenue: REMOTE MEETING
Contact: Kunwar Khan, Scrutiny Officer
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
To receive any apologies for absence and substitutions. Additional documents: Minutes: None received. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS: 21 JANUARY 2021
To agree the minutes of the Resources and Performance Select Committee held on 21 January 2021 as a true and accurate record of proceedings. Additional documents: Minutes: A Member suggested that the record of discussion of the final 2021/22 budget at the 21 January meeting should include recognition of the quality of the work conducted and general praise of the budget process. The minutes of item 11/21 of the 26 January 2021 Cabinet meeting, which included the Resources and Performance Select Committee Chairman’s presentation to Cabinet on the scrutiny of the 2021/22 final budget, were subsequently annexed to the 21 January 2021 Resources and Performance Select Committee minutes. |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All Members present are required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter:
I. Any disclosable pecuniary interests and/or
II. Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this meeting.
NOTES:
· Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest.
· As well as an interest of the Member, this includes any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the Member is living as a spouse or civil partner).
· Members with a significant personal interest may participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial. Additional documents: Minutes: Rachael Lake declared that a family member is an employee of Surrey County Council and that another family member works for Zalaris UK, a company that has had past contracts with Surrey County Council. |
|
|
QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
To receive any questions or petitions.
NOTES:
1. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic all questions and petitions received will be responded to in writing and will be contained within the minutes of the meeting.
2. The deadline for Members’ questions is 12:00pm four working days before the meeting (12 March 2021).
3. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (11 March 2021).
4. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received. Additional documents: Minutes: Three public questions were received in advance of the meeting. The questions and responses are below, which were sent to the questioners in advance of the meeting. No supplementary questions were asked at the meeting.
Question 1, received from Andrew Matthews:
Following the very welcome announcement of 2.5 million funding for a new youth and community centre in Bookham, to replace the existing centre which was closed by SCC in 2019, how much of this funding will actually be invested in the construction of a new centre on each of the alternative sites, excluding feasibility studies etc?
Response to Question 1:
This information is not publicly available as the estimates are commercially sensitive.
Question 2, from Monica Weller:
In respect of the proposed residential development at the Bookham Youth and Community Centre, which is good news for residents, following its closure by Surrey County Council in 2019, what are the projected costs and proceeds (excluding costs up to detailed planning applications) from:
a) Delivering/developing the proposed 20 housing units alongside a new centre
b) Delivering/developing the proposed 23 housing units without a new centre.
Response to Question 2:
This information is not publicly available as the estimates are commercially sensitive.
Question 3, from Raj Haque:
It is good news for Bookham residents and young people that SCC Cabinet has at last approved £2.5m (exclusing VAT) of capital funding to reprovision the Bookham Youth and Community Centre and associated residential development, following its closure in 2019. Please could you provide a breakdown of this figure into the components identified in the Cabinet paper and draft minutes, namely:
a) Costs to date in respect of feasibility and other work leading to detailed planning applications in relation to: (i) Lower Road Recreation Ground (ii) The existing site without a new centre (iii) The existing site with a new centre
b) Projected future costs in respect of (i), (ii) and (iii) above
c) Projected future costs in respect of delivery/development of a replacement Bookham Youth and Community Centre on: (i) Lower Road Recreation Ground (ii) The existing site.
Response to Question 3:
Regarding point a), this information is not publicly available as the estimates are commercially sensitive.
Regarding point b), this information is not publicly available as the estimates are commercially sensitive.
Regarding point c) (i), this information is not publicly available as the estimates are commercially sensitive.
Regarding point c) (ii), this is yet to be determined – pending detailed planning for the scheme. |
|
|
COVID-19 FINANCIAL UPDATE
Purpose of the item: To provide the Committee with an update on the financial impact of COVID-19 (CV-19) Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: Anna D’Alessandro, Director of Corporate Finance Mark Hak-Sanders, Strategic Finance Business Partner Becky Rush, Cabinet Member for Resources and Corporate Support
Key points raised during the discussion: 1. The Cabinet Member for Resources and Corporate Support introduced the item. The report outlined the Council’s month 9 (December 2020) position on Covid-19 costs and grant funding. Ongoing Covid-19 related costs were being closely monitored, and there was a £9.9m Covid-19 reserve. Covid-19 related pressures were expected to continue into 2021/22.
2. A Member asked what the expected Covid-19 emergency funding balance at the final 2020/21 outturn was. The Cabinet Member stated that as at December 2020, the forecast outturn position was for a Covid-19 related spend of £56.1m, resulting in a £3.6m deficit against the £52.5m Covid-19 budget. This would continue to be monitored over the remainder of the financial year and any deficit would be funded by emergency funding. The Director of Corporate Finance added that it was anticipated that there would be enough contingency funding available to fully cover the cost of Covid-19 for 2020/21, as well as extra money in the reserve available to bring forward into 2021/22.
3. A Member remarked that there was a possibility that government funding might be stopped after the first quarter of 2021/22. If that was the case, how would the Council cover continued Covid-19 pressures? The Cabinet Member confirmed that, while the situation remained uncertain, the circa £20m already assigned to the Council was likely to be the maximum amount of government funding the Council would receive in 2021/22. There was the possibility that specific grant funding might be continued beyond June 2021, but the Council had not received confirmation of that. The Council would continue to monitor the Covid-19 pressures alongside other budget pressures. |
|
|
DIGITAL BUSINESS AND INSIGHTS UPDATE
Purpose of the item: To provide an update on the Digital Business & Insights programme Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: Anna D’Alessandro, Director of Corporate Finance Andrew Richards, DB&I Programme Director Becky Rush, Cabinet Member for Resources and Corporate Support
Key points raised during the discussion: 1. The DB&I Programme Director outlined the progress of the Digital Business and Insights (DB&I) programme to date. The programme was on-track to meet the 1 June 2021 and 1 December 2021 ‘go-live’ dates for phases one (Proactis source-to-contract) and two (Unit 4 enterprise resource planning (ERP)) of the programme respectively. The programme was in a good position on business change and was at the stage of signing off organisation impact assessments. Readiness assessments had been completed, and the programme was in the process of setting up local business change governance. Moreover, the programme was reaching out to external groups that would be impacted by the programme and the software changes, such as schools.
2. The Programme Director continued to explain that a training needs analysis for each stakeholder group on phases one and two of the programme would be completed by the end of March 2021. Training content would then be developed over the following months. Another area of focus was preparing for testing of the new systems. User acceptance testing of the new ERP system would be conducted from July 2021, including testing of the payroll systems not only for Surrey County Council, but also for external customers who used the same payroll system.
3. The Programme Director stated that some permanent Council staff with relevant skills would be seconded to roles within the programme. The secondments would start at the beginning of April 2021, leaving time for these staff to prepare for the bulk of programme activity in June and July 2021. An external specialist consultancy had been employed to work on integration; there were about 30 integrations that needed to be tested. Work on integration was going well and would continue until the end of July. Finally, the invitation to tender for the archiving solution would be published tomorrow (19 March 2021); suppliers had been notified earlier that week. Procurement for the archiving solution would continue until the end of May 2021, when the Council expected to award the contract, with a target go-live date for the archiving solution of February 2022.
4. A Member asked what was being done to mitigate risk 2 outlined in the risk profile in the report (namely, the risk of poor quality of the design solution if the right business representatives were not engaged effectively). The Programme Director replied that it was important to ensure that there were both the right business representatives and continuity in the people involved over time. To mitigate this risk, meetings had been coordinated well in advance in order to ensure people were available from session to session, and efforts had been made to avoid any differences between people involved session-to-session.
5. A Member enquired what was being done to mitigate risk 4 (the risk of conflicting interests within the organisation with differing objectives and ... view the full minutes text for item 17/21 |
|
|
IT AND DIGITAL UPDATE (EXCLUDING DB&I)
Purpose of the item: To provide the Committee with an overview of the IT & Digital Service, in respect of its financial context, areas of delivery and service risks and challenge Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: Marisa Heath, Deputy Cabinet Member for Organisation and People Lorraine Juniper, Head of Strategy and Engagement Becky Rush, Cabinet Member for Resources and Corporate Support Matt Scott, Chief Information Officer Leigh Whitehouse, Executive Director of Resources
Key points raised during the discussion: 1. The Cabinet Member for Resources and Corporate Support introduced the report, thanking the Information Technology and Digital (IT&D) team for their quick response and device deployment during the Covid-19 pandemic.
2. The Deputy Cabinet Member for Organisation and People added that the Council had made progress in IT&D not only during the pandemic, but also over the course of the whole of the last council term (2017-2021). Finance and IT now sat at the centre of all projects. Rather than the increased use of IT making the agile workforce seem ‘faceless’ and reducing human contact, the use of IT&D would in fact make a smaller workforce more visible and enable people to work from their local community, including Members, who would be enabled to spend more time in their division with residents. Digital ways of working also enabled residents to solve problems themselves; for example, residents could now report potholes through the Council’s website.
3. A Member emphasised the importance of ensuring new digital options were well publicised. How was the Council ensuring that residents knew about the digital facilities available? The Head of Strategy and Engagement agreed that this was important and stated that the Council was branding its digital offering to engage with residents and let them know what changes had been made. The branding work was at the planning stage, and the Council was engaging with partners, including the voluntary, charity and faith sector (VCFS), and residents.
4. A Member asked whether the Cabinet Member for Resources and Corporate Support, who had taken up the role in this Cabinet portfolio two months ago, envisioned changes to the priorities as Cabinet Member for this area, particularly given that the resources and the corporate support portfolios had been combined into one (although some elements had been changed or removed, meaning the portfolio was not double the size of the previous portfolios). The Cabinet Member stated that the digital transformation was a priority, and that she would welcome the placement of IT&D at the centre of every decision. It was important to bring wider innovation in digital technologies into the Council. Also, the Cabinet Member expressed a wish to measure in a concrete way the contribution of IT&D to the transformation programme. Developments in adult social care in Surrey whereby IT in the home would soon be able to monitor elderly residents’ activity, thereby allowing them to live safely and independently, showed the potential of using technology to help residents, and there were many other ways that technology could help residents and improve processes. Priorities would be reviewed after the local government election in May 2021, but the direction of travel in the Council at the moment was positive.
5. Members ... view the full minutes text for item 18/21 |
|
Purpose of the item: To provide an overview of Surrey County Council’s performance in the areas within the Select Committee’s remit Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: Anna D’Alessandro, Director of Corporate Finance Jackie Foglietta, Director of Human Resources and Organisational Development (HR&OD) Susan Grizzelle, Head of Customer Services Nicola Kilvington, Director of Insight, Analytics and Intelligence Adrian Stockbridge, Head of Portfolios Gary Strudwick, Head of Business Intelligence Denise Turner-Stewart, Cabinet Member for Community Protection Leigh Whitehouse, Executive Director of Resources
Key points raised during the discussion: 1. A Member noted that the indicator CUST 04 (Adult Social Care first time resolution rate), which was a new measure, had decreased in performance since its previous result and the most recent figure stood at only 37%. What did this indicator include, and had it been affected by Covid-19? The Head of Customer Services replied that this differed from the previous incarnation of CUST 04 (last presented to the Select Committee in December 2020), which had been a flat number rather than a percentage. Regarding the new indicator, the Council aimed for the result to be high but not too high, as some customers’ needs could be met quickly by general services, while others may need to have further contact with more specialised services if they required complex care. Customer services aimed to help the Adult Social Care (ASC) service to prioritise complex cases, thereby giving customers more targeted assistance, as well as helping customers to navigate the complicated system of ASC. The Member remarked that this explanation could be made clearer in the report.
2. A Member asked whether indicator HROD 06 (off payroll spend as percentage of total staffing spend (excluding schools)) included costs such as holiday and sickness pay. The Director of HR&OD responded that these costs were indeed included within this indicator. There were two different types of temporary staff employed by the Council: temporary agency staff were slightly more expensive to employ than equivalent permanent staff, but they did not incur holiday pay until they had worked for the Council for over three months; the other type employed was consultants, who tended to be significantly more expensive than permanent staff. The HR service was trying to encourage a reduction in the use of consultants across the Council and was considering reducing the 10% target for this indicator; key performance indicators such as this were regularly reviewed by Executive Directors. Three-quarters of off-payroll workers were temporary agency staff, and these agency staff mainly worked in legal, property, safeguarding and ASC services (regarding the latter, agency staff were needed as it was difficult to ensure there were enough care home staff). The Director alerted the Select Committee that next time they received the latest data on this indicator, the spend might have increased, as another 130 agency workers had been employed to work on Covid-19 test sites. It was important to note that there would always be a need for some off-payroll staff.
3. Following on from the previous point, a Member enquired what was being done to overcome the use of temporary staff in areas where specialist, temporary staffing ... view the full minutes text for item 19/21 |
|
Purpose of the item: To agree the report and recommendations of the County Hall Move and Agile Programme Task Group Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: Brendon Kavanagh, Portfolio Lead – Corporate Leigh Whitehouse, Executive Director of Resources
Key points raised during the discussion: 1. Witnesses, Members of the County Hall Move and Agile Programme Task Group, and the Chairman of the Task Group outlined the process of the Task Group’s work, culminating in its final report, and emphasised the positive working relationships between the Task Group and officers involved. Members and witnesses agreed it had been a valuable exercise providing confidence in the oversight of the agile programme and the civic heart move to Woodhatch Place.
2. Members mentioned the possibility of some form of continued scrutiny on this topic after the May 2021 election, including regular updates to the Select Committee on the agile office estate strategy, as mentioned in the Task Group’s recommendations.
3. The recommendations set out in the Task Group’s final report were agreed by the Select Committee. |
|
|
RECOMMENDATION TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME
Purpose of the item: For the Select Committee to review the attached Recommendation Tracker and Forward Work Programme, making suggestions for additions or amendments as appropriate Additional documents: Minutes: The Select Committee noted the Recommendation Tracker and the Forward Work Programme.
The meeting was adjourned for a 20-minute break and resumed at 1pm.
Chris Townsend left the meeting during the break. |
|
|
PROPERTY PROGRAMME UPDATE
Purpose of the item: To provide a progress update on the Asset and Place Strategy 2019 Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: Dominic Barlow, Assistant Director – Corporate Landlord Patricia Barry, Director of Land and Property Edward Hawkins, Deputy Cabinet Member for Land and Property Peter Hopkins, Assistant Director – Commercial Tim Oliver, Leader of the Council Anthony Wybrow, Assistant Director of Project Delivery
Key points raised during the discussion: 1. The Leader of the Council, who held the land and property portfolio within the Cabinet, introduced the item, stating that the Land and Property service aimed to optimise the Council’s estate to ensure it worked well for residents. Staff roadshows conducted by the Leader and the Chief Executive of the Council had shown that most staff did not want to return to the office full-time; ideally, there would be a number of locations around the county that staff could use as bases. The year of the Covid-19 pandemic had accelerated the rationalisation of the office estate, but before having a knee-jerk reaction, the Council wanted to understand its property needs and whether properties were suitable to be used or sold. The service focused on obtaining the best value and best use of its estate. Moreover, the government white paper on the integration of health and social care raised the possibility of a closer relationship between the Council and NHS organisations, including sharing property with organisations such as Surrey Heartlands Health and Care Partnership.
2. The Deputy Cabinet Member for Land and Property continued to explain that the Land and Property service’s ethos was that it should create the envelope for individual services. It was important to recognise that property was not a quick fix. There were currently around 80 different projects, which seemed to be producing good results so far. The Land and Property service wished to create an environment whereby staff and residents could feel proud of the buildings they lived and worked in.
3. A Member asked whether lessons had been learnt on why the joint venture with Places for People – which had now been brought to an end – had not worked and what the stress factors had been. The Assistant Director – Commercial stated that a review was being undertaken on this. There certainly was disappointment that the joint venture had been unsuccessful; Places for People had been given multiple resources to drive forward delivery and measured against specific performance measures. The control measures were in place, but the core team was not able to achieve the venture.
4. A Member enquired whether each project would have its own RACI (responsible, accountable, contributor and informed) table, and whether this would be shared with the Select Committee and the divisional Member. The Director of Land and Property responded that a RACI table for Cabinet governance and papers was attached to the report and a RACI chart would be formulated for each project once project initiation forms had been assembled. These could be shared in future as long as they were not commercially sensitive.
5. A Member remarked that a list of properties for each Council division ... view the full minutes text for item 22/21 |
|
|
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
Purpose of the item: That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information under the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act. Additional documents: Minutes: Under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public was excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act. |
|
|
PROPERTY PROGRAMME UPDATE
Purpose of the item: To provide the Part 2 sections of the update on the Asset and Place Strategy 2019 Minutes: Witnesses: Dominic Barlow, Assistant Director – Corporate Landlord Patricia Barry, Director of Land and Property Edward Hawkins, Deputy Cabinet Member for Land and Property Peter Hopkins, Assistant Director – Commercial Tim Oliver, Leader of the Council Anthony Wybrow, Assistant Director of Project Delivery
Discussion of this item continued in private. Details of the discussion that can be shared publicly are below.
1. A Member asked what the challenges were in dealing with vacant properties and what the timeline was for ensuring vacant properties were either utilised or disposed of. The Director of Land and Property replied that the Council had been carrying out a number of developments for service need and demolitions on vacant sites. Each site was subject to option appraisal and services’ needs would always be the first consideration. If there was no service need, the Council would look at using sites for income generation through housing. If not deemed an appropriate site for housing, vacant sites would be disposed of within a timescale of approximately two years maximum. In order to provide sufficient staffing to implement this process, there was a number of interim staff in the Land and Property team.
2. A Member requested more detail on why the joint venture with Places for People had failed, highlighting that this failure had cost a significant amount of money and time. The Leader of the Council stated that, since Places for People were the largest social housing provider in the country and had scored highly in the tendering process, going into the joint venture with Places for People had seemed a safe and reliable option. Moreover, the Council had had a senior director within Places for People as its point of contact, and the Council kept up regular contact with Places for People throughout the process. The complications came not in the planning or set-up of the scheme, but rather in the execution of it. There had been problems with Places for People’s Delivery team during the process, followed by changes to personnel within Places for People. As time went on, it became clear that the joint venture would not be successful and so the Council decided, essentially, to cut its losses. The money that the Council had paid to Places for People before leaving the joint venture related to work that had actually been done, the value of which could be built on in the future development of the sites. In retrospect, the Leader believed the Council had still made the right decision to work with a large organisation that had seemed to have sufficient capacity, but was disappointed that Places for People had not then delivered on its part of the joint venture. The Council was now keen to continue the development of the sites and the delivery of these projects.
3. The Leader emphasised that property represented a significant opportunity for the Council, and encouraged Members to take a keen interest in property in their division. |
|
|
DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Resources and Performance Select Committee will be held on 24 June 2021. Additional documents: Minutes: The next meeting of the Resources and Performance Select Committee would be held on 24 June 2021. |