Agenda item

To consider and make comments to the Executive, where appropriate, on the report on the Council’s performance in 2016/17.

The Committee considered a report summarising the performance of the Council against corporate objectives, priorities and success measures for the period 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017.

The report had been introduced, through a recorded presentation, by the Chief Executive and the Council Leader, Councillor Moira Gibson and the Executive Head of Transformation, Louise Livingston, had attended to address Members’ questions and comments.

Councillor Moira Gibson highlighted the following in response to questions submitted by Councillor Robin Perry:

(i)           Purchased Properties - Net Returns – The net returns on property investments, after all payments of capital and interest was:

a)    JPUT – 2.1% (% agreed as properties were part of the regeneration programme)

b)    St George’s – 2.73%

c)    Albany Park – 5.12%

Whilst there had been reports in the press on Councils engaging in risky investment, this Council had taken a cautious approach, ensuring good value to residents, whilst continuing to be risk averse.

(ii)          Rental Income - St George’s was £55k above target and Albany Park was £18k above. So far, Town Centre rentals were currently below target. Net returns were up due to lower than expected costs.

(iii)         Finance - £17.4m of borrowing had come from the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB). The Council had, on the strong advice of its Treasury advisors, Arling Close, taken out short term loans at competitive rates and substantially lower than those offered by the PWLB. In the longer term, the Council would move towards more sustainable borrowing, but current arrangements represented best value.

(iv)         Ashwood House – Whilst, at first sight, it may appear that the Council was selling the lease of Ashwood House at below the purchase cost, in fact,  the lease being granted, to allow housing units to be built, was for the upper floor office space only and did not include the ground floor retail space. The proceeds of the sale would be used to enhance the public realm, particularly in the vicinity of Ashwood House.

The focus on leasing the retail premises would be on occupation after the works carried out by Berkley Homes to the upper floors and the resulting disruption had been completed.

In respect of other Member questions, the following responses were given:

(i)           Car Park Charges – Whilst there were a number of models used by neighbouring Boroughs, each responded to different circumstances, including the levels of commuting. Car park charges in the Borough had not increased for some years and the Council was looking to remain competitive. The Executive, at previous meetings, had agreed a major refurbishment of both the Mall (20 June 2017) and the adjoining car park 11 July 2017).

Further consideration may be necessary on the completion of the refurbishment, which would include the introduction of more wide bays. In the meantime, any Member suggestions on how to increase the usage would be considered.

(ii)          Grass Verges – There was a balance to be reached between public expectations on the number/quality of grass cuts and the use of weed killers, against the desire to encourage wildlife and recognise funding restraints.

There was confusion over who was responsible for cutting various grass areas and where the funding came from. It was recognised that there could be economies of scale if all parties combined their grass cutting, but, it was for others, such as Parish Councils, to consider the options that best suited their organisations.

It would be helpful to have a borough-wide questionnaire on grass cutting. Members needed to be aware of the need to have resident support for any major policy changes in this area.

It was suggested that a task and finish group be established to consider all aspects of grass cutting, including the frequency of cuts, resources and funding, plus the levels of weed killer usage.

Councillor Bill Chapman agreed to consider chairing the task and finish group if the Committee decided to establish one.

(iii)         Princess Royal Barracks – Whilst it was recognised that any development on the site might be delayed by upwards of 5 years, there would be a great deal of hostility within any area to any developments involving large numbers of new housing units. This was, however an issue across South East England and that was the level at which any resolution would need to be found.

The level of housing for Surrey Heath was a matter for inclusion in the Local Plan and would be part of the considerations of the Local Plan Working Group. It would not be appropriate to have a task and finish group in addition to the Working Group. Issues around shortages of housing for people under 40 would be addressed through the Local Plan.

(iv)         Events – Although the Council drove some events in the Town Centre, most were organised or supported by Collectively Camberley. The Wider Management Team was considering options for events in the wider Borough, but it was recognised that there may be a reluctance from within communities to have events organised from the centre.

(v)          Planning Appeals – Although 2 recent planning appeals had gone against the Council, there had to be occasions when it was right and necessary to overturn officer recommendations. The cost of these particular appeals would be part of consideration by the Executive at a future meeting, but these would be met from the Regulatory budget.

Members noted that following a court ruling in Lewes, in East Sussex, all development in parts of East Sussex would cease until the matter was resolved. Officers were monitoring developments.

(vi)         Pembroke House – It was noted that there were now 2 Pembroke Houses in close proximity to each other. The residential home, Pembroke House had been so named after the Council owned building. However, it was likely that, when the work on the House and flats was completed, a different name would be agreed for that complex.

(vii)       Waste Contract –There were a number of measures by which the performance of the Waste Contract was assessed. There may have been a drop in standards after the loss of the contract by the current provider, but comparators were in place and it was expected that the new contract would generate both savings and an enhanced service.

(viii)      Play Areas – The Executive Head of Business would be asked to provide a schedule for work to play areas in the Borough.

Resolved, that

(i)            the report be noted; and

(ii)          That a Task and Finish Group be established to consider grass cutting and the use of weed killers.