Agenda and draft minutes

Cllrs Leung, Robertson, Yeats 

The minutes of the previous meeting, held on the 2^nd December 2024, were taken as read and approved as a correct record.

To receive updates of the work of the County Council’s Health and Care Overview & Scrutiny Committee, feedback issues via our representative on that Committee (Cllr S. Norman) and consider any health-related matters devolved to us by that Committee. The work programme is attached to aid Members.

Councillor Norman briefly summarised the contents of the Health Matters report of the Health and Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee at the County Council the previous day. He said that there were more than 6 million appointments for GP’s across the County last year.

Key issues were highlighted as recruitment and retention of staff. The second item was on vaccination updates, and what can be done to try and encourage vaccination uptake.

·       Members asked why certain groups have a lower update on vaccines? Is this because of language barriers and is there something that needs to be done to support these groups? – The main issues are either cultural or misinformation.

As there have been no Task Groups since the December O&S meeting, the Chair will update members on the progress of the Local Health Matters Task Group.

No task groups have been held but the Health Scrutiny Task Group will be set up imminently, the first two areas to discuss are the maternity unit at Samuel Johnson Hospital and the replacement of The Health and Wellbeing Centre in Burntwood.

The main changes from the previous version of the document are the removal of covid references, a better layout and referencing the Lichfield 2050 strategy. It’s also much clearer on the minimum requirements and additional methods of consultation that will also be used. Far more innovative using modern methods of consultation. After it has Cabinet approval, there will be a 6-week consultation period prior the final document being adopted, and officers are requesting any additional input from the committee prior to making final amendments.   

• Members state the importance that during a consultation expectations are managed, and residents are made aware of limitations. It could be helpful to have an additional footnote or comment to put limitations into context to avoid disappointment.  
• Members asked when the CIL charging schedule is due to be reviewed- It was last done in 2016 and will be reviewed once the new local plan is approved. 
• Who responds to this consultation geographically and demographically? – Predominantly residents, statutory consultees, developers and planning agents. 
• In regard to pre application planning discussions, Members recommend that ward members are involved as they’re not always aware of the preapplications and implications in their wards- this needs to be taken forward for consideration by the Director of Development of Planning and Regeneration. 
• Members ask for clarification on whether neighbours will be notified by letter of planning applications to neighbours’ properties - Not required to send neighbour letters but are required by law to post notices. Start of February there will be a 3-month trial period to assess the implications. As so many consultation responses relate to non-planning matters, the correspondence holds up the process and is delaying the time to approve household applications. The trial is to test if the approval time can be reduced.  
• Members request an update on this trial for the next O&S meeting. 
• The accessibility of the Statement of Community Involvement Document was praised. Table 6 is a possible exception as not too clear. Revisit this table.  Agreed to revise. 
• At point 6.7 the third point is two separate points. From a point of structure, this should be revisited as it isn’t picked up again. Agreed and will revise. 
• Gas and electric were noted in this list three times, needs addressing. Agreed and will revise. 

RESOLVED: 

Noted and provided comments on the draft SCI 2025 prior to formal consultation on the document (Appendix A) 

Anthony Thomas (Director of Finance, Regulation and Enforcement) introduced the MTFS and emphasised that LDC is in a strong position as the budget is balanced also with money to invest in services in 2025/26. The Council will have a balanced budget in 2025/26 without the use of reserves based on a £5 increase. Many of the future risks related to the projected impact of finance reform resulting in funding gaps from 2026/27 onwards can be managed with the reserves. There is roughly £2.3m which can be invested which is extremely positive.

1.     Will the multi-year settlement change how the future of the MTFS? Members ask if plans can be made over multiple years. Will we have the ability to shape a 3-year strategy? –Yes, it would help with financial planning, currently we can only see 15 months ahead. Council tax is annual. If you assess the wider plan, there’s many schemes and we don’t yet know what the impacts will be including what the government will fund. Hopefully visibility will improve soon.

2.     One key area to note is a new grant called the recovery grant, which is based on deprivation levels using the index of multiple deprivation, 133/160 districts didn’t get the funding. LDC also didn’t. This could be an indicator of how the new government intends to tackle target funding as part of finance reform.

3.     Clarification around the domestic abuse grant was requested as the grant used to be £50k and is now £0. – This is what’s known as a specific grant, these will be grouped in the overall settlement so there’s more flexibility in how it is spent and less administration.

4.     How can we tell what’s come through- This year the government have given a comparative figure, but it is unknown if this will continue to happen.

5.     Will the assumption of 2% from pay awards in 2025/26 be reasonable and is the climate change being reduced? – This is the headline assumption for the pay award. There are a couple of things currently being balanced to mitigate if the assumption is too low. The climate change budget is a pitched budget to deliver a refreshed carbon reduction plan, it is to enable some of the smaller scale research or development work, smaller initiatives given there would be a budget for a number of years.

6.     The involvement for the shadow cabinet member to be involved in the discussions for the distribution of funds from the USKPF was requested- Yes, agreed.

7.     Members query the nearest neighbour comparisons for fees and charges as the figures are so different- It is an accurate figure but its most likely that neighbouring councils aren’t in strong positions and are using fees and charges to fill the gaps as there are no caps on these as opposed to council tax.

8.     Should there be scope to increase fees and charges to be competitive? – If there is no need to increase fees and charges, it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

8. Work Programme

·       Local Government Reorganisation should be on the work programme at some point by the end of autumn.

·       Greenways.

·       Empty homes strategy, the strategy want identified as not being aggressive enough, the aim is to not leave anyone behind so this needs to be revisited before it comes forward.