Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Cllr G R Brookes.

None.

Members of the public wishing to take part should notify the Head of Legal and Democratic Services in writing or by email indicating the nature and content of their proposed participation no later than 9.00am on the working day before the meeting (in this case 11 January 2018).  Enquiries can be made through the telephone number/email address below.

None.

Previously circulated.

The Minutes of the meeting on 29 November 2017 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Head of Strategy and Economic Development, the Flood Risk Manager, the Strategic Planning and Environmental Policy Officer and the Cabinet Member for Environment had been invited to present Worcestershire's Flood Risk Management Annual Report 2017.

Representatives from the Environment Agency (Richard Bentley, Partnerships & Strategic Overview Team Leader for Shropshire & Worcestershire), and from Severn Trent (Tim Smith, Flooding Analyst, Asset Management) had also been invited.

The Agenda included the Flood Risk Management in Worcestershire Annual Report 2017 and those present summarised the roles and responsibilities of their respective organisations, and the main points from the Annual Report.

In relation to the Annual Report and flooding in Worcestershire, the following main points were raised:

·       In addition to the roles of Worcestershire County Council (WCC), the Environment Agency (EA) and Severn Trent, district councils also had duties and powers and also undertook work on behalf of WCC.

·       Partnership working with the district councils was described as excellent

and it was clarified that duties delegated to them related mainly to land drainage (smaller water courses and ditches). The district councils helped with administering apps, enforcement powers, development of schemes and surface water responsibilities. The role of WCC was more strategic whereas the districts acted as 'partners on the ground'.

·       A Panel member pointed out that she was unaware of this relationship with her own district council and queried whether there were different levels of engagement? It was confirmed that whilst relations had been variable, discussions had now taken place with all district councils and over time partnerships had formed from alignments in the north and in the south of the county.

·       WCC's duties came from the 2010 Flood and Water Management Act legislative Acts and importantly, WCC was now a consultee for major planning schemes.

·       In response to a query, it was confirmed that virtually no prosecutions had been necessary, which the Flood Risk Manager was pleased to have avoided, although a north Worcestershire issue may prompt this need in the future.

·       It was confirmed that flood risk registers included known risk areas (15), as well as potential flood risks. Although predicting all risks was tricky, WCC was confident in its ability to do so, which was based on modelling – this could not be precise however.

·       The Chairman asked how knowledge of potential flood risk was gained and the EA representative said that verifying reports of flooding was crucial.  Worcestershire had a lot of good archive data as well as that from university projects, theoretical models, all of which was fed back to partners. Not everything could be captured or predicted but challenge was also helpful with this checking process.

·       The EA had a dedicated telephone number to direct callers to the appropriate organisational contact, and this would be made available to Panel members.

·       Could the public report information using similar online interactive elements as the WCC Hub?  The EA had a system for operatives, which it planned to roll out to residents, and the Panel hoped this would be in place  ...  view the full minutes text for item 290.

As part of the Council's development of the budget for 2018/19, the overview and Scrutiny Panels were reviewing the draft budget. The Director and the Finance Managers from Directorate of Economy and Infrastructure were present, along with the Cabinet Members with Responsibility for Communities, Environment, Highways, and for Economy and Infrastructure.

A presentation had been circulated, which included key headlines from the Budget Report, key (capital) investments, and transformation reforms for Economy and Environment (E&E) – reforms included reforms to save £3.6m included review of expenditure and income budgets across Environmental and Infrastructure Services, to include Waste Services and street lighting.

However the Panel Chairman pointed out that most of the presentation information related to the overall budget for the Council, and the Panel wanted to look specifically at budget detail for Economy and Environmental (E&E) Services. The Chairman had been expecting to see budget detail for 2018/19 alongside figures for 2017/18, to enable comparison. A final version of the Budget Book extract including figures for both capital and revenue budgets and staff would be available for February Cabinet and Council – the Director of E&I advised that very little would have changed in the final version, however the Panel was disappointed that this detail would not be subject to scrutiny.

Officers obtained more detailed information for the Panel to refer to during discussion.

Examining the presentation and figures, one area which surprised the Panel was the £5m reduction in the Highways Maintenance budget. It was explained that this was subject to an accounting adjustment, through conversion of highways revenue maintenance costs from revenue to capital budget; there was no reduction in actual spend.

The Panel explored further how this worked, and were advised that the low interest rate of 2%+ made borrowing very cheap and value for money. Capitalisation was for a specific period of four years which would then be re-evaluated. Eventually debt service costs would mount, however models would change over the years and this method was seen as a way of dealing with cost pressures for this period of time. The Director gave the analogy of a home owner having the roof tiled; this had long-term effects and so could be added to the mortgage.

Although the Panel members could understand the rationale behind this as many of the roads and pavements re-tarmacked would last up to 30 years, they sought further clarification about the public perception of this approach, since the Budget Book figures gave the impression that the Highways Maintenance budget had been reduced by £5m, when people wanted the Council to spend more on highways. The Director clarified that only certain items could be capitalised in this way and that the Budget was not being reduced, nor the proposal concealed. The Panel considered it was important that this was communicated.

The Panel referred to the Capital Programme 2017/18 to 2020/21 for the Economy and Infrastructure Directorate included in the agenda papers and the Director was asked to give an update  ...  view the full minutes text for item 291.

Current version enclosed for consideration

The following items were added to the work programme:

·         Street Lighting

·         Update on Highways work from the Cabinet Member for Highways