This report is provided separately in a supplementary agenda and will be dealt with under agenda item 3.

It was noted that the Panel discussed amendments to previously agreed savings from Environment and Regeneration at the November 2017 meeting.  It was therefore agreed that the Panel would focus on amendments to previously agreed savings from housing and new savings proposals from Environment and Regeneration. 

Hannah Doody, Director for Community and Housing, explained it is no longer possible to achieve the proposed savings (staff reductions in Housing Services and a reduction in staff for the in-house unit).  This is because of the new duties arising out of the Housing Reduction Act.  These are currently being modelled to better understand the resource implications. 

Chris Lee, Director for Environment and Regeneration, presented the new departmental savings proposals with members asking questions in turn for clarification:

·         Regulatory Services Partnership (E1): savings will be achieved over three years as the services builds on its success by further expanding to include Wandsworth and achieve even greater economies of scale.  The Director is confident these savings can be achieved because it is building on the prior success of the service which has already realised cost savings.  There are a number of ways the Regulatory Service might generate a commercial income.  Examples given include from air quality monitoring, polluted land assessments and mentoring for those wishing to improve their food hygiene rating.  In response to whether it would be possible to increase the targets for a commercial income from regulatory services, officers thought it more prudent to start with a realistic target;

·         Waste Services (E2): As there is a cost attached to recycling wood, it has been decided to turn this into wood pellets for burning.  It was established that there is no financial penalty resulting from the thermal treatment of wood waste.  It was clarified that China’s recently imposed ban on the importation of plastics for recycling is not causing significant alarm with the risk being spread by the plastics contractor.  There are no plan to reduce recycling and burn other waste;

·         Leisure and Culture Development Team (E3): work to improve the financial viability of the Polka Theatre will allow the Council to reduce its grant funding over time.  The Panel discussed whether there would be financial benefit to the Council from increasing available parking in Wimbledon town centre to allow better usage of venues/attractions such as the Polka.  Use of the P4 site was suggested.  The Director noted that there is already car parking available for users of the Polka theatre with no ability for this to be increased and that it is the stated policy of the Council to dispose of the P4 site to benefit from a capital receipt.  An analysis of parking in Merton has found that there is an over supply and it is not consistent with the Council’s policy on parking and air quality;

·         Sustainable Communities (E4): this is the initial income from the Merantun Development Company which will become clearer as development starts with more detail being provided next year.  At least initially, this income will reflect recharging for services and staff that are provided by the Council.  Whilst the Ealing Council property company of was cited as loss making, it was noted that many other authority property companies are successfully making a profit.  It was noted that whilst the development will be of property mainly for residential use some commercial property will be included at the margins (ie: on the ground floor of residential blocks).  Also, whilst some staff are being seconded from the Council to the property company, the implications of this are not considered to be significant.  Staff will be seconded with some back filling needed; 

·         Greenspaces (E5): the additional income target for greenspaces reflects that Idverde doesn’t need to use all the available greenspace facilities.  The department is keen to utilise all the assets available and hence is seeking to let these;

·         Greenspaces (E6): similarly, the increase in greenspaces tenancy income reflects the desire to maximise the return from all assets especially as rents haven’t been increased for many years.  It was recommended that this would provide a better return for the Council compared to trying to sell these assets and benefit from a capital receipt given it is expected that this review will achieve close to a market rent.

Members took the opportunity to look at the service plans of the Environment and Regeneration Department with the following clarification provided in response to questions:

·         DC/Building control income target: the downturn in the number of planning applications has been a key driver in why the building control income target hasn’t been achieved.  However, it was also noted that the Government is in the process of relaxing restrictions on planning fees giving Councils the ability to increase these by up to 20%;

·         Charging points for electric cars: it was noted that these aren’t anticipated to provide a commercial income.  Whilst there is a licence fee from which the Council benefits it is not seen as in the interests of the Council to increase the costs associated with electric car ownerships given there is a desire that this increase.  Members explored if this was something that should be considered in the future as it is assumed commercial providers will gain an income from their provision through service stations etc;

·         New homes allowance: this hasn’t provided the income predicted.  This is because it tapers more quickly (reducing from six to four years) with adjustments made for affordable and empty housing;

·         Parking: it was explored if it is possible to increase the income from parking by changing the number of employees and/or increasing the use of automation to issue enforcement notices.  It was highlighted that the Government changed the law two years ago to prohibit the use of mobile vans with cameras installed as a means of enforcement; parking enforcement has to be through the issuing of a ticket.  The Director highlighted that balance between the number of enforcement employees and revenue is optimal at current levels.  It was noted that increasing parking to benefit revenue would also drive up air pollution and impact on the objective of having viable town centres;

·         Green flags: the costs of gaining additional green flags for Merton’s parks are not seen as prohibitive.  This will depend on which parks.  The Director indicated that he would be very happy to meet to explore the role of friends groups in helping to sustain Merton’s parks;

·         Parks events: it was accepted that the number of events in Merton’s parks that generate a commercial income could increase but would be limited to a certain degree by factors such as the weather;

·         Wage growth: it was agreed that the service plans would have to be amended to reflect potential wage growth; and

·         Free Christmas parking: it was noted that this costs £60K per annum and that a consultation on this is currently ongoing.  This will be brought forward for budget setting next year.

RESOLVED: it was resolved that the Panel would take an update report, including consideration of commercial income, on electric car clubs operating in the borough (to be included in next year’s work programme).

Cllr Bull proposed a motion (seconded by Cllr Holden): “The Panel investigate the potential for the Council to raise revenue from electric cars and through widening the electric charging point scheme”.

Two members voted for the motion (Cllr Bull and Holden).  It was apposed by Cllrs Anderson, Braund, Chung and Makin.  Cllr Sargeant abstained.  The motion therefore fell.

Cllr Bull proposed a further motion (seconded by Cllr Holden): “The Panel investigate substantially increasing parking in Merton in order to increase revenues”.

Two members voted for the motion (Cllr Bull and Holden).  It was apposed by Cllrs Anderson, Braund, Chung and Makin.  Cllr Sargeant abstained.  The motion therefore fell.