1

Professor Steven Broomhead Chief Executive

Town Hall

Sankey Street Warrington

WA1 1UH

Co-opted Members: Statutory Co opted Members Roman Catholic Representative: Mr D Littlewood Church of England Representative: Ms Penny Johnson Parent Governor Representative: Vacancy Parent Governor Representative: Vacancy 31 January 2017

Meeting of the Scrutiny Committee Wednesday, 8 February 2017 at 6.30pm Council Chamber, Town Hall, Sankey Street, Warrington, WA1 1UH Agenda prepared by Julian Joinson, Principal Democratic Services Officer – Telephone: (01925) 442112 Fax: (01925) 656278 E-mail: jjoinson@warrington.gov.uk A G E N D A Part 1 Items during the consideration of which the meeting is expected to be open to members of the public (including the press) subject to any statutory right of exclusion. Item Page

Number 1. Apologies for Absence

To record any apologies received.

To: Members of the Scrutiny Committee

Councillors: Cllr P Carey - Chair Cllr C Mitchell - Deputy Chair Cllrs M Creaghan, L Dirir, T Jennings, W Johnson, I Marks, D Price and M Tarr

2

Item

Page Number

2. Code of Conduct - Declarations of Interest Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012 Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any disclosable pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest which they have in any item of business on the agenda no later than when the item is reached.

3. Minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 7 December 2016 as a correct record.

5 – 14

4. Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service

To consider a presentation on the work of the Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service, including operational issues, key priorities and innovative service developments. Alex Waller, Head of Service Delivery, will be in attendance to deliver the presentation.

5. Budget Process Update

To consider a report of Councillor Russ Bowden, Executive Board Member, Corporate Finance, providing an update on the process applied in determining the Council’s proposed four year budget for the period 2017/18 to 2020/21.

15 – 24

6. Public Transport Issues

To consider a presentation from David Boyer, Assistant Director, Transport and Environment and Alyn Jones, Specialist Transport Services Manager, on public transport issues.

7. Work Programme 2016/17

To consider the amended Work Programme 2016/17.

25 – 28

8. Date of Next Meeting

To note to the proposed date of the next meeting on 12 April 2017

3

Part 2 Items of a "confidential or other special nature" during which it is likely that the meeting will not be open to the public and press as there would be a disclosure of exempt information as defined in Section 100I of the Local Government Act 1972.

Nil

4

THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Agenda Item 3

5

SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 7 December 2016

Present: Councillor P Carey (Chairman) Councillors: L Dirir, C Froggatt (substituting for M Creaghan), W Johnson, I Marks, C Mitchell. Co-optees: Ms P Johnson and Mr D Littlewood Also in Attendance: Councillor Maureen McLaughlin, Executive Board Member

Public Health and Wellbeing Apologies Apologies for absence were received from Councillor M Creaghan. SC14 Code of Conduct - Declarations of Interest There were no declarations of interest submitted. SC15 Minutes Decision,

That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 October 2016 be agreed as a correct record.

SC16 Warrington Safeguarding Children Board – Annual Report The Committee considered a presentation and the Annual Report 2015/16 of the Warrington Safeguarding Children Board (WSCB). Richard Strachan Independent Chair of the Board and Stephen Reddy, Executive Director Families and Wellbeing, were in attendance to highlight key elements of the report. Mr Strachan gave a brief introduction to explain his personal background. The Chair of the LSCB was required, under section 14A of the Children Act 2004, to produce an annual report on the effectiveness of child safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in the local area, which was required to be circulated widely. The presentation included information on the following:-

• Priorities for 2015/16; • Key Achievements in 2015/16; • Key data on numbers of children who were potentially vulnerable and

numbers of children missing from home; • Future priorities 2016/17; and • Challenges for the Board.

Agenda Item 3

6

Members asked questions in relation to the following matters and responses were provided as indicated:-

• Why did the red area on the pie charts, the number of Common Assessment Frameworks (CAFs) completed in the period, vary considerably between Quarter 4 2015 (122) and Quarter 4 2016 (69)? – The role of the Board was to support and challenge local partners. The trend for CAF completions was downwards and, consequently, the local authority had been challenged about it. Their response had been positive. It was difficult to make qualitative judgements based on the data, which was compiled manually from several partners and was subject to a time delay. A new Head of Service for Early Help Services had recently been appointed and a lot of work was currently underway. A multi-agency strategy and key measures had been developed and would be submitted to WSCB in January 2017. It was hoped to take a whole family approach and to invest in prevention. The approach would require sign up by the Executive Board. There were still some issues around recruitment and retention, but the Council remained committed to safeguarding.

• The Annual Report covered the period up to 31 March 2016, but had only recently been published. The objectives for 2016/17 would soon be drawing to a close. Could the report be produced earlier? – The Annual report was a statutory responsibility, so it could not be developed until the end of the relevant period. It relied heavily on data which was collected on a quarterly cycle and which was normally 3 months behind. The drafting of the report then took some time. A first draft was normally available in September. The document was public facing and would be provided on the website. If requested, it would be possible in future to share data with the Committee during the course of the year. There had been some difficulties in the current year due to the departure of the Performance and Quality Assurance Officer and difficulties recruiting a replacement, although interim support had been provided by the authority.

• Would the Government’s response to the report by Alan Wood CBE, reviewing the role and functions of Local Safeguarding Children Boards in England, be good for safeguarding? – It was likely that there would be some challenges arising from the Wood report. There was some suggestion that the report had demonstrated a lack of understanding of the complexities of partnership working and of the political difficulties of joining up services on a regional basis. The statutory bodies of police, health and local authorities felt that regional structures were too large and could lead to a loss of focus on local issues. It did make sense to collaborate on some issues either regionally or sub-regionally, but some things needed to be addressed locally. In addition, as resources were shrinking the Board would need to be more focused on scrutiny and monitoring, not ‘doing’. The Board would start to raise the level of discomfort of partners by holding them to account more rigorously.

• Was there a link between the fall in the number of early interventions and the increase in the numbers of children going missing from home? – There was no direct correlation between the two sets of figures, although there were a few examples of where early intervention might have helped. Around 50% of

Agenda Item 3

7

missing children were missing from their parents homes as a one off. Other missing children already received a high level of support.

• A Member had previously attended forced marriage conference in Warrington. What impact did cultural issues have on children and what numbers were affected in Warrington? – The forced marriage event had provided good intelligence to the WSCB and had been well attended, with positive feedback received. On reflection the event could have been held over a wider footprint than just Warrington. Work had also been undertaken at the pan-Cheshire level, concerning female genital mutilation (FGM), forced marriage and honour based crimes. Previously there had not been a coordinated approach. A protocol had been developed for FGM and protocols were now being developed for the other issues. Generally, FGM was new to Warrington given its demographics, but Warrington had experienced an honour killing with the murder of Shafilea Ahmed. Some valuable lessons had been learnt from that tragedy. The next step was to develop some data, particularly more up to date demographic information, as the Census 2011 data was considered to be out of date.

• The CAF had been in existence for some 15 years, but it appeared that there was still lethargy within partner organisations about completing the information. People often found it difficult to complete the necessary forms – There was no reluctance on the part of organisations to the complete the CAF information, but there was some uncertainty about what was required. There was a lack of structure to the framework which was being looked at by the WSCB and it was envisaged that a more mature approach would develop. Early Help could start to address that matter. Training was provided to frontline staff in all agencies and additional work would be undertaken to clarify how all partners could work together under a single strategy. The details behind that approach would be presented to the WSCB in the near future. It was hoped to be able to include the outcome of that work in next year’s annual report.

• In relation to taxi driver and late night refreshment house licenses, what lessons had been learned from the Rotherham child sexual exploitation (CSE) situation? – The WSCB worked closely with the Community Safety Partnership on that issue. Training had been offered to taxi drivers, although the take up had been rather poor. If training could not be completed on a voluntary basis, the WSCB might ask the local authority to develop a stronger solution. Mr Reddy indicated that he had already written to the Licensing Authority to see if training could be made mandatory. The Rotherham case had highlighted issues regarding safeguarding, scrutiny and governance. The Council’s Senior Management Team had completed a self-assessment and had identified some areas for development.

• The press and television had recently highlighted some instances of historic CSE in sports clubs. There were many organisations in Warrington that provided activities for children, including sports clubs, uniformed groups, majorettes and other clubs. How did the WSCB engage with those bodies? – A letter had already been drafted to all professional and amateur sports clubs. The letter was partly about giving reassurance and partly about providing advice on what to do if they had concerns regarding children, parents or volunteers. The aim was to inform without deterring volunteers from getting involved. One difficulty was that of identifying a single point of contact for the

Agenda Item 3

8

relevant organisations, although Community Services were assisting. The overall message would be supplemented by information posted on social media an signposting to Government and NSPCC website pages. Although WSCB tried to respond to all topical issues, resources remained a big challenge and there was no dedicated professional communications service available to it.

• The Wood report could be said to herald the cutting of resources for safeguarding. Could that mean that children would be less safe in Warrington in the future? – The Wood review was not specifically about cutting resources, but there was some vagueness about the future governance arrangements. Currently the safeguarding responsibility was shared by many agencies, but in the future it would fall to just three: police, health and the local authority. That might lead to a refocusing of the Board’s work.

The Chairman thanked Mr Strachan for his presentation. Decision,

(1) To note the WSCB Annual Report 2015/16 report, the effectiveness of safeguarding arrangements for children in Warrington and the Board’s priorities for the future.

(2) To recommend that all commissioners of relevant services:-

• consider and support the priorities detailed in the Warrington Safeguarding Children Board Annual Report 2015/16;

• ensure that safeguarding children is a priority; and • take into account the needs of vulnerable children.

SC17 Warrington Safeguarding Adults Board – Annual Report The Committee considered a presentation and the Annual Report 2015/16 of the Warrington Safeguarding Adults Board (WSAB). Shirley Williams Independent Chair of the Board, Stephen Reddy, Executive Director Families and Wellbeing, and Margaret Macklin, Head of Service Adult Safeguarding and Quality Assurance Division, were in attendance to highlight key elements of the report. Ms Williams gave a brief introduction to explain her personal background. She had taken over chairing the Board in April 2015. The Care Act 2014 required each local authority to set up a Safeguarding Adults Board (SAB). The main objective of a SAB was to assure itself that local safeguarding arrangements and partners acted to help and protect adults in its area who:-

• had needs for care and support; • were experiencing, or at risk of, abuse or neglect; and • as a result of those care and support needs, were unable to protect

themselves from either the risk of, or the experience of abuse or neglect.

Agenda Item 3

9

The SAB was required, under Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Care Act 2014, after the end of each financial year, to publish an annual report that had to clearly state what both the SAB and its members had done to carry out and deliver the objectives and other content of its strategic plan. The report should have prominence on each core member’s website and be made available to other agencies. The presentation included information on the following:-

• Priorities for 2015/16; • Key Achievements in 2015/16 (Priorities 1 to 4); • Future priorities 2016/17; and • Challenges for the Board.

Members asked questions in relation to the following matters and responses were provided as indicated:-

• The report under the next agenda item heading pointed to an increasing elderly population of between 40% of females and 48% of males between 2014 and 2030. How would the relevant authorities assess the needs of such a large group of people? – The Board was not responsible for carrying out the work of assessment, but would seek assurance from the local authority and NHS that assessments would consider the capacity of the individuals concerned. The Board received reports from the Care Quality Commission (CQC) about care homes and those organisations should also assess the capacity of clients and regularly review it.

• Was there sufficient capacity within the adult social care market to provide for everyone in need and were shortages leading to ‘bed-blocking’ in hospitals? – The Board did receive a regular state of the care sector report. There were pressures on the local authority and the CQC’s recent report: The state of health care and adult social care in England 2015/16 had effectively reported a crisis in the adult social care market. Mr Reddy indicated that Warrington had produced a local report which put the above report in a local context. In Warrington, quality was generally good and capacity was good, although there were some pressure points, such as elderly mentally impaired (EMI) specialist nursing provision, where beds were scarce due to recruitment and retention issues with staff. Children’s social workers, care home specialist workers and GPs were also hard to recruit.

• In the case of capacity issues, who was responsible for starting the assessment process? In a care home setting many people were not adequately trained to carry out the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) Assessments and the paperwork was not easy to complete. There was often a fear by staff about getting the paperwork ‘wrong’. The training of healthcare professionals was relatively straightforward, but it was harder to raise awareness of DoLS with voluntary carers or those staff who did not want to engage. Most people did not know how to respond when asked the question “What would you do if you saw …?”. More guidance was required for the ordinary person, to prevent vulnerable people being missed from the system. – A leaflet for the public, using both pictures and words, was currently being updated by the Speak Up Together Advocacy Hub. Relevant contact information would be included in the leaflet. The leaflet would also include an

Agenda Item 3

10

image depicting inappropriate touching, which clearly demonstrated what behaviour would be unacceptable. The message needed to be easily understood by all.

• Could the message around honour-based violence be re-emphasised, as it should be considered to be just another form of domestic violence? Any perceived lack of respect in any relationship or culture could lead to violence. There should be no hierarchy of types of domestic violence, it was all unacceptable.

• The DoLS system had been criticised in the media as a ‘lawyers charter for making money’. The system was costly, but had it made a demonstrable difference to safeguarding? Were more concerns raised by the system than under the previous arrangements? – The Supreme Court had defined whether a person was deprived of liberty. The treatment of that person had to be compared with that of a person without any impairment to their mental capacity. The ruling had created something of a bureaucracy around safeguarding, with some 1,200 requests for assessment being received each year and an on-going annual assessment required. Challenge to the restrictions could only be made via the courts which had led to the ‘lawyers charter’ criticism. Warrington had appointed a specialised assessor and used a proactive assessment tool. The work was difficult and slow, requiring entry into care homes and checking how users were treated. The process had, however, given the authority a greater insight into the quality of care received by care users. It also helped the Council to identify individuals at risk and to intervene, if necessary. The system had raised the consciousness of all partners to liberty issues, including all unqualified staff who took the day to day decisions about people’s care. The Law Commission was currently working to develop alternative proposals which would be more proportionate and Warrington had responded to their consultation document. The Protecting the Most Vulnerable Policy Committee was continuing to monitor the authority’s compliance with DoLS, following a report received in December 2015.

Decision,

(1) To note the WSAB Annual Report 2015/16 report, the effectiveness of safeguarding arrangements for adults in Warrington and the Board’s priorities for the future.

(2) To recommend that all commissioners of relevant services:-

• consider and support the priorities detailed in the Warrington

Safeguarding Adults Board Annual Report 2015/16 • ensure that safeguarding adults is a priority; and • take into account the needs of vulnerable adults.

SC18 Older People’s Housing and other Housing Developments The Committee considered a report of Stephen Reddy, Executive Director, Families and Wellbeing, on the housing issues and challenges facing older people in Warrington. Dave Cowley, Head of Service, Housing Standards and Options, was in

Agenda Item 3

11

attendance to highlight elements of the report and was supported by Councillor Maureen McLaughlin, Executive Board Member Public Health and Wellbeing and Mr Reddy. The report included information on the following:-

• Ageing population figures and profile; • English House Survey 2014/15 data; • Fuel poverty and energy prices; • Excess winter deaths; • Details of existing housing provision for older people in Warrington; • Government policy changes; and • Council’s response.

A key concern was that by 2030 the number of people aged over 65 and over in Warrington was expected to increase by 51.8% to 51,600. However, there was a mismatch in the type of housing available locally. Some successful building schemes had been delivered by the Council and its partners in recent years, but there was a need to build more housing for that age group. Housing Associations were finding it increasingly difficult to assist due to monting financial constraints, but it might now be viable for the Council to start to build homes again. An options appraisal, feasibility study and business case was currently being worked up. Regarding fuel poverty and energy prices, the Competition and Markets Authority report in June 2016 had identified that consumers were paying £1.7 billion a year more for their energy than they needed to by being on the “standard tariff”. There were 70% of customers paying the standard tariff who could save around 20% by switching. Older people were more likely to remain with their energy provider rather than regularly switch to obtain the best deal. On top of that, industry sources had indicated that the wholesale price of energy had increased by 60%, which would eventually be passed on to the customer. Councillors made comments and asked questions and received answers from the officers and Lead Member on a number of matters, which are set out below:-

• The table at Paragraph 4.2 of the report identified three of the central wards, Fairfield and Howley, Latchford West and Bewsey and Whitecross, with a high number of homes with solid walls, which were not fuel efficient. That amounted to around 5,000 people in those areas living in sub-standard housing. Could a scheme of home improvement loans be introduced, perhaps as interest only payments, with the loan secured as a charge on the properties? – There was currently no agency in place to manage such a scheme, but it might be possible through a Housing Association;

• The Council had been at the forefront of innovative schemes to deliver housing for a number of years over different political administrations. It was hoped that the Council would continue to do all it could to support housing development.

• The number of people seeking housing was huge and included both first time buyers and families looking for homes and older people looking for more

Agenda Item 3

12

suitable accommodation and a supporting infrastructure as they aged. Penketh Court was a good model of the type of homes needed by people over 55. The scheme had the advantage of local residents being able to stay in the area they knew and liked, but with the ability to remain independent. A key challenge was to encourage the elderly to think differently about moving to making independent living more manageable and to free up larger homes for families.

• The total number of older people’s homes built since 2009 was only 86, which was not enough to keep pace with the increasing demand – An announcement about funding in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement had provided an opportunity for the Council to reconsider building homes itself. The business case described previously would identify whether the Council should do so. A report would be provided to the Executive Board in April 2017.

Decision

(1) To note the content of the report on housing issues and challenges facing older people in Warrington;

(2) To support the continuation of schemes that focus specifically on the

needs of older people in the Borough for fuel poverty and winter warmth. (3) That as part of the feasibility and business case on whether the Council

should build again, consideration be given to how the Council can plan to meet the housing needs of an ageing population;

(4) To request that the Executive Director Families and Wellbeing provide a

report on the outcome of the feasibility study and business case, at (3) above, to the Committee on 12 April 2017;

(5) That consideration of the needs of older people and design of supported

living and Extracare are planned for within the wider development work of the Council; including Warrington Means Business and the Local Core Plan review.

(6) To request the Executive Director Families and Wellbeing to look into the

possibility of establishing a scheme of home improvement loans for vulnerable people, perhaps as interest only payments, with the loan secured as a charge on the properties and to provide a report back to the Committee.

SC19 Work Programme 2016/17 The Committee considered a verbal report of Councillor Carey, Chairman of the Committee, on the Committee’s Work Programme for 2016/17. A copy of the updated Work Programme document was circulated at the meeting, as an aide memoire. Lynton Green, Director of Finance and Information Services, and Julian Joinson, Principal Democratic Services Officer, were in attendance to provide support.

Agenda Item 3

13

The Chairman indicated that Network Warrington had not wished to commit to meeting the Committee until April 2017. However, it was likely that there would be changes taking place within that organisation’s management and on its Board at that time of year. It was, therefore, proposed to request an officer report from Lynton Green and David Boyer, Assistant Director Transport and Environment, from the perspective of the Council as a shareholder of the company to be available for the Committee’s meeting on 8 February 2017. Network Warrington representatives would be welcome to attend on that date if they so wished. The Fire and Rescue Service had indicated that they could attend the Committee’s meeting on 8 February 2017. There was currently a consultation underway on the Service’s draft Integrated Risk Management Plan (IRMP) for 2017/18. The draft plan dealt with rationalisation of some services within the context of budget pressures, but in general was not considered to be too controversial. The consultation was due to end before the Committee’s next meeting, but it might still be useful to hear from the Service in February 2017. The Budget process was due to be reported to the Committee in February 2017. The Committee at its last meeting had also resolved to seek a report listing all significant grants made and Service Level Agreements (SLAs) in pace with partner organisations. Mr Green reminded the Committee that the request had been in the context of using the information to assist work programming by identifying key partners. A number of funding decisions were being reviewed as part of the Budget process for 2017/18 and it might be appropriate for the Committee to receive this information after the Budget had been set. Councillor Marks indicated at the recent Council meeting a petition had been received about parking in Lymm and Stockton Heath and had prompted some comments about the use of the Call-In process and about appeals following a response to a petition. Members asked for clarification about the processes such as whether an officer decision could be called-in and whether appeals against petitions was a new area of work for the Committee. Officers responded that Call-In was possible for any Executive Board decision, or a Key Decision is made by an Officer, within 5 clear working days after the decision was made, provided that the decision had not already been implemented. There was currently provision within the Council’s petition scheme, for a petitioner who felt that their petition had not been dealt with properly, to request the Scrutiny Committee to review the steps taken by the Council to respond to the petition. The Chairman commented that the issue of scrutiny powers might also be raised at a future meeting of the Constitution Sub-Committee or Audit and Corporate Governance Committee. Councillor Froggatt enquired about whether the Council had a formal Consultation Strategy. He commented that the consultation about the changes to libraries had attracted criticism because it had adopted a closed format. A more constructive approach might have been to consult upon a set of parameters about savings required and to ask for ideas about the best way of achieving that result. Officers confirmed that there were guidelines available to officers about consultation. It was proposed to request a report to the Committee about the Council’s approach to engagement and consultation.

Agenda Item 3

14

Decision,

To note the updated Work Programme 2016/17, as presented, including the revised timescales discussed above and the addition items as follows:- • Home Improvement Loans; • Council Strategy on building new properties for older people; • Scrutiny’s role in the Call-In process and the Petitions Scheme; and • Consultation and Engagement.

SC20 Date of Next Meeting Decision,

To note the date of the next meeting on 8 February 2017.

Agenda Item 5

15

WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL

SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 8 February 2017

Report of Executive Board Member:

Councillor Russ Bowden, Executive Board Member, Corporate Finance

Report Author: Lynton Green, Director of Finance & Information Services

Contact Details: Email Address: lgreen@warrington.gov.uk

Telephone: 01925 443925

Ward Members: All

BUDGET PROCESS UPDATE

1 PURPOSE

1.1 To present to Scrutiny Committee Members the process applied to determining the Council’s proposed four year budget for the period 2017/18 to 2020/21.

2. CONFIDENTIAL OR EXEMPT

2.1 The report is not confidential or exempt.

3. REVENUE BUDGET

3.1 This report presents the work that has been undertaken by the Council in

current and previous financial years to address budget challenges and to ensure that over the next 12 months there will be a further underpinning of the Council’s medium term financial plan. This will enable the Council to deliver financial stability and investment opportunities through a long term efficiency programme based on sound financial management arrangements.

3.2 The Executive Board Member, Corporate Finance has worked closely with

officers over the past six months to formulate the 2017/18 budget. During the autumn a series of Spotlight Challenge Panel sessions were held at which Outcome Based Budgeting savings proposals were discussed. These sessions were led by the Executive Board Member, Corporate Finance, the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the Council and supported by the Director of Finance & Information Services. The principal features of the Outcome Based Budget approach are described in section 4 below.

Agenda Item 5

16

3.3 The formulation of the budget has been influenced by the continuation of the

major cuts that National Government has imposed on Local Government since the 2010 Spending Review and, given shrinking resources, an ambition to become financially sustainable through longer term planning rather than just one year planning. It was announced in the provisional settlement of 15 December 2016 that Warrington’s Government funding has fallen by a further 13.8% in 2017/18.

3.4 This equates to a drop in Government Funding of £6.4m, which is equivalent to

over £30 per Warrington resident. This drop in funding has been additionally affected by a decrease in the New Homes Bonus legacy funding from 5 to 4 years and a large scale reduction in Education Support Grant funding (£1.6m).

3.5 The Council has already made savings of £15.5m and £20.5m in 2015/16

and 2016/17. However, £30m of additional savings will also need to be made over the next four years, with £9.9m of savings needed in 2017/18 to balance the budget.

3.6 Warrington’s submission of a financial efficiency plan in October 2016 secured

the Government’s offer of a four year funding settlement for the period 2016/17 to 2019/20. Given this element of certainty, the budget approach has been to develop the medium term financial plan over a four year period so as to enable a better planned and managed outcome. The provisional settlement announcement (15 December 2016) provided details of the settlement funding levels together with flexibility to increase the ‘social care precept’ up to 3% in 2017/18 and 2018/19 and provision of a one-year Adult Social Care Support grant (albeit funded by top slicing New Homes Bonus funding). The table below shows the Council’s forecasted budget position for the next four years. The funding position for 2020/21 is an estimate based on previous years funding.

3.7 The graphics overleaf show how gross expenditure is currently distributed, and

how gross income received will change between 2016/17 and 2020/21. Please note that benefits payments and the Dedicated Schools Grant have been removed from this model as although we receive this funding, it is passported directly out of the Authority.

2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21Ref £000 £000 £000 £000

Budget set for 2016/17 133,890 In-year changes to funding 70 Net Budget Brought Forward 133,960 145,172 152,315 159,668

1 Inflation pressure (242) (242) (242) (242)2 Additional budget pressures 11,524 7,385 7,595 565 3 Reversal of one year savings proposals - - - - 4 Funding adjustments (70) - - -

Total Budget Needed 145,172 152,315 159,668 159,991 5 Funding 135,291 131,437 130,328 129,524

Budget Shortfall 9,881 20,878 29,340 30,467

Agenda Item 5

17

Gross Expenditure 2016/17

Gross Income 2016/17

1 16 31 46 61 76 91 106 121 136 151 166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2 17 32 47 62 77 92 107 122 137 152 167 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

3 18 33 48 63 78 93 108 123 138 153 168 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

4 19 34 49 64 79 94 109 124 139 154 169 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

5 20 35 50 65 80 95 110 125 140 155 170 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

6 21 36 51 66 81 96 111 126 141 156 171 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7 22 37 52 67 82 97 112 127 142 157 172 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 63 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

8 23 38 53 68 83 98 113 128 143 158 173 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 72 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

9 24 39 54 69 84 99 114 129 144 159 174 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

10 25 40 55 70 85 100 115 130 145 160 175 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 26 41 56 71 86 101 116 131 146 161 176 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

12 27 42 57 72 87 102 117 132 147 162 177 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

13 28 43 58 73 88 103 118 133 148 163 178 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

14 29 44 59 74 89 104 119 134 149 164 179 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 63 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Council Tax

£83.2m

Fees & Charges£37.1m

Revenue Support Grant£17.2m

Business Rates£24.9m

Other Grants & Contributions

£33.3m

Other Unringfenced Grants£8.7m

Other Government Grants£7.7m

Interest & Investment Income £6.5m

Agenda Item 5

18

Gross Income 2020/21

4. OUTCOME BASED BUDGETING (OBB) PROCESS 4.1 The Council operates an outcomes based approach to budgeting; the purpose

being to provide a long term strategic and sustainable financial plan. Outcomes Based Budgeting (OBB) is a process designed to create a public sector that works better, costs less, focuses on delivering outcomes, puts citizens and their priority needs first and emphasises accountability and innovation. The process requires the Council to work across organisational boundaries, be proactive rather than reactive and encourages longer term planning and sustainability.

4.2 The OBB approach is to identify and select areas to focus on and review the

associated budgets to understand what is being spent, what services/functions are provided by this budget, how the services/functions are structured and how the spend relates to commissioning themes and priorities to ensure value for money can be demonstrated and a tangible benefit derived from outcomes. By use of this approach, budget pressures and saving proposals will be identified.

4.3 The overall OBB ambition and associated timeframe is that within 4 years

(2015/16 to 2018/19) the Council will have developed a sustainable budget. In achieving this, the associated commissioning, budget and change processes will become ongoing systematic programmes of activity that run throughout the year(s).

4.4 As the OBB process reflects a longer term scenario, it is recognised that many

proposals will come to fruition later and therefore not generate savings or income until future years. Change and transformation projects may also require initial investment, facilitated through the ‘Invest to Save’ programme, to allow the project to take shape with the benefit of an increased payback once the project is complete. In these circumstances, bids can be made to draw down funds from the MTFP ‘smoothing’ reserve to pump prime proposals. The Council has additionally developed and had agreed by Executive Board an ‘Enterprising

1 16 31 46 61 76 91 106 121 136 151 166 181 1 16 31 46 61 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5

2 17 32 47 62 77 92 107 122 137 152 167 182 2 17 32 47 62 77 7 8 9 10 11 12 6 7 8 9 10

3 18 33 48 63 78 93 108 123 138 153 168 183 3 18 33 48 63 78 13 14 15 16 17 18 11 12 13 14 15

4 19 34 49 64 79 94 109 124 139 154 169 184 4 19 34 49 64 79 19 20 21 22 23 24 16 17 18 19 20

5 20 35 50 65 80 95 110 125 140 155 170 185 5 20 35 50 65 80 25 26 27 28 29 30 21 22 23 24 25

6 21 36 51 66 81 96 111 126 141 156 171 186 6 21 36 51 66 81 31 32 33 34 35 36 26 27 28 29 30

7 22 37 52 67 82 97 112 127 142 157 172 187 7 22 37 52 67 82 37 38 39 40 41 42 31 32 33 34 35

8 23 38 53 68 83 98 113 128 143 158 173 188 8 23 38 53 68 83 43 44 45 46 47 48 36 37 38 39 40

9 24 39 54 69 84 99 114 129 144 159 174 189 9 24 39 54 69 84 49 50 51 52 53 54 41 42 43 44 45

10 25 40 55 70 85 100 115 130 145 160 175 190 10 25 40 55 70 85 55 56 57 58 59 60 16 47 48 49 50

11 26 41 56 71 86 101 116 131 146 161 176 191 11 26 41 56 71 86 61 62 63 64 65 66 51 52 53 54 55

12 27 42 57 72 87 102 117 132 147 162 177 192 12 27 42 57 72 87 67 68 69 70 71 72 62 63 64 65 66

13 28 43 58 73 88 103 118 133 148 163 178 193 13 28 43 58 73 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3

14 29 44 59 74 89 104 119 134 149 164 179 194 14 29 44 59 74 89 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 4 5 6

15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 15 30 45 60 75 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Council Tax

£97.3m

Fees & Charges£41.7m

Business Rates

£30.0m

Other Grants &

Contributions£33.3m

Other Unringfenced

Grants£2.2m

Other Government Grants£7.7m

Interest & Investment Income £6.5m

Agenda Item 5

19

Warrington Commercial Strategy’ as part of a coordinated approach to addressing lost government funding.

4.5 As part of the OBB process, Council budgets have been considered under the

commissioning themes of:

• Demand Management and Behaviour Change • Enterprise • Technology and Digital Transformation

4.6 The Demand Management and Behaviour Change theme will examine

relationships with the community to promote self-service, early intervention or prevention and also address high cost spend areas.

4.7 The Enterprise theme will develop proposals for innovative investments,

alternative delivery models and scope for further income generation. 4.8 The Technology and Digital Transformation theme will take forward the

technology strategy to allow anytime/anywhere access for customers and workforce leading to increased flexibility and responsiveness.

4.9 Proposals identified through the themes were challenged by the Executive Board

and Senior Management through Spotlight Challenge Panels. The Panels offered the opportunity for Members to challenge how the proposals aligned with the Council’s priorities and what impact they would have on the outcomes for Warrington. Instead of a long list of cuts, the OBB approach has led to a more manageable list of transformational/enterprise savings which can deliver income to mitigate government cuts.

4.10 As always, the Council works closely with staff and the Trade Unions. There is

close involvement and regular meetings with Trade Unions throughout the year with the intent to minimize the number of redundancies.

Consultation and Engagement

4.11 The setting of a four year budget means that to be meaningful, our approach to

consultation and engagement will need to be phased to ensure that we seek feedback from all sections of the community in relation to any specific proposals that may affect them over the duration of the budget period, in turn enabling a more constructive, detailed and informed dialogue at the relevant point in time at the point when proposals for change are being formed.

4.12 By law the Council has a duty to consult on the overall budget with local

businesses and to this end a series of breakfast meetings is being held. Feedback from these meetings will be incorporated into the budget report to Council prior to a decision on the budget being made. In addition to the statutory meetings, sessions are also held with other groups including Trade Unions, Youth Council and Third/Voluntary Sector.

4.13 The Council is committed to being transparent about its income and expenditure

and about changes to its financial position. To ensure that the public has greater visibility of the Council’s finances, new pages have been set up on the Council’s website that explain the detail of the Council’s budget in plain English, with a link

Agenda Item 5

20

that enables people to ask questions. As our financial position becomes more challenging it is important that we are responsive to this feedback and also that we address any misconceptions about our income, or what we spend public money on.

4.14 Internally, a new section has also been created on the Council’s intranet that

sets out the budget challenge in more detail and that seeks to ensure our own employees have full visibility of the overall budget position, including any current and emerging savings proposals. This is designed to be supplementary to the usual face to face communication and consultation processes. In addition information has and will continue to be, circulated in internal Council publication, Your Voice and via social media, the wider media and the Council’s own email publication The Wire.

4.15 Finally, the Council recognises that as Council budgets shrink, the role our

communities and our partners play becomes even more important. We want to do more to harness this capacity and to work together to mitigate the impact of government cuts. That is why we are supporting the borough wide ‘Count me In’ campaign that encourages everyone to ‘do their bit’ – be that recycling more, supporting family and neighbours or just being a little more active. By making small changes like this, and working together, the campaign aims to help reduce demand on public services overall and will enable us to better protect our most vulnerable residents and our most valued Council services.

5. SCHOOLS BUDGETS

5.1 The Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) is the funding stream which supports

individual school budgets, plus funding for many non-school educational activities. Since the 2013/14 settlement, DSG has been determined in specific blocks, although Authorities are at liberty, with School Forum agreement, to transfer funding between blocks. The blocks are,

• Schools Block – supports mainstream activities in primary and secondary

schools (i.e. basic school delegated budgets).

• Early Years Block – supports nursery provision in dedicated nursery schools, nurseries attached to mainstream schools, and private, voluntary or independent nursery providers within the Authority’s boundaries.

• High Needs Block – intended to support special school budgets, Pupil Referral

Units, designated/specialist provision in mainstream schools, pupil placement in independent schools or non-mainstream special schools outside of the home Authority. It also funds all Special Educational Needs requirements for Warrington pupils. Any other whole- school activities should likewise be funded by this block, as there is presently no specific allocation for central education functions.

• Additions/Amendments – variations to Early Years and High Needs blocks.

5.2 The Schools Block is determined by a flat rate (different for each Authority) for

each mainstream student on roll at the October census prior to the funding year e.g. October 2016 for the 2017/18 settlement. Early Years funding for 3 and 4 year olds is similar, except that the total pupil numbers from the previous

Agenda Item 5

21

January Early Years census are taken. Because moderated and validated figures from the newest census are not available in time, year-old data are used, with the actual allocation modified some months later to reflect the updated pupil count. High Needs Block allocations are incremental from a baseline, flexed for pupil number growth.

5.3 Indicative DSG allocation for Warrington in 2017/18 is £157.1 million (see

below). Not all of this will be managed by Warrington Borough Council; Academies will have their relevant funding paid direct, through a process known as recoupment. The High Needs Block has also been reduced to reflect the places in other Local Authority settings taken by Warrington students.

5.4 The remainder of the schools’ allocation is through the mainstream Pupil

Premium, based on historical pupil entitlement to Free School Meals (FSM), status as a Looked After/Adopted Child, or being from a Services family. Each qualifying student will attract varying bands of funding:

Secondary FSM £935 All other FSM £1,320 Looked After Children £1,900 Service Children £300

5.5 These funding levels have remained unchanged since 2015/16, and in total approximate to around £7 million for Warrington.

6. TIMETABLE FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE BUDGET

6.1 Key dates in 2017 for the budget process are:

• 16 January Trade Unions; 25 January Third/Voluntary Sector; 25 January

Employee Engagement Forum; 1 February Business Sector – Consultation meetings.

• 13 February – Executive Board to approve budget proposals and refer to Full Council.

• 27 February – Full Council approve budget.

£ ValueCENSUS

NORALLOCATION

£Schools Block 4,279.35 29,316 125,453,000Early Years Block (3/4 year olds) 4,084.96 2,050 8,374,985Early Years Block (3/4 year olds 30 hr entitlement) - September to March

4,084.96 676 1,611,614

Early Years Block (2 year olds) 5,015.92 406 2,037,299High Needs Block 19,414,874AdditionsNursery School Protection 71,174Early Years Disability Access Fund 43,050Early Years Pupil Premium 98,817

Total DSG (before recoupments)

2017/18

157,104,813

Agenda Item 5

22

7. CONFIDENTIAL OR EXEMPT

7.1 This report is not confidential or exempt.

8. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 The financial considerations are dealt with throughout the report.

9. RISK ASSESSMENT

9.1 The budget is prepared in accordance with detailed guidance and timetable to ensure that statutory requirements are met and a balanced budget is prepared that aligns resources with corporate objectives.

9.2 As part of the Outcome Based Budgeting process the risks of each savings

proposal were discussed with the Spotlight Panel before being agreed, and these risks, along with the risk of slippage around the delivery of savings proposals will be closely monitored during the year. The Council already has robust systems in place for monitoring the delivery of savings and will continue to use the existing approach to ensure the delivery of savings throughout 2017/18. Large transformational or long running savings will be subject to full risk assessment.

9.3 Due to the volatile nature of the Business Rates income the predictions of

funding could change significantly from the estimates that were reported on the NNDR1 form. Although this is a high risk to the Council, any change from the current estimates will not alter the funding for 2017/18, but will be carried forward to 2018/19. The Business Rates income will be monitored throughout the year and will be incorporated into next year’s budget monitoring process.

10. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY / EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

10.1 The Finance Service undertakes Equality Impact Assessment in its wider

functions. Service changes that emerge from proposals contained in the MTFP are subject to individual Equality Impact Assessments.

10.2 All proposals put forward as part of the budget are subject to an Equality Impact

Assessment during the Outcome Based Budgeting process. Each assessment will be reconsidered further before the implementation of any of the proposals and will follow the recognised consultation process for each specific activity.

11. RECOMMENDATION

11.1 It is recommended that the Committee considers the report and passes any

comments back to the Executive Board for their consideration in making final proposals to Council.

Agenda Item 5

23

12. BACKGROUND PAPERS

MTFP Papers Contacts for Background Papers:

Name E-mail Telephone

Stephen Owen sowen1@warrington.gov.uk 01925 443852

24

THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Agenda Item 7

25

Scrutiny Committee Draft Work Programme – June 2016 to May 2017

Work Programme

Topic Purpose of the item

Link to National Policy &

Local Context Lead

Officer Date of Meeting

Theme – Working with Our Partners Torus Housing Group Look at the work of Torus Housing

Group (Helena Homes and Golden Gates Housing Trust), including delivery of the GGH Offer Promises.

Nationally there are pressures on funding for Housing Associations, including Right to Buy and limits on rents. In addition the impacts of the Welfare Reforms are creating additional and changing patterns of demand. Housing Associations will need to work closely with partners to deliver joined up public services.

Angela Perry (Torus)

18 Oct 2016

Cheshire Fire and Rescue

Look at the work of Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service

The service continues to focus on preventative measures and is currently branching out working to improve the health and wellbeing of residents. In addition, ‘blue light’ services are increasingly sharing resources to increase their cost effectiveness.

Matt McGuire/Alex

Waller (Cheshire Fire and Rescue)

8 Feb 2017

Cheshire and Warrington Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP)

An introduction to the work of the LEP, including: • what the LEP does • governance/accountability; • achievements to date; and • plans for the future.

The C&W LEP is a key partner to enable economic growth in Warrington and Warrington has been a leader in the establishment and support of the LEP. LEPs are supported by government and are a key conduit for government growth and infrastructure funding – this role is increasing. The future of the LEP is bound up with the current debate about devolution and Combined Authorities.

Philip Cox CEO or Chair

(LEP) or

Andy Farrall

TBA

Public Transport Issues A report by the Council’s Officers outlining the national context regarding public transport and setting the scene for consideration of the Council’s approach as a shareholder of a local bus company

Network Warrington remains one of a very small number of local authority controlled bus companies following deregulation. Nationally bus companies are struggling to maintain services in the face of reduced local authority subsidies for non-profitable routes.

David Boyer 8 Feb 2017

Academies and Free Schools

A look at how Free Schools and Academies in the Borough to

Nationally the Government is increasing pressure for all schools to convert to academy

Steve Reddy TBA

Agenda Item 7

26

contribute to improving educational attainment

status, yet local Council’s will retain an overarching duty around school improvement. Nationally concerns have been expressed about the performance and quality of governance of academies and particularly multi-academy trusts. The Government has appointed a National Schools Commissioner and Regional Schools Commissioners work with school leaders, including local authorities and local dioceses, to take action in underperforming schools LGA/CfPS have recently published a document ‘Your school, your community - Elected councillors’ role in school improvement’ which provides some guidance on how councillors can engage with schools that are not under local authority control.

Local Safeguarding Adults Board

Consideration of the Annual Report 2015/16, including achievements and future priorities of the Board

At the end of the financial year the Board must publish an annual report on its achievements, members' activity and findings from any Safeguarding Reviews during that period. Guidance recommends that the Board should be linked to Scrutiny arrangements

Shirley Williams (Chair),

Margaret Macklin and Rosie Lyden

7 Dec 2016

Local Safeguarding Children’s Board

Consideration of the Annual Report 2015/16, including achievements and future priorities of the Board

The Chair of the LSCB has a statutory duty to publish an annual report. The Scrutiny Committee should consider the analysis of the effectiveness of local services in keeping local children safe.

Richard Strachan (Chair),

Margaret Macklin and Rosie Lyden

7 Dec 2016

Theme – Council Services Budget Process The annual look at the steps taken

to develop the Council’s budget for 2017/18

By 2020, the Council’s budget will have been cut by more than a third. The Council has already saved £92m in response to central government funding decisions and has at least another £41m still to find in the next four years. Alongside this, demand for services is increasing due to a mixture of factors, including

Lynton Green 8 Feb 2017

Agenda Item 7

27

the population getting older and people living longer. The Council has launched its ‘Count me in’ campaign in response to this challenge.

Older People’s Housing and other Housing Developments

To consider a strategic overview around housing, to include a look at the Council’s approach to older persons living in privately owned properties that are sub-standard or that the residents are unable themselves to manage properly.

Nationally the landscape regarding housing development continues to change. Work is ongoing to review the national context and to develop appropriate local solutions. In response to an ageing population there are pressures to reduce the demand on costly social and health based residential care. One solution is to encourage people to downsize and to support people to be independent for as long as possible in their own homes.

Muna Abdel Aziz and

Steve Peddie

7 Dec 2016

Home Improvement Loans

To consider whether the Council with its partners might establish a system for Home Improvement Loans for vulnerable older people who are unable to maintain their properties to an acceptable standard. The loan could be secured as charge against the property. NB. This matter may be referred to the relevant Policy Committee

The English House Survey 2014/15 identified 20% of homes nationally which failed to meet the Decent Homes Standard. In Warrington work was also carried out to identify homes with solid walls which were harder to heat, many of which were located in the inner wards. Substantial investment would be needed to bring these homes up to standard.

Muna Abdel Aziz

TBA

Council Strategy on building new properties for older people

To consider the options appraisal, feasibility and business case on whether the Council should build again. NB. The Protecting the Most Vulnerable Policy Committee has requested a similar report for 4 April 2017 entitled “Funding for Supported Housing”. A discussion between the relevant Chairmen is being recommended to avoid any duplication of work.

In 2009 the Council secured grant funding of £1.95M under the Local Authority New Build Programme to build 32 energy efficient two bed bungalows across 7 sites for older people. A report is due to be taken to the Executive Board in April 2017 to consider the feasibility of the Council building again.

Muna Abdel Aziz

12 April 2017

Agenda Item 7

28

Grants to/Service Level Agreements with Partner Organisations

To consider a report about the amount of Council funding made available to Partner organisations

The Council provides grants to, or commissions services from a number of public, private and voluntary sector organisations. The Committee has requested a list of the funding provided and levels of funding so as to inform its decisions about which bodies it may wish to engage with in its Work Programme for 2017/18 and beyond. The report would need to be provided after the Council’s Budget has been set for 2017/18, at which time any funding decisions will be known.

Lynton Green 12 April or 14 June 2017

Scrutiny’s role in the Call-In process and the Petitions Scheme

To receive information on the Call-In and Petition processes to improve the Committee’s understanding of its role. (NB It is recommended that these topics be covered as part of a comprehensive Member development session on Overview and Scrutiny to include the policy committees’ role, which will be delivered later in the year)

As well as its general powers to review and scrutinise any matter, the Scrutiny Committee has some specific responsibilities in relation to Call-In and the Petition process. These powers are used infrequently and the Committee has requested a refresher on the processes.

Matthew Cumberbatch

TBA

Consultation and Engagement

To receive a report on the Council’s approach to consultation and engagement

The Council consults on significant changes to its policies and services and other matters, such as the annual Budget. The level of engagement can range from simple information sharing to full devolution, where participants are involved in shaping the final decision. A Manager’s Toolkit on Consultation and Engagement is currently accessible via the Council’s Intranet.

Kathryn Griffiths

TBA

Charitable Rate Relief To receive an update on what the Council pays out, and how the system is funded (Warrington Borough Council or Central Government)

Charities and amateur community sports clubs can apply for relief of up to 80% if a property is used for charitable purposes. ‘Discretionary relief’ (up to 100%) may be provided by local councils to ‘top up’ certain reliefs to give charities extra help.

Adrian Webster

TBA

Version 7 – 30/01/17