Issue - meetings

Joint report of the Cabinet Member Finance and Director of Resources

Councillor Teakle left the meeting at 5pm.

The Cabinet Member Finance introduced the report and referred members to the amended appendix 11 that had been circulated at the meeting. The report highlighted the Council's financial performance for the previous year which set out the General Fund and Housing Revenue Account revenue and capital outturn position for 2011/12.  The information contained in the report had been used to prepare the Council’s Statement of Accounts for 2011/12.

The Cabinet member was pleased to report that during the year, the potential in year budget deficit had been addressed and as a result a revised balanced-budget had been achieved.  The council's success in achieving this was down to the hard work by officers across the council in reducing costs and boosting incomes. He outlined the intentions for making use of the revenue budget savings are set out in section 3 of the report and the budget carry forward requests in section 4. He referred members to an error in appendix 7 where the carry forward bid for democratic services of £7,000 should have referred to £5,000 for the support and rollout of ICT remote access facilities for members and £2000 to support the new scrutiny arrangements.

He highlighted the favourable outcome regarding the Icelandic Banks and the potential uses of the High Street Innovation Fund grant where Cheltenham had been awarded £100,000 of the £10 million allocated by Government to help revive high street retail. He concluded that overall the report represented a sound piece of work which made sensible use of the council's resources.

In response to questions from members, the Cabinet member gave the following responses:

• He confirmed that businesses had been consulted on the potential uses of the High Street Innovation Fund and a number of their suggestions had been picked up.
• In response to a suggestion that the reinstatement of a planning appeals officer would be preferable to boosting the planning appeals reserve, he said in his view these two issues were not connected.
• Asked how the funding of business rate discounts would be "targeted at the areas where it can have the greatest impact”, he explained that currently there was a focus on the town centre. However it would be necessary to strike a balance between targeting sufficient funds in an area to make a difference and identifying areas of greatest need across the borough.
• A member had suggested that the proposed £9,000 cost for installation of cameras to measure footfall in different parts of the town centre should be supported by big retailers and the money would be better spent on the business rate relief scheme. In response the Cabinet Member said that businesses in the town centre spent a large amount of money on marketing and this scheme was a sensible way to help them target their resources more appropriately. Major businesses would be making a contribution and the Cheltenham Development Task Force would also be involved in reviewing the results.
• Asked whether the Council could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11