Agenda item

To receive questions from councillors in accordance with Council procedure rule 33. 

1.    From Councillor Catherine Webber to Councillor Matthew Barber, Cabinet Member for Partnership and Insight

Residents are asking about the Five Council Partnership deal and why the expectant savings for tax payers of £50million has now dropped drastically to only £20 million. Can the Cabinet Member help members, and the public, to understand what’s gone wrong by publishing the relevant information? After all, this is public money we’re talking about. The deal seems to be shrouded in secrecy, so anyone seeking information is forced to file a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. Responding to FOI requests is costly to the Council, and frustrating for our residents. How can the administration improve transparency and ensure the public have access to more detailed information about the Five Council Partnership? 

2.    From Councillor Debby Hallett to Councillor Matthew Barber, Cabinet Member for Partnership and Insight

Whenever a decision is made to outsource public services to an external provider, we outsource the work but not the responsibility. It is Vale that must meet payroll, manage HR issues, keep the IT systems working, and replace batteries in officers’ mobile telephones. Cabinet decided to trust Capita with much of this work.

News of Capita’s fall in share price after profits warnings are of huge concern to this council. Their announced strategic and operational changes raise the question of whether Capita are still willing and able to carry out their performance commitments to us. This council is just a small part of their world, but they are a big part of ours. 

When Cabinet decided to outsource this work, it appears no one was designated as Contract Manager. Who at Vale is now responsible for managing the contract with Capita? What is the true savings per year for Vale now that we have so many of our senior officers dedicating so much of their time to this outsourcing scheme? What has been the cost of officers in addressing issues arising? And what is the level of service now, compared to what it was before 5CP?

Where can members and the public see what contingency plans Vale has put in place to mitigate the risk of Capita’s services to Vale ceasing?

3.    From Councillor Emily Smith to Councillor Roger Cox, Cabinet member for Planning:

In terms of the Housing Test imposed by Government, here are the targets, as I understand them to be, for house building Vale must achieve, or face consequences in our planning policies or processes:

I understand the 2020 target is likely to actually be 75%.

Can the Cabinet member explain to Council how we measure and report our figures, how we are doing so far, and what steps are being taken to ensure we do not regress into the situation where we’ve been for most of the time he’s been in charge, where speculative developers have the upper hand?

4.    From Councillor Judy Roberts to Councillor Mike Murray, Cabinet member for Development and Regeneration

What funding is allocated in the 2018-19 Vale budget specifically to the Housing Enabler role as outlined in the Joint Housing Delivery Strategy?

5.    From Councillor Debby Hallett to Councillor Matthew Barber, Leader of the council

Can the leader please provide a simple list of the explicit benefits to Vale in this Growth Deal, and the explicit costs to Vale (or expectations from Government on Vale)? We are not (yet) a unitary authority, and therefore we are making decisions for the Vale, as opposed to Oxfordshire County in general. I think it’s important that members know exactly what’s promised to Vale, and what’s expected from Vale, before we vote on this deal.

1.      Question from Councillor Catherine Webber to Councillor Matthew Barber, Cabinet member for partnership and insight

“Residents are asking about the Five Council Partnership deal and why the expectant savings for tax payers of £50 million has now dropped drastically to only £20 million.  Can the Cabinet Member help members, and the public, to understand what’s gone wrong by publishing the relevant information?  After all, this is public money we’re talking about. The deal seems to be shrouded in secrecy, so anyone seeking information is forced to file a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.  Responding to FOI requests is costly to the Council, and frustrating for our residents.  How can the administration improve transparency and ensure the public have access to more detailed information about the Five Council Partnership?”  

Answer

Councillor Barber responded that officers are still in negotiation with both Capita over a deed of variation, and VINCI. The discussions are commercially sensitive for all parties and cannot be conducted in public without undermining the council's position. Although final figures will not be known until the negotiations are completed, the council remains confident that the corporate services contracts will provide significant savings to the councils compared with the previous cost of running the services. If required, confidential briefing sessions or meetings of the Scrutiny Committee could be held for councillors. The council would respond to FOI requests but could not divulge confidential information.

“Whenever a decision is made to outsource public services to an external provider, we outsource the work but not the responsibility.  It is Vale that must meet payroll, manage HR issues, keep the IT systems working, and replace batteries in officers’ mobile telephones.  Cabinet decided to trust Capita with much of this work.

News of Capita’s fall in share price after profits warnings are of huge concern to this council.  Their announced strategic and operational changes raise the question of whether Capita are still willing and able to carry out their performance commitments to us.  This council is just a small part of their world, but they are a big part of ours. 

When Cabinet decided to outsource this work, it appears no one was designated as Contract Manager.  Who at Vale is now responsible for managing the contract with Capita?  What is the true savings per year for Vale now that we have so many of our senior officers dedicating so much of their time to this outsourcing scheme?  What has been the cost of officers in addressing issues arising?  And what is the level of service now, compared to what it was before 5CP?

Where can members and the public see what contingency plans Vale has put in place to mitigate the risk of Capita’s services to Vale ceasing?” 

Answer

Councillor Barber responded that from the commencement of the contract there has been a joint client team, shared by all the five council partners and headed by a client relationship director who is clearly designated as contract manager.

Matters relating to the performance of the contractors will be reported to the Scrutiny Committee in the usual way and contingency plans are in place for all contractors.

                           Supplementary question/answer

In response to a supplementary question regarding the officer contact Councillor Barber responded that the relationship between the council and the joint client team will now be a responsibility for the head of partnership and insight but individual issues would be addressed by the relevant service.

3.    Councillor Emily Smith to Councillor Roger Cox, Cabinet member for planning:

“In terms of the Housing Test imposed by Government, here are the targets, as I understand them to be, for house building Vale must achieve, or face consequences in our planning policies or processes: 

I understand the 2020 target is likely to actually be 75%. 

Can the Cabinet member explain to Council how we measure and report our figures, how we are doing so far, and what steps are being taken to ensure we do not regress into the situation where we’ve been for most of the time he’s been in charge, where speculative developers have the upper hand?”

Answer

A new housing delivery test was put forward in the Government White Paper ‘Fixing our Broken Housing Market’, however the implementation date has been delayed and no new date specified.

The test is designed to “highlight whether the number of homes being built is below target, provide a mechanism for establishing the reasons why, and where necessary trigger policy responses that will ensure that further land comes forward”[1].

The test measures housing delivery over a three year period, so for 2017/18 the test would have measured housing completions as an average from 2014/15 to 2016/17, measured against the district’s housing need. The housing need for Vale of White Horse will be taken from our up to date Local Plan.

Table 1 for year 18/19 to 22/23 shows how Vale would perform against the test.

Table 1: Housing Delivery Test, Vale of White Horse

Progress against Housing Delivery Test

Table 1 illustrates that the Vale performance figures exceed the housing delivery test. This is with supply as of 1 October 2017 and trajectories for housing completions updated with survey and developer information from October/November 2017. The annual housing need as stated in the adopted LPP1 is 1028, increasing to 1211 annually from 2019/20, to cover Oxford City’s unmet need if LPP2 is adopted.

Again, the table shows that the Vale is expected to pass the test on projected delivery for the next five years.

Steps to help housing delivery

In recognition that it will be a challenge to meet our housing need over the next 14-16 years, a joint Housing Delivery Strategy (HDS) has been produced. This strategy aims to enable housing delivery to be accelerated and to ensure the type and quality of homes delivered are what is required.