Agenda and draft minutes

To receive opening announcements from the chair.

The Chair, Councillor Ken Arlett, welcomed those attending and ran through housekeeping matters.

To record apologies for absence and the attendance of substitute members. 

Apologies were received from Councillors James Barlow, Kate Gregory and Katherine Keats-Rohan. Councillor Peter Dragonetti was present as substitute for Councillor James Barlow.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the committee minutes of the meeting held on 4 February 2025.

Resolved:

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 February 2025 were agreed as a correct record, and the chair would sign them as such.

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, other registrable interests and non-registrable interests or any conflicts of interest in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting. 

Councillor Ken Arlett declared an interest in relation to item nine of the agenda, Section 106 Affordable Housing Grant Process Review.  He informed the committee that he was the chair of the Henley and District Housing Trust and as such would not chair that item. The Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that Councillor Arlett would still be able to take part in the debate.

It was agreed that item ten would be heard before item nine.

To receive notification of any matters which the chair determines should be considered as urgent business and the special circumstances which have made the matters urgent. 

None.

To receive any questions or statements from members of the public that have registered to speak. 

None.

To review the attached scrutiny work schedule. Please note, although the dates are confirmed, the items under consideration are subject to being withdrawn, added to or rearranged without further notice.

The committee discussed their work programme. The following points were raised for consideration:

• An update on planning enforcement was requested.
• The committee requested a verbal update on 116-120 The Broadway.
• The committee requested an update on the quarterly performance of the Corporate Plan.
• A member queried whether a review of the budget as we enter the new financial year would be appropriate to be presented to the committee, it was agreed that the chair would follow up with the Head of Finance.
• The committee queried whether the Outturn figures and the Quarterly Reviews could be added to the plan with committee dates. The Strategic Finance Manager advised that the Outturn figures take longer to produce due to the volume of work at year end. The committee expressed that they were most concerned about the third quarter outturn figures as they are essential for the budget. It was agreed that a there would be a discussion with the Head of Finance to see if a summary report could be produced for the January meeting.

Resolved:

Committee noted the work programme with the additional comments,

A standing agenda item whereby committee receives any updates resulting from previous recommendations made by committee (verbal update)

There were no updates.

To consider a report from the Head of Housing and Environment

The committee is asked to review the progress of the updated Section 106 affordable housing grant policy and process since 2023, note the financial position in relation to remaining Section 106 funds, consider the range of options to potentially amend the policy and process and to make any other recommendations for respective Cabinets to consider in relation to the policy and process.

The Cabinet member for housing and community hub, Councillor Maggie Filipova-Rivers, introduced this report. Present in the room were the Head of Housing and Environment, and the Affordable Housing Team Leader.

Questions were welcomed from committee. Key responses are outlined below.

• A member asked how we had arrived at a position where there was a negative balance and was informed that while the money had been committed it had not been paid at this point. The Finance team would provide the money from the general fund which would then be replenished upon receipt of the section 106 funds.
• A member queried why there was no way of tracing which project the S106 money had come from and stated that the funds should be used on the site where they were generated or the next nearest applicable site. The Cabinet Member for housing and community hub advised that there were very few applications, so it was not possible to match up the funds in that manner.
• The committee discussed why there had been so little of the S106 contributions received to date. The committee were informed that there were certain milestones in a development which needed to be reached before S106 funds would be triggered and that delays could be caused for a variety of issues, such as struggling to find a registered provider to partner with. The Cabinet member for housing and community hub suggested that officers might be able to provide a more in-depth analysis of the reasons for delays.
• A member asked why no cabinet member was involved in the decision on the applications and was advised that applications do get presented to cabinet eventually. The Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that part of this was because of due diligence that could only be dealt with by officers.
• There was discussion on timings with committee highlighting that it can take six months for a final decision on an application and suggested the process could be streamlined. A member advised that the six-month timeline would not work in cases where the applicant wanted to purchase a property. The Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that the six-month figure was a ceiling rather than a deadline and that a lot of the delays in the process came from the applicant. The committee suggested that it would be prudent to conduct a benchmarking exercise with other councils that operated a similar scheme.

In debate, members expressed that they felt the 0-3 scoring system was not appropriate for complex applications and a qualitative system could be more useful. The members expressed support for points 30 and 32 in the report and suggested that officers should make a site visit for each application. The committee agreed the following recommendation.

Recommendation to Cabinet member for housing and community hub:

Scrutiny Committee considered the range of options to amend the policy and process and suggested the inclusion of points 30 and 32 of the report and the inclusion of a two-stage triage  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

To consider a report from the Head of Communities (paper to follow)

The Cabinet member for Communities, Councillor Georgina Heritage, introduced this report. Present in the room was the Head of Communities and the Community Arts Manager.

Questions were welcomed from committee. Key responses are outlined below.

• A member queried whether there was any way to expand the auditorium to increase the seating capacity and was informed that this would require significant capital expenditure and that comfort and sellable seats were more important than the overall number of seats.
• A member asked when the review of the food and beverage section would take place and was advised that the café and bar area would be part of the venue reconfiguration, and that external help would be sought to help with the vision for this service area.
• A member queried how ticket sales for non-pantomime shows compared to pre-pandemic levels. The committee were informed that ticket sales had returned to pre-pandemic levels.
• A member asked why there had not been a profit share deal with the provider of the pantomime in 2024 and was advised that in order to obtain a good quality production it was necessary to partner with an organisation that was willing to take all the risk. While no money was made for the council on the ticket sales, income was generated from booking fees and food and beverage sales. The committee were informed that for the new three-year contract they would be looking for a profit share deal.
• A member queried why the forecast budget for 25/26 was similar to 24/25, which had seen a significant overspend. The committee were advised that the budget for 25/26 had been set based on the actual outturn. There was discussion around the budget and the committee advised they would like to see a breakdown of revenue and costs as well as budgets for individual sections such as the, food and beverage, room bookings, and daytime usage.
• A suggestion was made to utilise cross advertising between Cornerstone and the Beacon, which was noted by officers.
• A member asked about the membership loyalty programme and was advised that it was under review and a consultation would be going out to all current and past members.
• A question was raised about the impact of social media and whether this had seen an increase in the number of young people using Cornerstone. The committee were informed that a lot of their youth classes were already full.
• A member asked whether the project was still on track to optimise the operational model. The Cabinet Member for communities advised that the next paper, due to be presented to cabinet in June, would address that.
• The committee expressed their thanks to the team and the Cabinet Member.

In debate members expressed that they would like to see a proper business plan with clear financial information and a breakdown of the performance of the various sections of the business. The committee requested that the report highlight the advantages to the community. Members voted in favour of the following recommendation when  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.