Councillor Rowsell substituted for Councillor D Whyte and Councillor Singh substituted for Councillor Ringham.

To confirm and sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 23 January 2025 (Appendix ‘A’).

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 January 2025 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

There were no apologies for absence.

Members are invited to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or other registrable and non-registrable interests in items on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest.

Councillors Margaret Harnden and Pippa Tucker-Brown were nominated for the office of Mayor, for the 2025/26 municipal year.

In support of Councillor Tucker-Brown’s candidacy, it was said that she was a personable community champion who worked hard to make residents’ lives more fulfilling.

In support of Councillor Harnden’s candidacy, her knowledge of services in the community, and her hard work and engagement with championing events such as recent Christmas celebrations should be noted.

It was stated that it had been a custom to offer the role of Mayor to the incumbent Deputy Mayor.

It was resolved that the Council be recommended to appoint Councillor Margaret Harnden as Mayor for the 2025/26 municipal year.

It was noted that the national living wage (NLW) had been the primary impactor for this year’s Pay Policy Statement.  It had been necessary to review some pay scales in order to ensure that the Council met its legal obligations around pay, whilst balancing the desire to provide pay progression for employees whose pay grades had been affected by the NLW.

There was discussion about the Council’s pension liabilities and whether its rate of contribution was unduly high.  It was confirmed that Runnymede’s rate of contribution was set by actuaries operating on behalf of the wider Surrey pension scheme, with the borough’s rate of contribution being reviewed tri-annually by the pension fund’s administrators.  The Council was obliged to ensure that its contributions were sufficient to meet current and former employees’ entitlement to the defined benefits of the scheme.

Further actuarial work was expected in the near future, after which an updated contribution rate for the next three-year period commencing April 2026 would be agreed for Runnymede.

It was noted that a report on the gender and disability pay gaps would be considered by the Committee at its next meeting.

It was resolved that the Council be recommended to approve the Annual Pay Policy Statement 2025/26, as set out in the appendix to the officer’s report.

The report was noted.

The report was noted.

The Committee received an update on the corporate key performance indicators (KPI), which had been updated since they were reviewed by the Committee on 21 November 2024.

It was noted that good progress had been made on KPI H6 (proportion of homes that do not meet the Decent Homes Standard).  Improving performance for KPI H1 (proportion of non-emergency repairs completed within target timescale) continued to be challenging because of the ongoing difficulty in recruiting individuals with the necessary skills to undertake repairs.  This was an issue affecting registered housing providers nationally, and officers continued to work with the Council’s contractor on improving the situation.  The Council’s housing department, in order to work through the backlog of reactive repairs, was allocating void work to other contractors.

The reservicing of empty properties was more attractive to providers than day to day repairs with the term contractor usually making their profit on void work and larger jobs.  The cost of replacing small items was usually covered within the overall value of works.   If the Council were without a day to day repairs contractor procuring a high volume of jobs each week, achieving the economies of scale would not be possible and call out charges could be incurred for every job.  It was therefore essential to maintain the day to day repairs service and support the current contractor to improve their void performance and engage other contractors as necessary.

The Committee was assured that the Chair of the Housing Committee met regularly with the Corporate Head of Housing to review performance against the service area’s KPIs.  There was discussion about KPI CDCS5 (percentage increase in the number of online forms submitted via runnymede.gov.uk - cumulative result).  It was suggested that the apparent reduction in performance against this KPI was likely to be attributable to work to avoid the duplication of requests and improvements made to the ‘report it’ function on the Council’s website.  This would be confirmed once enquiries had been made of the service area outside the meeting.

The report was noted

The Committee discussed the proposed KPI set for 2025/26.

The introduction of KPI ES6 (proportion of fly-tipping sites cleared within 5 working days of notification (excl. oil and asbestos) was welcomed.

The aspirational target of 0% non-compliance for KPI H6 (proportion of homes that do not meet the Decent Homes Standard) was positively received.  The actual performance against this indicator was however liable to fluctuation as the time since previous property refurbishments and the findings during inspections influenced what could be considered to be a property meeting the “Decent Homes Standard”.

The adjustment to KPI CDCS2 (percentage of lost unanswered calls within the Customer Service contact centre) was discussed.  Following discussions at a previous meeting of the Committee, officers had reviewed this target to make it a more meaningful measure.  It was suggested that individuals who hung up after a nominal amount of time, such as having realised they had dialled an incorrect telephone number, would not be included in the reporting associated with this KPI.  Callers who, having listened to the automated signposting to online services, then opted not to speak with an adviser because they had received the information they were seeking, would also not be recorded in the reporting of this KPI.

The proposed adjustments to KPI C1 (number of community meals products served per quarter (lunch and afternoon tea recorded as separate products) were reviewed.  It was noted that this had been informed by a detailed piece of work undertaken by the Community Services department and that details of this would be provided outside the meeting.

It was resolved that the following be approved:

1)    The proposed 2025/26 Corporate Performance Indicators descriptions as shown in Appendix A of the officer’s report.

2)    The proposed 2025/26 quarterly/annual targets, in pursuance of 1) above.

By resolution of the Committee, the press and public were excluded from the remainder of the meeting during the consideration of the remaining matters under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that the discussion would be likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as set out in Schedule 12A to Part 1 of the Act.

The Committee reviewed proposals to write off debts that were considered to be irrecoverable.

Considerable efforts were made by officers prior to recommending that a debt be written off.  Legal action (including statutory demands) and other activities as considered appropriate were undertaken wherever possible prior to recommending the write off of debts.  Officers stated that the Council’s level of debt write off was generally favourable when compared to other commercial landlords.

Instances where debts were considered to be irrecoverable included insolvency, or where individuals held tenancy agreements and pursuing them would place them into severe financial hardship.  Where possible, the Council sought to work with businesses or individuals who were struggling to meet their financial liabilities before they became unmanageable.

The practicalities around selling the Council’s debt liabilities to a third parties had previously been discussed by the Committee.

It was resolved that the write offs, in respect of the bad debts stated in section 2.1 of the officer’s report, totalling the amount set out in the recommendation, be authorised.

The Committee considered a request to write off non-domestic rates arrears as irrecoverable due to the insolvency of the company concerned.

It was resolved that the write off for non-domestic rates, for the sum detailed in the recommendation of the officer’s report as irrecoverable, be approved.