Counting costs of external scrutiny

Slough: Council could pay £1m

The council may have to pay up to £1million to external commissioners to scrutinise its decisionmaking.

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (DHULC) previously proposed to transfer certain duties away from Slough council to external commissioners.

This includes scrutiny of financial management and oversight of revenue collection, the distribution of benefits and the appointment and dismissal of officers.

The commissioners will have the power to direct Slough council to make certain decisions, if it does not do so of its own accord.

The commissioners will be in place for three years and the cost will fall to the council.

In a cabinet meeting on Monday, councillors learned that the cost could stetch up to

£650,000 for the commissioners and another £350,000 for support, making £1million in total.

However, the report says that ‘no other options are available’ – the appointment of commissioners is a decision by the DHULC.

At the same meeting, the council outlined its current forecast financial position as of March 31 2022.

The report presented at cabinet on Monday said it is ‘highly likely’ the total forecast deficit, previously reported as £174m, will increase.

The General Fund balance – money set aside for emergencies or unexpected costs – is currently forecast at a deficit of £111m, while the Dedicated School Grant (DSG) deficit is forecast at £24.2m.

This increasing deficit is due to higher demand for out-of-borough SEN placements, post-16 services and places at special schools in Slough.

By September 30 this year, the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) – which records the costs of running council housing stock – was forecasting a net surplus £950,000 for 2021/22.

However, HRA is ringfenced, so underspends cannot be transferred to other services.

Also in the meeting, the cabinet looked into permitting large digital billboards on Slough’s highways – which it thinks will create ‘a significant income opportunity.’

Cllr Natasa Pantelic (Lab & Co-Op, Cippenham Meadows) raised concerns over several of the earmarked potential sites.

“I understand there’s income for the council (to be made), but I also think these (sites) pose some risk of distracting drivers on the highway,” she said.

Cllr Robert Anderson (Lab & Co-Op, Britwell and Northborough) added: “I’m more concerned about the aesthetics of giant signs. I’d be willing to put aside my personal preferences if it would be a significant income (generator) but not for the sake of a few quid.”