Finance and Performance Scrutiny Sub-Committee - Tuesday 23 September 2025, 6:00pm - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting

Finance and Performance Scrutiny Sub-Committee
Tuesday, 23rd September 2025 at 6:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 

Welcome to Folkestone and Hythe District Council's Webcast Player.

 

UPDATE - PLEASE NOTE, MEETINGS OF THE JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD AND FOLKESTONE AND HYTHE DISTRICT AND PARISH COUNCILS' JOINT COMMITTEE WILL BE STREAMED LIVE TO YOUTUBE AT: bit.ly/YouTubeMeetings. 


The webcast should start automatically for you, and you can jump to specific points of interest within the meeting by selecting the agenda point or the speaker that you are interested in, simply by clicking the tabs above this message. You can also view any presentations used in the meeting by clicking the presentations tab. We hope you find the webcast interesting and informative.

 

Please note, although officers can be heard when they are speaking at meetings, they will not be filmed.

 

At the conclusion of a meeting, the webcast can take time to 'archive'.  You will not be able to view the webcast until the archiving process is complete.  This is usually within 24 hours of the meeting.

Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  2. Mr Jake Hamilton
  3. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  4. Mr Jonathan Hicks
  5. Gavin Edwards
  6. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  7. Cllr Paul Thomas
  8. Mr Jonathan Hicks
  9. Mr Alan Mitchell
  10. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  11. Cllr John Wing
  12. Mr Alan Mitchell
  13. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  14. Cllr John Wing
  15. Gavin Edwards
  16. Cllr John Wing
  17. Mr Jonathan Hicks
  18. Cllr Alan Martin
  19. Mr Jonathan Hicks
  20. Cllr Alan Martin
  21. Mr Jonathan Hicks
  22. Cllr Alan Martin
  23. Gavin Edwards
  24. Cllr Alan Martin
  25. Mr Jonathan Hicks
  26. Mr Ewan Green
  27. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  28. Cllr Paul Thomas
  29. Mr Jonathan Hicks
  30. Cllr Paul Thomas
  31. Mr Ewan Green
  32. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  33. Cllr Paul Thomas
  34. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  35. Mr Ewan Green
  36. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  37. Cllr Alan Martin
  38. Gavin Edwards
  39. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  40. Jonathan Smith
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  2. Cllr Paul Thomas
  3. Jonathan Smith
  4. Cllr Paul Thomas
  5. Jonathan Smith
  6. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  7. Cllr Alan Martin
  8. Jonathan Smith
  9. Cllr Alan Martin
  10. Mr Alan Mitchell
  11. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  12. Cllr Paul Thomas
  13. Mr Alan Mitchell
  14. Cllr Paul Thomas
  15. Mr Alan Mitchell
  16. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  17. Cllr Alan Martin
  18. Jonathan Smith
  19. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  20. Cllr Alan Martin
  21. Jonathan Smith
  22. Cllr Alan Martin
  23. Jonathan Smith
  24. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  25. Cllr Paul Thomas
  26. Jonathan Smith
  27. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
Share this agenda point
  1. Jonathan Smith
  2. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  3. Cllr John Wing
  4. Jonathan Smith
  5. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  6. Cllr Alan Martin
  7. Jonathan Smith
  8. Jonathan Smith
  9. Jonathan Smith
  10. Jonathan Smith
  11. Cllr Alan Martin
  12. Jonathan Smith
  13. Cllr Alan Martin
  14. Jonathan Smith
  15. Cllr Alan Martin
  16. Jonathan Smith
  17. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  18. Cllr Paul Thomas
  19. Mr Alan Mitchell
  20. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  21. Cllr Paul Thomas
  22. Mr Alan Mitchell
  23. Mr Alan Mitchell
  24. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
Share this agenda point
  1. Jonathan Smith
  2. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  3. Cllr John Wing
  4. Jonathan Smith
  5. Cllr John Wing
  6. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
Share this agenda point
  1. Jonathan Smith
  2. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  3. Cllr Paul Thomas
  4. Jonathan Smith
  5. Mr Alan Mitchell
  6. Cllr Paul Thomas
  7. Mr Alan Mitchell
  8. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  9. Jonathan Smith
  10. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
Share this agenda point
  1. Jonathan Smith
  2. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
Share this agenda point
  1. Jonathan Smith
  2. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  3. Cllr Alan Martin
  4. Mr Alan Mitchell
  5. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  6. Cllr Alan Martin
  7. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  8. Mr Alan Mitchell
  9. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  10. Cllr Alan Martin
  11. Mr Alan Mitchell
  12. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  13. Cllr Paul Thomas
  14. Jonathan Smith
  15. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  16. Cllr Paul Thomas
  17. Jonathan Smith
  18. Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly
  19. Webcast Finished

Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:00:11
Good evening and welcome to the meeting of the Finance and Performance Crucine Subcommittee.
This meeting will be webcast live to the internet.
For those who do not wish to be recorded or filmed, you will need to leave the Chamber.
For members, officers and others speaking at the meeting, it is important that the microphones
are used so viewers on the webcast and others in the room may hear you.
Would anyone with a mobile phone please switch it to silent mode as they can be distracting?
I'd like to remind members that although we all have strong opinions on matters under consideration
It is important to treat members officers and public speakers with respect
So we'll start swiftly our first item apologies for absence. Do we have any apologies? Thank you chair
Mr Jake Hamilton - 0:00:52
We have two apologies from councillor Holgate and councillor Praetor
Thank you
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:00:58
Next, declaration of interest.
Are there any declarations of
interest amongst the committee members?
OK, thank you.
Next is item three first
quarter performance report.
This is going to be presented by Gavin
Edwards, senior performance officer
and Jonathan Hicks governance,
performance and risks managers.
Thank you.
Mr Jonathan Hicks - 0:01:23
Thank you chair and good evening members.
This report in your packs is the
report that shows performance against the new set of KPIs which were approved
by this committee on the 1st of July and cabinet on the 16th of July. These KPIs
which are presented in a new format are designed to capture a broader suite of
indicators that reflect the whole business. The most obvious change you'll
notice is that we've actually got two reports so in your pack you'll see a
report plus two appendices, corporate performance report and a housing performance report.
The corporate performance report presented at Appendix 1 provides a summary of performance
for the Finance, Strategy and Resources and Housing and Operations directorates minus
the Housing Landlord Service.
The housing performance report presented at Appendix 2 provides a summary of performance
just for the housing landlord service.
This is a bespoke report which includes indicators
that support the regulator of social housing's
new consumer standards.
These are listed explicitly in the report
and under the new regulatory regime
we need to ensure that this information
is being scrutinised at the highest level
and that we publish it on our website.
You'll see that we've adapted the templates,
give them a bit of a facelift.
They borrow the style somewhat of what you were used to before
but we've made a few minor changes.
We've elected to put more data into the template
to make them more informative whilst trying to keep the reporting
as concise and clear as possible.
Every page includes a key to explain the symbols
and we've added a comments column to help the reader
whether that's officers or members, understand what the data is telling us.
We've also summarised the areas that we've performed well and where we face challenges
in the first quarter and Gavin's going to take you through some of those.
Did you know?
Excellent, thank you Jonathan and good evening members.
Gavin Edwards - 0:03:38
So overall we've met target on 35 out of the 61 indicators across the whole organisation,
that equates to around 57%.
We're within 5 % of target and on track
to achieve year end target on 19 indicators,
which is 31%, and off target on seven indicators,
which is 11%.
Graph on page eight of your report pack
shows this summary across the directorates.
There, we've had some strong and consistent performance
in Q1.
We've had planning meeting all of the targets
for determined applications,
including 100 % on major planning applications within timescale.
Housing benefit, meeting all targets for processing benefit claims overall, average under 12 days
for new claims and under 4 days for change of circumstances.
Environmental protection, meeting targets for successful prosecutions 100 % and for air
quality monitoring sites 100 % there as well.
The lifeline, meeting targets for call answering, 98 % of calls within one minute.
And we've also retained our green flag status for all of our managed parks and open spaces.
We have seen also some improved performance for ones that have moved from off target to
achieving target in Q1.
So for information governance, meeting targets and improving on the previous year, mostly
97 % of FOIs on time and no reportable data breaches in the period.
Housing strategy, there's been an exceeding of annual target for council home new builds
and acquisitions. There's been 33 in this current financial year and 77 in the last
two financial years to date exceeding target. We have had some performance challenges during
the quarter on temporary accommodation, homeless prevention, rough sleeping, street cleanliness
and for business and households accessing grants from the rural England Prosperity Fund
and the UK Share Prosperity Fund with no movement to report on those at present for quarter
So on the housing performance, we have met target of 15 out of the 19 targeted housing
indicators, which is 79%, with four or 21 % being within 5 % or on track to meet target
at year end.
No indicators were off target at the end of Q1, and we provided data for all 10 required
tenant satisfaction measures, TSMs, and are on target for six out of eight of the targeted
TSMs.
graph on page nine of the report pack shows the data
provided for the TSM versus quarter one there as well.
We have also added commentary on page 10 of the report
in your pack where we've provided commentary
on those indicators that have not met target.
So that's just a quick summary of our performance
of quarter one and we're happy to take any questions.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:06:26
So it's now open for discussion.
If there are any questions,
right shoving the money there.
Councillor Thomas.
Yeah, thank you, Chair.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:06:35
Yeah, just in terms of the housing,
strategic housing and homelessness,
there are four that are at ready you've talked about.
So if you look at hot 18,
where you look at the performance issue
and compare that with last year,
Is that driving the changes in hot 8 and hot 9, in terms of, you know,
what are we doing with meeting our homeless duty,
and then how is that impacting people in temporary accommodation
and bed and breakfast, please? Thank you.
Mr Jonathan Hicks - 0:07:36
Q. Is the performance in hot 18 driving the issues we're seeing in hot 8 and hot 9?
Please.
They are connected.
I'd say that for prevention and relief,
actually if you look at that page,
you can see that we've had, right at the top,
the first one there is the number of approaches to council.
You can see that the quarter this year
compared to last year has gone down,
but if you look at the one below that, which is 11,
the proportion that are moving to prevent
and relief duty is higher.
There are more cases which are moving to prevention or relief.
That is definitely a factor in that.
What that measure is about
is about where we've secured alternative accommodation for people
or enabled them to remain in their current accommodation, which is prevention,
or the people who have moved from temporary accommodation
into private or social rented.
and that's for a period of more than six months.
So you can see that our performance in that
is slightly down.
But the overall position on temporary accommodation
is much wider than that.
It's more of a national issue.
And I think there are two sides, two aspects of that really.
Firstly, there's an increase in the number of households
in priority need, which require housing.
And of course when we house applicants off the waiting list,
it goes through a banding system
and there are sister corners of need,
but we're seeing national increase in people
in more priority need,
which is the demand is much higher than we're able to supply.
So partly we need to understand better
how we can deliver that.
One of the ways is through prevention and relief.
Another method is through working with
a network of temporary accommodation providers
and making use of the council's own stock.
They are the native.
But that's only one of the factors.
I hope that answers the question.
Sort of.
So the question is, what are we gonna be doing differently
in quarter two, three and four to alleviate that
or can we alleviate that?
But if we can't, then what do we need to do differently
in terms of how that's going to reflect
and impact our ability to meet these targets
through to the end of the year.
Please, thank you.
On that point about what we're going to be doing,
there is a report we're taking to cabinet next month
which will include options to provide more council -owned
temporary accommodation in the district.
That's one potential solution.
But we also have to look around the sort of
aspect of it as well in what provisions we can make.
And I know that there's a mention of that
in the Gen Fund monitoring report
that's coming later in this pack.
But I think most of it should be covered
in the cabinet report, which the housing team
will be working on.
If I may, so can I just as a follow up to that, if I may.
So what's going to, so how is that going to be,
how is the additional temporary accommodation
going to be funded and where will we see that in our current year and future years funding model.
Thank you chair, through you.
Mr Alan Mitchell - 0:11:29
As Jonathan has already mentioned there is actually a strategy that's coming forward in order to try and
address this. Part of that strategy is looking at how we can provide more accommodation, more temporary
accommodation units that are run by the council, therefore reducing our subsidy gap.
We see that as part of the monitoring.
That strategy that we're coming for is looking at what we can do this year
as well as what we can do into future years.
Okay, thank you. Any other questions?
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:11:58
Councillor Martin and then Councillor.
Thanks very much. My first question has just been answered actually.
Cllr John Wing - 0:12:04
This was going to be my question.
I was wondering, just sitting here thinking, we've got a situation in Hyde now,
some new houses being built, where the builder couldn't find no affordable housing
for his commitment. He's actually gone to the council and we're actually going to buy
the housing under the HRAs, going to borrow some money.
Is that the sort of thing you're thinking of, new houses being built,
and then the affordable accommodation with that is actually going to become council housing
rather than us actually building new housing?
Mr Alan Mitchell - 0:12:36
Within the HRA there is an existing strategy where they will be building a number of houses
each year over the next few years to try and create new opportunities for people to go
on HRA property.
The strategy that is coming forward in addition to that is how we can increase beyond what
is already in the HRA strategy and it is how we can accelerate it to get more properties
on our books but also then how we can then fund that.
So that's part of our strategy.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:13:06
My other question is on the next page which is page 11.
Cllr John Wing - 0:13:10
I must say I like the new set up where you've got information at the beginning
and in new forms. I think that's very useful. I like that.
though they're on ELE 01, they have the electrical
installation also we're slightly down on one because we couldn't
get into the block. Have we now managed to get into the block?
Thank you for your question there Councillor Wing. As far as
Gavin Edwards - 0:13:40
I'm aware, the position remains as reflected in the report that
we haven't as of the moment managed to get into that
property as of yet. Sometimes these properties are a slight
challenge to get into to do those necessary compliance
but the position as of August as it reflects them in the court has not changed.
Cllr John Wing - 0:13:58
So how do we get in there because obviously we're slightly failing on the report.
Mr Jonathan Hicks - 0:14:05
Just to clarify are you asking about the domestic one or the blocks?
The unhealthy blocks.
Oh right, that one has been completed.
Oh yeah, okay.
Sorry, yes, so one is the inspection report
for the housing blocks.
We are now 100 % of that as of end of August,
but as Gavin pointed out, for the domestic ones,
one is related to two of the tenancy issues
about getting into the property.
One is the tenants in prison,
and the other one is pending eviction.
So the contractor can't get into that.
What's important about these measures, though,
is that they can change from day to day, week to week.
So this represents a snapshot in time
from the end of the period.
So the expectation is that we wouldn't be 100 % all the time,
and the regulator accepts that.
But the team monitor this on a weekly basis.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
So first of all, I really like the report,
Cllr Alan Martin - 0:15:10
and we've spoken about the report loads over the last 12 -18 months
but I really like how it's presented now
and resolved all the little challenges we've had with some of those KPIs
where we're not quite sure what success looks like
so I love all of the commentary with fewer is better and so on
so that's absolutely fantastic.
The only slight gripe I still have is on my pet project of fly tipping
where I know I've been unsuccessful in convincing people
that we should broaden the KPIs out.
But I still feel as a resident that the KPIs
for fly tipping show us to be doing a good job
in that we show positive news on enforcement
and that stuff is being quickly cleared up.
Whereas what people observe is fly tipping
all over the place, unfortunately often
sufficiently on the side of the road
that it's on private land.
I know we sort of missed the boat this year for KPIs,
but I wonder whether in the commentary we could at least report on
number of reported fly tipping.
So under the banner of fewer is better.
I think if we're doing our enforcement correctly,
we should be seeing the number of fly tips go down
and I'd like us to at least get that on the radar
and we can have a chat about that if that's possible.
I've got a couple of other questions, but I'll maybe let you respond to that first.
Thank you. Just on that point, if we can,
Mr Jonathan Hicks - 0:16:49
and we've noticed that we've added more data into the reports
where we've got figures that we can support some of the percentages and averages,
that's a very good idea, I think,
in the numbers that we've reported, so you can actually see volumes.
So we can ask that and obviously it's not.
It's not a KPI, but if we can support
that KPI we can look at adding that in.
So we'll take that back to officers.
And then if I may have got three
sort of quite quick questions so.
Cllr Alan Martin - 0:17:24
So one so on rough sleep is again
another one we've spoken about,
and I think it's noteworthy that that's
quite an improvement on last year,
so it's not where we want it to be.
be but I think it was 17 last year so that's come down significantly.
There's no mean feat and note the action around the effort to try and get people to go back
to wherever they lived previously.
Again as a bit of a side comment for context, a point I've often raised is I'm aware of
at least one rough sleeper who the council could not have done a better job at trying
to resolve the problem and they put them into housing and so on and they keep
they keep coming back because they prefer it there and and currently I'm sure that
person counts as a rough sleeper which is a like a which they are but it's a
black mark against the council and I think the council couldn't have done
anything more so again I don't think we should be playing around with the numbers too
but it would be interesting to know maybe how many new rough sleepers are there,
so you've got a bit of a sense, because again the council can't do anything about someone new turning up,
but also where have we tried to intervene and have we done everything we can?
I don't know how you best convey that, but just to add a bit of colour to the KPI,
which in this day and age is always likely to look...
The number's always going to be higher than we would want it to be,
but that doesn't mean to say the council's not doing a good job.
Thank you, Councillor. I agree with that. I think that's a very good point.
Mr Jonathan Hicks - 0:19:12
Forgive me because I think you've brought that up at previous committee meeting.
I think what we're talking about here is the number of unique cases,
or at least new cases within that month.
So we get the figures for rough sleeping from an external source.
So we would perhaps need to look at, discuss with officers
how we could best provide that, but it'd be useful for us as well as for you
to look at from period to period which cases are new.
And maybe we can get a better understanding
of what the intervention measures or advice that is given.
So we'll look to bringing that back and I think what we'll try to do is, if we can,
with the cases that we've got, and report back on that if we can.
Right.
If I may, so then my kind of quick one.
Cllr Alan Martin - 0:20:08
So on the clean and clear streets one, I was just curious, the comment, if I read it correctly,
I think we're justifying the fact that we're not doing as well in the KPIs as we should do
because the waste team concentrated on high footfall areas.
First of all, the question is, is that the team checking on whether the streets are clean,
focused only on the high footfall areas?
Or is it just that the team that was meant to be clearing up the litter
only focused on the high footfall areas?
If it's the former, I'm not sure how that explains why they're not that well cleaned,
because presumably you would have a plan for the high footfall areas to be...
Well, more effort to go into cleaning them than the others,
so it didn't seem like an appropriate explanation to me.
Thank you for your questions on that on that one particular
Gavin Edwards - 0:21:15
Council mine. Obviously it does mention is that is the team
themselves. There is an inspections team. There are
people who will go out and look at streets. There have been some
absences in that team over the period, which was what was
reflected there in the comments. And as it says, it has to have
prioritised those high footfall areas rather than the wider
sample of streets that they will that they will inspect overall.
They will select inspect streets at random.
Obviously there are the teams that go out and clean those
streets as well, but that's based on the reflections of the
samples that they've looked at, and that's what the reflection
is based on there with the 204 streets clear out of the 232
they've inspected within those high footfall areas.
But are we are we saying that the results aren't as good
Cllr Alan Martin - 0:22:06
because we had to focus on those high footfall areas.
I guess my point is I would expect there to be a standard
at which we expect the streets to be
and you would naturally put more effort into the high footfall areas.
So in theory it shouldn't be a reason for why the figure's lower.
I completely understand that.
Mr Jonathan Hicks - 0:22:28
I get the point about whether or not this is staff shortages
in terms of people who are clearing the streets or inspecting them.
You're absolutely right, it reads as if...
What this KPI should be measuring
is the percentage of streets that we've inspected
that are clean and clear of litter.
We have had some shortages in the team,
but I can take that back to officers and find out whether or not
those shortages are related to those who are clearing the streets.
Unless... Want to say something to that?
Mr Ewan Green - 0:23:05
Thank you. I think just to add, Councillor Martin, thank you for the question and rereading it, I do see the point you're making.
Just to reassure members though, there is a very detailed regime and scope of work for street cleansing which focuses on high priority areas through to lower areas.
So this indicator does not reflect that some streets are not being cleaned to the right standard at all.
Sure.
Thank you.
Councillor Thomas.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:23:33
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:23:34
I do want my comments to seem negative.
So I wanted to give some balance to that really.
So under House 5, we've actually got the number of properties that have been in public sector.
Public sector properties have been improved through intervention,
which I think we're all aware is quite topical for us.
and better performance than last year, which is great news.
What I don't understand is the year -end target is 300.
This quarter it's 92, but it's still only amber.
So why would that be amber and not green?
Thank you.
I think what we've tried to do with the report here
Mr Jonathan Hicks - 0:24:19
is where the target has actually been met, it'll be green.
Of course, no one likes red on their reports.
Members or officers, nobody likes the reds.
What we've tried to do here is that if we have performed proportionately well for this
part of the year, we'll put it as an ambitic to show that it's on track to meet any target.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:24:48
One more question, if I may, and it relates to WSO3, which is the street cleaning one
which we just identified, and EHO1.
In the first of those, it talks about staff absences being a factor affecting the number
of inspections that were carried out, and in EHO1, it talks about the one staff member
down.
Again, is there something in WSO3 and EHO1 that might need to be reviewed by the Personnel
Committee in terms of performance?
Is that something that might be construed from those two indicators?
Thank you.
Mr Ewan Green - 0:25:34
Thank you Councillor Thomas.
Interesting question.
I think this is one more at a service level and might be reflected in the budget setting process.
For example, we do have challenges in terms of resourcing and recruiting, particularly on the environmental health side
has been a challenge for us, but throughout this year we have made additional resources available
and I'm absolutely certain as part of the conversation on budget setting there will be further conversations about
and supporting the regulatory side of the business further.
So it's not really necessarily an issue for personnel committee,
I suggest.
It's more one that you're rightfully
raising for members in terms of scrutiny and performance,
and something that certainly CLT were very much aware of,
and taking proactive action where we can
to provide additional resources.
Yes.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:26:30
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:26:30
Thank you for that response.
for that again, thank you.
So the other question that that sort of begs is,
so does that have an impact on agency temporary staff
that might be covering some of those positions
in the short term, and does that have a budget implication
where you're having to cover for either absences
or people who actually aren't in post?
Thank you.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:27:00
Mr Ewan Green - 0:27:03
I'm not aware of the specifics of these points in relation to the performance report but
certainly we do use agency staff from time to time where we have to.
That's generally as an emergency cover pending recruitment or pending a restructure or other
decisions.
Absolutely aware that agency costs are higher than staff costs but I think what we've done
very well in the last two or three years has reduced the reliance on agency staff and both
our staff and our permanent staff complement as it were.
It took me through the taking stock process that we went through over the last couple
of years and the restriction in realigning resources to our priorities.
So I take the point on board, certainly I would just reiterate though that using agency
and temporary basis is a stop gap and only that.
Thank you.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:27:58
Councillor Martin, did you have your...
One last one, thank you, Chair.
Cllr Alan Martin - 0:28:03
So, on the food premises one,
last year it was 100%, it's now gone down to 91%,
with 340, which seems like quite a big number to me,
349 premises below broadly compliant.
I just wondered if we had a view as to what's happened there.
So if we got stricter in our assessment
or are there a lot of new properties out there serving food
or it feels like something's happened
from one year to the next.
And so if you could answer that if you know,
and maybe attaching onto it.
I'm just curious, what's the sort of action
that's then taken and presumably there's an educational piece
to it to prevent that from, or to help them improve
and so forth?
Thank you for your comments on that, again,
Councillor Martin.
Gavin Edwards - 0:29:04
With regards obviously to premises inspections,
obviously it's done with statutory standards,
with the Food Standards Agency there.
In terms of the specifics of that,
I would probably need to speak to the Environmental Health
team on that and obviously provide a response back
the questions that you're raising there to give that a
specific so I will take that back and provide a written
response to committee on that. Thank you.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:29:26
OK, I cover we have completed our questions on that.
Anything for me? OK, right, so I need a proposal and a seconder
for recommendations. One to receive and note report C2535 to
note the corporate performance and report Q1 at a pending
appendix one and to note the housing performance report Q1 at appendix two.
Thank you.
So Councillor Martin will be the proposer and the seconder, Councillor Thomas.
Okay, we'll move on.
Okay, so item four, general fund revenue budget and monitoring report, which will be prevent...
Go ahead.
Oh, yes.
I'm jumping ahead because we spent such a long time on that.
I was hoping to just move on.
So we just need a show of hands, please.
Thank you. OK, so I will not read point four again, so Jonathan
Smith, Chief Officer for Financial Services, is going to
introduce that item.
Jonathan Smith - 0:30:27
Thank you, chair, so the paper for you is the quarter one budget
monitoring which covers the period of 1st of April 2025 to
the 30th of June 2025. It summarises the financial
monitoring information for the general fund revenue account
and is designed to provide cabinet with an overview of the budget performance.
At the end of Quarter 1, the financial position showed a projected year -end unfavourable position of £357 ,000
from a net revenue budget of £22 .4 million.
The reasons, or the variances, are set out, the favourable variances are set out in section 2 of the report
with the unfavourable variances set out at section 3 along with any other items of note from the members of tension

4 General Fund Revenue Budget Monitoring - 1st quarter (Q1) 2025/26

It's at the latter part of section 3.
The balances in the usable reserves
straight in table one at paragraph 4 .1,
and we project there will be a 2 .2
million pound consumption of earmarked
reserves as per budget at year end,
and appendix one attached to the report
provides summaries of the movements
across the different service areas,
with appendix two covering more of the
detail and then have to take any
questions that you might have.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:31:34
Thank you very much. Any questions?
Yes, Councillor Thomas.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:31:41
Just on item 3 .1, Council tax reduction scheme, there's a 598k unfavourable variation.
It says due to budget income for discontinued scheme.
Could you give us a bit more information on that, please?
Jonathan Smith - 0:32:00
Yes, this relates to some grant funding which effectively is no longer being received from
the Kent County Council, as I understand it.
And so it's basically that income, obviously,
is no longer a source of income,
so obviously it's creating the variance there.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:32:18
So that would account for the zero out -turn
at the end of the year in the associated summary page?
Jonathan Smith - 0:32:25
Yes, but for a particular income line, yes, it would do.
Any other questions?
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:32:31
Councillor Martin.
Thank you chair.
Cllr Alan Martin - 0:32:38
But first one so it relates to the 1 .4 million.
Has been realised from the crystallisation
of the business rates poor.
Just wondering if you could
just elaborate on that.
I guess I'm curious what what enabled us
to trigger that crystallisation this year?
Because I see it involves several.
Several years.
Thank you, Councillor Martin.
Jonathan Smith - 0:33:07
The business rates pool, so obviously we are a member of the Kent business rates pool,
and that's obviously a pool with a number of other Kent districts where we pool our
business rates to sort of, it helps to alleviate any risks associated with movements in the
collection fund as part of the business rates, because obviously there's a volatility in
business rates income, and so we share and pool those risks.
Now, part of the reason of being within a pool is it can generate some positive benefits.
One of those is being because you're in a pool, there's a slight discount on the amount
of levy that you do end up paying, because you basically have one levy rate versus individually
each paying the levy to government.
So that's one of the benefits.
Now what's happened is that over the last number of years, you'll probably be aware
that the local government accounts have generally been delayed,
there's been issues with the audits and the like.
This also affects obviously the Kent pool,
because where councils can't, for example, close out their accounts
and can't have a final position on any particular financial year
for their business rates account,
this obviously affects whether the pool can then crystallise
or confirm the numbers that have been out turned
for the previous financial year.
So obviously as we're catching up on the audited accounts
and everything started to get back into the correct schedule,
what's happened is now is that there's more assurance about the,
or there is assurance now about the previous year's associated business rates,
numbers, figures and other local authorities accounts,
and so at this point we've been able to crystallise the pool benefit
and actually make sure that is actually paid.
Yeah, thank you for that.
Cllr Alan Martin - 0:34:52
And then we sort of go on with that 1 .4 million and there's four priority areas have been
targeted including the leisure strategy and so on.
I was just curious how those four priority areas were chosen and whether we've got a
timeline for fleshing those out.
So for you, Jess, thank you, Councillor Martin.
Mr Alan Mitchell - 0:35:20
So basically when I looked at the priority areas in the corporate plan and I looked also at the areas that I knew were going to have pressures going forward,
I agreed with cabinet, this was put for the cabinet earlier in the year, that these were the four areas I would look at utilising that £1 .4 million across.
So in terms of coming back, that will come back quite shortly in terms of what we've
identified in terms of for example temporary accommodation, what the in -year pressure is
as well as how the strategy that I spoke about earlier will play into future years to understand
how I can utilise that 1 .4 million for that as well as LGR as well as the literature strategy
going forward.
Thank you.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:36:06
Councillor Thomas.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:36:09
I just wanted to examine some of the data.
When I read the Appendix A and Appendix B, there's some discrepancies between the
budget, the actual Q1 position and the variance as identified in these reports.
So, for example, if you look at Appendix B,
and you look at TELP Governance and Finance,
it shows on there, budget 3585.
It shows an actual 1499.
It shows Q1 projected out to 5071
with this variance of 1486.
But if you look at Appendix A,
that comes up with different figures.
Appendix A for the same item shows 4258K as a budget, 1191 as an actual, 5726 as a projected
out term and a variance of 1468.
And there are a couple, in fact there are a number through the different reports where
there's a difference in the data between what's in Appendix B and what's in Appendix A. I
on that will be please. Thank you.
Mr Alan Mitchell - 0:37:30
Yeah, no, I actually raised this exact question myself when I first read this
report. It's the reason being is that the only figures that are in here is where
the variance is above 20 ,000. So if you've got budget lines where there isn't
a variance or it's below 20 ,000, they're not included in these totals. But what
we can do going forward is have an other line and that will then allow the budgets
to reconcile back to the main report.
So that's the reason, because it's only budget lines
where the variance is above 20 ,000.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:38:04
If I may, so that's fine.
I understand you can have a little bit of a difference between the two,
but if you look at people and customer services, for example,
and you do the comparison between what's in Appendix B
against what's in Appendix A,
you're talking of there's millions of pounds
of the difference between the figures.
So people in customer services in Appendix B says 3496 budget, 782 actual and a Q1 projected
out to a 3646 given a variance of 150.
In Appendix A the budget says 6432 with an actual of 2728, a projected out to 6590, so
millions of pounds of difference.
But again the variance is 158.
but I'm not quite sure why there's such a big difference
between those two, for example.
I can understand what you just in reply to my first question,
I can understand that about you have to have somewhere
where you have that cut off.
But they're big numbers, big differences between those numbers as well.
Mr Alan Mitchell - 0:39:10
I mean, that is going to be the reason for it.
So it may be that they have a big budget line,
but actually we're not suggesting there's going to be a big variance.
But what I'm quite happy to do is to go away and do a complete list that then reconciles
what Appendix B says to what Appendix A is to give that assurance.
Thank you.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:39:30
Councillor Martin.
Thank you.
Cllr Alan Martin - 0:39:37
So just relating to the positive variance of 742 ,000 in relation to the MRP, I just
I just wondered, Jonathan, if you could give us a bit more colour around that.
I think actually in the training session we had before,
you gave me a clue as to what was going on there.
But if you could just speak to that a little bit.
Go ahead.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Martin.
Jonathan Smith - 0:40:04
Yes, so the MRP variance, or the positive variance there,
is that we conducted as part of the end of the year of 2024 -25.
when we were closing 24 -25, i .e. the previous financial year,
we conducted a review of our minimum revenue provision MRP.
We had external advisors advise on the policy,
as well as just looking at our application of the policy.
So no change was suggested to the minimum revenue provision
policy itself.
They were comfortable with the policy we have,
but they suggested some tweaks to our application
of that policy to ensure that we are fully realising any benefits, as it were, in terms
of how we apply the policy that is available to us. And so that has resulted in a movement
as against what the budget had been previously set before we'd obviously had this external
review performed. So obviously the budget was set in February, but we only performed
this review at the end of June, I think it was. So that's why there's a discrepancy.
So we're now obviously showing up a positive variance in the budget, a budgeted figure,
which is a movement, positive movement.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:41:20
Yes, continue, Councillor Martin.
Thank you.
So you hadn't answered that in the training session, but thank you.
Cllr Alan Martin - 0:41:25
And then I just had two quick ones really.
So some of the positive variances relate to vacancies.
and we've seen that quite a few.
There's always vacancies on there,
and I guess they're always shows positive items.
I just curious, are we seeing vacancies
in any worse this year to previous years?
And for instance, is that in any way linked
to sort of LGR on the horizon or something like that?
Thank you, Councillor Martin.
I mean, it could be, I don't have a specific answer
Jonathan Smith - 0:42:04
for that, I can probably try.
I can ask if I can certainly ask our
human resources Department if they
have any feedback as to you know if
we are as a sort of different position.
We do have a vacancy target that
we build into the budget,
obviously to account for the fact
that there will naturally be a level
of vacancy as you as you suggest
throughout the year,
but I can certainly seek seek to
find out if there's a particular
concern or anything like that,
but nothing has been raised as such
to me and I'm aware of so but I will.
I will ask the question and report back.
Thank you.
Do you have another question?
Yes I do.
Thank you.
Just one quick one.
Cllr Alan Martin - 0:42:42
It was just on, so one of the other positives is around revenue coming from an increased
number of PCNs relating to parking.
Again I was just interested in a bit more colour around that.
So are we going out there seeking to enforce more?
Are we looking to generate more revenue?
Is it just the fact that we've put more parking restrictions out there and we're catching
people out?
Just curious where that revenue's come from.
Thank you, Councillor Martin.
Jonathan Smith - 0:43:16
Again, I'll probably have to take that back to the team, the enforcement team, just to
understand a bit more.
But I assume it's because of the increased number of PCNs being issued.
but I will provide a bit more colour from the team directly.
Councillor Thomas.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:43:35
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:43:36
If I could just add a point of clarification really.
What are unallocated net employee costs?
Please.
Thank you, Councillor Thomas.
Jonathan Smith - 0:43:50
That question relates to...
In the budget we have a line of see as you can see the unallocated net employee costs.
This is to do with a couple of things it could be to do with some of the vacancy targets
will sit within this line and an element towards say pay award and things like that.
It's costs that can't be attributed specifically to the net employee costs but do relate to
a later effective employee cost but they can't be allocated in the business services.
though this is the vacancy target we were talking about in
terms of having a vacancy number of number of staff. We don't
allocate those within the actual services and cells in the lines
above. We separate it out as a separate line and that's why
you see it as a separate unallocated.
OK, any other questions?
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:44:44
OK, so I need a proposer and a seconder for that to receive a note report C2537.
Thank you, Councillor Wing to propose second.
Thank you, Councillor Martin and a show of hands.
Thank you.
We'll move on.

5 Draft General Fund Capital Programme Budget Monitoring 2025/26 - 1st Quarter (Q1) 2025/26

Item 5, Q1, Draughts General Fund Capital Programme Budget Monitoring Report.
and that will be presented by Daniela
Loxton, Principal Accountant,
Capital and Treasury and Jonathan Smith again.
Thank you, Chair.
Jonathan Smith - 0:45:24
And so this report obviously presents
to you the quarter one budget monitoring,
which covers the period 1st April 2025
again to the 30th of June 2025 and it
summarised the performance financial
monetary performance for the General
Fund Capital Programme and is to provide.
It will be to provide capital
an overview of the budget performance
at the end of quarter one.
The financial position shows a
projected year end unfavourable
position of 326 ,000 from the net
revenue at the net capital budget of 31 .4
million and the variances are summarised
at paragraph 3 .2 of the report,
including any new projects that have
been inserted into the programme and at
paragraph 2 .3 and 2 .2 and 2 .3 report
highlights some additions to the
capital programme and which was for the
factored into the recommendations and at Paragraphs 2 .10 to 2 .12 recommends acceptance of grant
funding available from the Environment Agency and others, which again also feature in the
recommendation. And Appendix 1 summarises the overall performance against the capital
programme and has the detail for the individual projects. I'm happy to take any questions.
Councillor Wing.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:46:38
Thank you, Chair. It's really for clarification.
Cllr John Wing - 0:46:43
On page 53 2 .9 talking about the Environment Agency giving them money, it says it's from
Focusing Harbour to Fisherman's Beach. I thought the actual bit between really building
new flats aren't actually within this scheme. I thought it started in the next very long
and they maybe just type in, I thought that was a separate area, you know where they're building new flats right by the harbour,
that bit of beach here is almost like a separate contract, when channel come in to do it, they don't touch that bit of beach.
I think it's because when the scheme was designed many years ago it was a slumber of concrete basically,
so it didn't need doing, because since they removed all the concrete, put the shingle down.
I'm just wondering if that actually now includes that bit from Fokston Harbour,
or whether that's a separate thing, or... I don't really know.
Thank you, Councillor Wing. I will take that question back
Jonathan Smith - 0:47:41
and I can report back to you on that. I don't have the details specifically myself,
but I can certainly speak to our asset team and find out that information.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:47:53
Any other questions? Councillor Martin.
Thank you.
Cllr Alan Martin - 0:47:59
It was nice to see some quite big new projects coming in
and even better to see that they're being funded by someone else,
which is great.
I had more of a point of clarification really on page 61.
The item on Coast Drive seafront development,
I couldn't quite work out fully what was going on.
So I think we've got the latest projection shows an increased cost and then we have some
commentary that talk about an additional budget and this $175 ,000 coming over from last year
but I couldn't quite make sense of quite what was going on and what I should read from it
I wonder if you could just explain what's going on there.
Thank you, Councillor Martin.
I'm just trying to locate that in the report.
Is it page six?
Jonathan Smith - 0:48:57
Jonathan Smith - 0:49:13
Which one, then?
I think it's probably...
Jonathan Smith - 0:49:22
Question 1, is chat upon when you turned back the programme?
Jonathan Smith - 0:49:46
Yes, I found that one. Thank you, Councillor Martin. Sorry, just to reiterate the question
and then about that, sort of located it now, thank you.
If you could just re -edit the question.
I was just trying to make sense of it.
Cllr Alan Martin - 0:49:59
So I think we're showing an increased cost of $175.
We're also showing some budget being carried over
from last year.
And then there's an explanation around the additional budget.
But I just felt I was missing something in terms
of quite what was going on.
So if you could maybe just explain the items for me.
Yes, thank you.
I think the overall budget for the scheme that
Jonathan Smith - 0:50:21
had been built into the CAPA programme,
the approved budget was one million pounds.
There has been a carry forward of some additional budget
of 175 ,000 funded by the UKSPF from 24, 25 effectively.
And obviously, there's a couple of things
that are listed there.
The funding in total, so the 700k
of the original budget, which is shown
that sort of budget line is comprised of the 300k Magnox grant, the 300k community infrastructure
levy, the CIL and the 100k UKSPF.
So there's that element of the original budget.
Well that's the original budget.
I forget if I'm wrong.
But it was a total budget of 1 million and then we've had an additional 175 that's been
carried forward.
I hope that clarifies, if there are any gaps to that.
Cllr Alan Martin - 0:51:24
So the increase is covered by the carry -forward from the previous year?
Is that right?
I think there was an original capital budget some time ago,
Jonathan Smith - 0:51:37
and I think that was a smaller budget,
there's obviously been an additional 700k,
which is an explained with the
those three following items,
but there's also now an additional
element which come from UK SPF,
which is increased the total budget
to the 1175 budget that you see.
In the second column,
which is the latest projection for 2526.
So effectively the total budget
now being 1175 for that scheme.
Cllr Alan Martin - 0:52:14
Don't those numbers add up to a bigger number?
So you've got the 700 budget and then you've got the 300 Magnops grant,
300 from SIL, 100 from UKSPF, and then the budget carried over.
Yes, so in terms of, I think as I said, I think in historic there was a 300k budget,
Jonathan Smith - 0:52:37
it was an additional budget 700k, which then brings it up to the 1 million.
The 700k was funded by the 300 Magnox grant, the 300 SIL and the 100k and then you had
an additional 175 on top and that's then the total 1175.
So I probably didn't explain that particularly well earlier.
Councillor Thomas.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:53:00
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:53:02
Just a point of clarification, please.
In the cabinet paper 3 .2, there are two tables in there.
Significant variances in quarter 125 -26, which shows 674k.
and then new projects, increased budgets, which is £1 million,
with a variance of £3 .26.
Could I ask how that £3 .26 is to be funded?
How is that going to be managed, basically? Thank you.
Mr Alan Mitchell - 0:53:45
If I may amount, that's just a variance to budget.
So all these capital schemes are actually funded so in the top part being the 674 that's
obviously the variance to the budget which is an underspend in terms of where the budget
profile is to where the actuals are today or the forecast are today then you've got
the need programme which is a million pounds which is obviously detailed proofed in the
report and that gives a total in terms of the variance in terms of reporting for quarter
So it's all fully funded, there's no additional funding, no funding gaps, it's just a variance
in terms of where the programme was to where it is now.
Thank you.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:54:27
Councillor Thomas, one more question.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 0:54:30
Thank you and just one more item.
Just in terms of Appendix 2, line item 34 is leisure centre development.
We've got a budget there of £26 million,
which is showing some spend this year,
and a small amount next year as well,
with the majority in the following two years.
My question is, where will we see what that is being spent on
this year and next year?
Where will that be visible to us? Thank you.
Mr Alan Mitchell - 0:55:14
Could you just point out what page on the report is, just so I can have a quick look. Sorry.
Mr Alan Mitchell - 0:55:40
Thank you so I think the question Council Thomas so we're currently going
through and developing the leisure strategy as it stands at the moment so
looking at a number of different aspects we're looking for the leisure need across
the district so in terms of where we plan to spend that budget that 26
million that will be wrapped up as part of the leisure strategy and then we'll be
able to identify where we are actually spending I think that 26 million was put in there
being a marker to say there is a desire to perhaps put in a new venture centre but that
will be more informed as we go through the venture strategy.
Any other questions?
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:56:20
OK we'll move to propose in second a recommendation to receive a note with Bill C2534.
Proposer Council Thomas and seconder
Councillor Martin and a share of hands.

6 HRA Budget Monitoring Q1 2025/26

Thank you move on to item 6 Q1 housing
revenue account budget monitoring report.
Again this will be given by Jonathan Smith.
Thank you Sir.
Jonathan Smith - 0:56:50
So this next report presents the
housing revenue accounts quarter one,
which is the budget monitoring position.
So again for the 1st of April 2025,
the 30th of June 2025,
and it summarises the financial monitoring information for the HRA revenue and capital
programme which is a difference to the previous reports we've had. So it's a combination report
covering both elements for the HRA revenue and capital and will be to provide cabinet
with an overview of budget performance. At the end of quarter one the financial position
shows a projected year -end unfavourable variance of 195 ,000 on the revenue budget and the reasons
behind this set out paragraph 2 .2 of the report.
No variance is currently projected on the capital programme, but this is more centred
around the fact that this is obviously brought quite early in the year and there aren't any
indicators yet which warrant a revised projection based on the capital items on the capital
programme.
And I'm happy to take any questions that you may have.
Thank you.
Any questions?
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:57:52
Councillor Wing.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr John Wing - 0:57:58
On page 68, 2 .3, when it talks about the decrease,
it mentions about 185k due to overestimate
during the budget -setting process.
Yes, thank you, Councillor Wing, good question.
Jonathan Smith - 0:58:15
When we were setting the budget for 25 -26,
it was basically an overestimation in terms of the total figures
for the total income line on the HRA.
It was just effectively a calculation,
small calculation error that we made
in terms of the projection.
All the rents and everything else was set correctly.
As outlined in the report,
it was simply a case of the total,
instead of the roughly £20 million budget,
it was overestimated by that 185k.
It relates to a technical thing that happens every seven years with regards to the number
of weeks per year, so it was quite a technical thing.
It happens once every seven years, we have to adjust the number of weeks that we are
charging them for and it is just an error made on that.
Cllr John Wing - 0:59:15
Did you want to make a point?
OK, any questions?
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 0:59:18
Any other questions?
OK, right, so I need a proposal and
a seconder for recommendation to receive
a note report C2538 Council Wing Proposer,
seconder, Councillor Thomas,
share of hands please.
Thank you so we move on to item 7

7 Treasury Management Annual Report 2024-25

Treasury Management Annual Report 24 to
25 and this will be introduced by
Daniela Bloxton and Jonathan Smith.
Jonathan Smith - 0:59:48
Thank you chair.
I will stop talking at some point.
So this report reviews the Council's
Treasury management activities for 24 -25,
including the actual Treasury
management indicators.
So it's designed to meet the requirements
of the CIPRA code as well as bring this
report on Treasury management,
the CIPRA Prudential Code for Capital
Finance and Local Authorities.
The council is required to comply with both these codes
in bringing this report and this report seeks to meet the requirements.
Section 2 .1 of the report provides some economic commentary
with section 2 .2 covering specifically the financial markets.
The council's balance sheet position as at the 31st of March 2025
set out at section 3 of the report and section 4 summarises the borrowing position
and borrowing activity of the councils
for the period 2425.
Returns and investments are laid out
in table four at paragraph 5 .3 and
shows the council achieved a 5 .03 %
return net of fees for the year 2425.
And so return investments and section
six of the report provides a financial
summary of the council's interest position,
both interest payable and interest receivable,
and Appendix one shows borrowing
held during the year with Appendix 2 outlining investments held at the 31st of March 2025
as for the snapshot. We also report in compliance with the Treasury indicators at Appendix 3
to the report and I'm happy to take any questions you might have.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 1:01:29
Thank you again. Any questions? Councillor Thomas.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:01:36
Just a point of clarification.
In the report in section 3 .2, which says about the increase to under £56 .8 million due to
capital expenditure, it identifies Otterpool Garden Town Development 7 .9 million and HRA
projects of £3 million, that's £10 .9 million.
But in the summary balance sheet it only shows a movement of £8 .2 million which doesn't
seem to add up.
What am I missing?
Am I looking at the wrong items for that?
Thank you.
Thank you, Dr Thomas.
I'm just looking at it myself quickly.
Jonathan Smith - 1:02:19
So if I may through you.
Mr Alan Mitchell - 1:02:22
So you've got the movement there.
so obviously the detail there but the actual CFR for the year to March 25 is 156 .8 million.
I'm just reading it incorrectly.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:02:37
Mr Alan Mitchell - 1:02:41
Yeah perhaps we can come up revise the the word in there to be a little more clear but essentially
if you look the starting position was 148 .6 it's increased by the you know
whatever that is you know the 10 .9 and and that's sorry the 8 .2 sorry and that's
the increase to the 156 .8
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 1:03:10
any other questions
Do you have any points you wanted to raise?
Go ahead.
Jonathan Smith - 1:03:28
I'll be happy to expand slightly further on that just whilst I have a look at the numbers.
Sorry, thank you Councillor Thomas for your patience.
Of course in terms of the numbers there will be movements.
The CFR contains the total borrowing requirements,
but obviously there will be movements in and out,
so they don't always necessarily potentially tie up the numbers together.
So we have had additional spend,
but we may not have had to necessarily borrow,
we've used internal borrowing,
which I discussed earlier in the training and things like that,
so it doesn't necessarily always impact on the CFR,
the capital financing requirements,
i .e. the borrowing requirements for the Council.
So there's probably a slight, they won't necessarily tie together in a linear way.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 1:04:15
Okay, thank you.
Did you want to make a point there or?
Okay, excellent.
Any other questions?
Okay, so we need a proposal and a seconder to receive a note report C2541.
Martin Proposer, Councillor Wing,
seconder and a vote with a share of hands.
Thank you very much.

8 Treasury Management Monitoring 2025/26 - Q1

So item 8 Q1 Treasury Management Budget Monitoring Report.
Is it Jonathan Smith again?
Go ahead.
Thank you, Chair.
Jonathan Smith - 1:04:47
So this report presents the Treasury Management Quarter 1 report.
So different to the previous report, the Treasury Management Quarter 1 report summarises the position for Quarter 1 of 25 -26.
obviously with the previous report being full year performance of 24 -25.
A further economic background again is set out in this report section 2 of this report
including commentary on the consumer prices index CPI and a number of the tables that
you would have seen in the previous report are also repeated here but with now the quarterly
performance for 25 -26 included as opposed to obviously the full year performance as
in the previous report and provides an updated position.
I'll leave it there.
I'm happy to take any questions that you might have.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 1:05:33
Okay, any questions from councillors?
No?
I'm happy to propose.
Happy to move on.
Okay then, so to receive a note report C2539,
We already have a proposal, Councillor Thomas, and a seconder, please, Councillor Wing, and
vote to show hands.
Thank you.
Okay, Item 9, Draught Budget Strategy 26 -27.

9 Draft Budget Strategy 2026/27

And is it still Jonathan Smith?
Okay, then go on.
Thank you, Chair.
Jonathan Smith - 1:06:10
So the final report on the agenda, this report provides the budget strategy and sets out
the guidelines for preparing the 26 -27 budget.
In terms of financial planning,
the budget strategy takes account
of the current and future financial
and economic conditions.
Is it the first report of the Council's
budget setting process for 2026 -27
and sets out the financial pressures
that the Council is facing and
suggests an appropriate strategy?
As additional information comes to
light from central government,
e .g. through the autumn budget,
which is expected in late November,
the budget approach may need to be revised
accordingly and later reports in the
process will set out the details.
It makes a number of recommendations in this report,
including agreeing the draught timetable for budget setting
and the proposed arrangements for public consultation.
Section 2 of the report sets out the known factors
that will impact on the budget setting for 26, 27,
and in some places, provides a quantum
where it's been possible to calculate this.
Section 6 provides a high -level approach to reduce the gap.
And I think the auto numbering has gone slightly wrong
in section 7, so apologies that we'll get that corrected.
but the second is a section on the HRA
section 7 and section 8 which deals
with the capital programme attached to
the appendix one is the draught headline
dates for budget setting which I alluded
to earlier in terms of the budget setting.
And one of the recommendations
obviously is to adopt the adopt
that that high level timetable.
Happy to take any questions that
you might have on the report.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 1:07:53
Councillor Martin. Thank you chair. I mean it all looks perfectly
Cllr Alan Martin - 1:07:58
reasonable to me. The question was on my mind particularly looking at the timeline so obviously
we've got LGR rumbling on in the background and I assume that was on our minds when we
put this together and I don't know whether this year we need to do anything any different
in terms of timelines, are there any items we look at differently because of what we
know is happening further down the line when we're looking at valuing our assets, looking
at our unusable reserves, other revenue items.
I don't know, is there anything that we should...
Yeah, look at differently than we would have done in previous years.
Mr Alan Mitchell - 1:08:53
Yes, thank you, Councillor Martin.
So, I probably initially know, I think.
Because with LTI you assume you know it's happening,
but until we've gone to the point where, for example,
we know who we're going to come and join up with,
and we also know from the business model and the financial implications that it's very difficult for us to make any assumptions
particularly now to start the budget process.
It's very apparent that as we go through the process the more information and more certainty comes out
we definitely will need to reflect that.
The other point I will make is that we have set up an LGR reserve
and we're trying to put money into that reserve
to mitigate any costs that we know are going to arise
as part of the LGR process.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 1:09:47
Thank you for that. I didn't have any particular areas in mind
Cllr Alan Martin - 1:09:50
but I guess the sorts of...
The sorts of things... In the training earlier
we spoke about the fact that there's a value on this building
and yet we can't sell it because we'd have nowhere to...
reside, but in the future it's possibly unlikely that this building would be required within
a unitary council.
I'll take your point that until you've got some certainty around it, but if we're building
a five year, if we've got a rolling four year plan or five year plan or whatever in the
background, you could look at what are currently assets quite differently I think if you were
at least you would maybe be a bit adventurous.
I just wanted to add, I think it's really prudent that you do have results for LGR.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 1:10:40
I was of the mind, and I'm sure I've read somewhere or been told,
that that's seen as asset stripping
and we're not allowed to start doing that, looking at our assets
and thinking about how we can sell them off.
And as you said, we have no idea what sort of business case
we're going to have to follow.
So soon enough we will and I'm sure there will be moves that will happen at that point
and maybe that's why we are in the situation we are in at the moment.
Mr Alan Mitchell - 1:11:12
So in regards to this building that's part of the Volcker 2 project so part of the centre
disposal of this building is actually built into the actual project so in terms of that
specific example that's something that's already been built into our future modelling.
In terms of, as Councillor Chair Quayle writes, one of the things that Grant Thornton has
been very very clear about is that we don't suddenly change the use of our assets, that
we don't change things because of LGI and that includes reserves as well.
So for example if we weren't planning on neutralising or selling an asset six months ago, why has
that changed?
and they've been very clear that they will be scrutinising all local
varieties in their use of assets, use of preserves in respect to LDR.
But in terms of the budget process, obviously we will go through that in
terms of a step process to ensure we are to come out and maximising the
returns on assets. That's part of our normal asset strategy anyway to ensure
that we are maximising investment properties for example. So that's all
part of the process but we can't change it just because they are LTR, they have to be
business need for it to be an actual structured approach to that.
Yes, Councillor Martin.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 1:12:25
Thank you.
Cllr Alan Martin - 1:12:30
Obviously I'm not talking about assets dripping or anything but I think there's an interesting
point in my mind that if we're forced to lock in the imaginary world that we're still going
to exist in our current state for the next, you know, forever, which won't actually happen.
I wonder whether there's a danger that if you're looking at cutting budgets,
cutting staff, whatever it is you need to do to balance the books,
is there a risk that you might actually make decisions
that are too harsh and not in the best interests of the residents
because you're not actually thinking forward
or able to consider the reality of what's going to happen further down the line,
I guess is the concern I'd have.
Thank you chair for you.
It's a fair point that you raised.
Mr Alan Mitchell - 1:13:22
I think the whole point of the budget process, the member involvement of CLT, the involvement
of members is that whatever approach you take forward is very much immeasurable and it's
in the holistic approach isn't purely a financial decision in that sense.
Councillor Turner.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 1:13:43
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:13:45
In item 2 .12 of the report, the assumption going forward shows an increase of 1 % of the
Bandy equivalent properties per annum, which is an increase of 415 Bandy equivalents to
the tax base.
We currently don't have sufficient backlog to meet our five -year housing supplies, 3 .12
one, two years I believe it is, so we're not meeting our housing targets at the moment.
So how realistic is that 415 bandy equivalents?
I know you mention in here about the local plan could affect future tax -based assumptions.
I just wonder how reasonable is that figure of 415?
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Thomas.
Jonathan Smith - 1:14:36
I mean, we use that assumption.
We have historically used this level of assumption
and sort of roughly a 1%.
And actually, oftentimes, we've exceeded it,
because obviously this is talking about band D
equivalents.
And obviously, if, for example, lots of band D properties
are built, you can have a lower number,
but still be meeting this sort of increase in band D
equivalents, because obviously this number would be smaller
if you're saying band D.
So it does really depend on the type of property that is built.
Again, we've used historical trends on that to estimate.
Of course, it's an assumption at this stage.
And there's also a reflection that needs to be done.
Because basically in October, we do
sort of returns to government on CTR,
and that forms a base of where we do the tax base
calculations.
So at the moment, we've included a 1%.
but actually as we move towards December,
and certainly in that first week of December,
we'll be able to actually do the relevant calculations
and produce the actual draught tax base.
So at the moment we've gone with this estimate,
but of course that will be revised
as we progress through the budget setting period,
and certainly in the first week of December.
Yes, Councillor Tom.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 1:15:55
And one further point of clarification.
Cllr Paul Thomas - 1:15:57
So just in terms of council tax support,
We've made the decision to change the top bar from 75 % to 100%.
So will we show that separately in the Council tax arrangements for this year, or is the
figure small enough that it will get mixed in with other things in terms of that calculation?
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Thomas.
Jonathan Smith - 1:16:29
I mean that that that amendment will be built into the relevant budget area in which it
sits over the overall budget.
I believe it will be sitting within for our revenue benefits area so that that will always
built built part of that budget line.
Cllr Abena Akuffo-Kelly - 1:16:47
Any other questions?
OK, so I need a proposal and a seconder to receive a note report C2541.
Propose of Councillor Martin, second to Councillor Thomas and the vote of hands.
Thank you very much for this end of our meeting. Thank you everyone.