Finance and Performance Scrutiny Sub-Committee - Tuesday 18 November 2025, 6:00pm - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting

Finance and Performance Scrutiny Sub-Committee
Tuesday, 18th November 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
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point

Okay, we're starting.
It's trained on you.
And it will stick on you.
Okay, good evening and welcome to the meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee.
scrutiny 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
treat members, officers and public speakers with respect.

1 Apologies for absence

Okay, so our first item, apologies for absence.
Are there any apologies?
Thank you, Chair.
We have one apology from Councillor Holgate.
Thank you very much.

2 Declarations of interest

Next, Item 2, declarations of interest.
Are there any members who have interest to declare?
Excellent, thank you.

3 Performance report 2025-26 - Q2

We move on to item 3, Q2 Performance Report, which will be provided by Gavin Edwards, Senior
Performance Officer and Jonathan Hicks, Government's Performance and Risk Manager.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair and good evening members.
This report provides an update on performance for the second quarter of the year, covering
the period 1st of July to the 31st of September.
The report highlights progress made against the agreed set of key performance indicators
for the 25 -26 year that was approved by cabinet on the 16th July this year.
Summary of the performance overall for Q2. We have met target on 38 out of the 61
targeted indicators which is 62 % across the whole organisation. We are within 5 %
of target or on track to achieve year -end target on 14 indicators which is 23 % and
off target on nine indicators which is 15%. Graph on page 6 of your
cover report will show that summary. We can demonstrate some strong and consistent performance
in the period in section 2 .0 of the cover report for planning, housing benefit claims,
information governance, misbin collections and lifeline call answering times. We've also
seen some improved performance, i .e. where things have been off target to achieving target,
as set out in section 2 .3 of the cover report for complaints, number of businesses or potential
entrepreneurs on new start -ups signposted to support programmes and events, as well as
Council home new builds. There have been some challenging areas of performance where we
have seen during the quarter on temporary accommodation, homelessness prevention, rough
sleeping, street kindliness and for businesses accessing grants or support from the Royal
England Prosperity Fund. We have provided commentary in the cover report in section
four which is page eight in your pack on those indicators where we have not met target. That
is the overall summary for Q2 performance there. The report once it's considered by
you this evening will be presented to Cabinet on the 10th of December.
We have Chief Officers here this evening, Andrew Rush and Jill Butler, to support with
any questions in relation to their respective areas and we're happy to take any questions.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Jonathan Hicks, would you like to speak on that or?
Okay then.
So we open this up for questions.
Any questions from members?
Councillor Wink.
Thank you very much, Chair.
I've got a couple of questions. Starting off on page 9,
I'm going to use a commentary, obviously on a PDF
because the other bit's not working anyway.
Hotel Mike Lemus 01.
It talks about a count on the 4th of November for homelessness.
Do you have an update on that, where the numbers went,
oh, don't we know the result yet or that?
Yes, we do have an update on that Councillor. We found on that night 21, a seeping buff
homeless, but I would say it was a very warm night and we would normally expect there to
be a few more people out on the streets that time of year. That's an extraordinarily
high number and this is actually quite a high number, 18 as well. At the moment, if you
look back at this month, last month's stats,
we're sort of hovering around 15 at the moment.
So yeah, that's the answer to that.
Yes, go ahead.
Well my next question.
Councillor Wingard, I think Jonathan Hicks
had something to say about.
Sorry, thank you Chair.
Just to follow up on that point about rough sleepers
and the way it's calculated in this report for clarity,
that streak count is an annual thing that happens on one particular night.
The way we calculate the stats here is it's position at the end of each reported period
and then a calculated average over the whole quarter.
So there'll be a position at the end of the period
which may be different from what is right at the beginning.
So on average it's 18.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The next question is also on page nine.
We've got a whole talk, Oscar's there at eight.
Where it talks about, there's a cabinet report
about temporary accommodation.
I'll take it from this.
It means we're basically buying some of the BMBs
because it says it will reduce cost
but not reduce the number of people
in temporary accommodation.
Does it actually say we're basically thinking
about buying some of the BMBs
so it costs less to the council.
Is that correct?
Or have I got that wrong?
Yes, sorry, yes and no.
It should probably say it may not,
it may not reduce.
I'll explain what it means.
Basically, the temporary accommodation
and the cost of temporary accommodation
is based on the number of private sector nightly lets
and B &B accommodation because we have so few of our own actual temporary accommodation.
We only have eight units in fact.
We have been trying to convert some of the existing HRA stock into temporary accommodation
to utilise that stock.
We're gradually doing that as voids become available and the Cabinet paper is saying
that we are looking to acquire or convert or use another 20 units of specifically full
term accommodation and we've set aside 5 million in the budget for that cabinet report.
It would be a combination of how we actually purchase it.
We might purchase a small block from a developer.
When I say small block, I'm talking about five or six properties, not much more than
that.
We might utilise some buybacks, so properties that were previously council properties that
we might decide to buy back or philtre the person that owns them.
And so all sorts of things.
In terms of the, I'll just explain the negative subsidy if you like.
So we are only able to claim housing benefits subsidy,
which is currently capped at 90 %
of the local housing allowance,
which is the housing allowance set in 2011.
If we use our own temporary accommodation,
whether it's in the HRA stock or stuff
that we've bought for that,
then we can claim back 100 % of that.
So that's why there's a significant difference
in the cost. I hope that explains it.
One more quick question.
This is going on to page 25 of the same section.
It's talking about people in temporary accommodation
and people in emergency accommodation.
Obviously this time there's a big spike in numbers on this.
It's almost doubled.
It does say in brackets this includes, when it's talking about people in bed and breakfast...
and the virtual accommodation, it includes figures that are included in the temporary accommodation.
Is that a normal thing or is that something that happened this year?
It hints, it's just, I wonder if it, that's why there's such a big spike if we now include them...
but that's something that can be done anyway.
Just on that point, I think we've put it in the report just for clarity...
So it's not a separate figure.
It's not these number in B &B on top of the figure.
It's part of it and it always been calculated that way.
I just wondered perhaps a reason if you changed the system
that you hadn't changed the system.
No, in fact it's not, I think, in the overall position.
I'd like someone to speak now.
Yes, Councillor Maud.
Thank you, Chair.
I also was going to ask a question about the temporary accommodation
and I still have a lingering question just around this point around the fact
that we're expecting this action to reduce the cost but not increase capacity.
It's the not increasing capacity bit I don't really understand.
Maybe you can speak to that a bit.
I think this is a technical difference here.
So we might be able to increase the capacity of people in temporary accommodation
but they would still be in temporary accommodation.
So we can provide more, but actually the numbers will still show on the report.
If overall, and I think Jill's point was well made,
perhaps we should say may not rather than will not affect the total numbers in temporary accommodation.
By us providing more TA it may benefit the overall figures,
but in itself won't reduce the numbers because they're still in temporary accommodation.
It's just that they were Councillor and temporary accommodation.
That's brilliant, thank you.
Penny's dropped.
First of all, just a thank you really.
So just the commentary I think is getting really good in these reports now.
For instance, last time we had some questions around the Clean Streets KPI and I think that
now reads a lot more clearly and it's easy to determine what's going on.
And also on the Rough Sleepers KPI,
I've always had some questions within quite what's going on within that category,
and that now makes a lot of sense,
and obviously also really good news about the Rainbow Centre as well.
On fly tipping, I sent through an email ahead of the meeting
just seeking a bit of additional clarity on some of the numbers around fly tipping,
and I wonder if you could maybe respond to that.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Martin, for your questions.
You asked about the split between private and council land,
my tips, and you wanted to know about how many prosecutions,
not prosecutions, of FPNs and prosecutions were made.
I think you just want some general information,
you made some general comments around
how we could improve flight tipping overall.
Yep.
Okay, so first of all, it's probably helpful
to put some context around number of flight tipping
we get reported, the number of flight tips reports
we get per year, and essentially we have two sources
for this, we have Biolia by collecting,
and we have Council by being informed.
So just dealing with the Biolia figures,
they report in the calendar year from October 24 to September 25,
1 ,746 cases of flight -ipping.
Now, viola tend to, I won't say over -report,
but anything that's not in the bin,
they turn to be flight -ipping.
So those figures are high.
But what they do also produce is a monthly sort of heat map
showing where the phytopene is located, and unsurprisingly,
we have a big build -up in Folkestone, in the Folkestone area,
Sherrington, and then following that route along the M20,
which is probably a lot of the lay -bys, as you'd expect,
and a smattering down the marsh.
So that's the figures that we get from Peolia.
Of that total, probably more importantly,
there's 475 of those over those 12 months are more than a metre squared,
so that's the big flight tips that are more problematic in some ways.
Basically, we are reporting about 145 flight tips per month,
of which 40 of those are larger flight tips.
In terms of council reporting, which is done by the Salesforce system,
In quarter two, we had 518 cases recorded,
and that's on all land, private,
and they've introduced a tagging system
where you can tag as it gets reported,
and then when it gets investigated,
the investigating officer can tag it as council or non -council.
So it gives us some indication, and I'll say that advisedly,
some indication of what's council land, what's non -council land.
Of that total, 369 was on Council and the public highway
and 149 were tagged non -Council.
However, checking the data today, I found that, not that unsurprisingly,
we get repeat addresses because people report fly tipping four or five times in some cases.
So I'd reduced that overall 369 figure by about a third.
And also what we're not getting is we've got quite a few properties
that are being tagged, or not tagged, on Council
because possibly they've already been recorded earlier in the system.
So I reduced that figure to, on private land, to about 60 or 70.
On the private land, because I know you're interested in that,
the mainly urban, mainly private alleyways
and with a small handful down the marsh mid -area.
That was reported for quarter two.
Moving on to enforcement,
you see in the report where we have minor FPNs,
major FPNs, just so you understand.
A minor FPN is a fine of about £500 reduced to £300
if paid within, I think, 14 days or months, sorry.
And then the major is 1 ,000 pounds and 800 pounds.
So, and anything that's taken prosecution
is basically a non -paid FPM.
So we've got the minor major and then the prosecutions
if people do not pay.
And we have got, within the quarter two figure,
we have got 15 offences, five have been related,
which is a fairly low number,
and the basis of that is obviously evidence.
That is one of the problems that we have,
is actually gathering evidence of that sufficient to do fine
or in some cases prosecute.
So it's a bit of a scam return.
but what I can assure you is not sitting on a wealth of evidence
and picking and choosing our cases.
It's pretty much everything we've got goes through to fine.
And you made some suggestions about comments around use of CCTV
and obviously the opportunities of LGR
linking the waste disposal authorities
and the waste collection authorities
in terms of household waste sites.
I absolutely agree with those comments.
I think it does provide an opportunity.
Spinning with CCTV, unfortunately,
it comes on the Ripper.
And so you've covert surveillance
is essentially not allowed for this type of offence.
And the covert surveillance is probably
what you actually need for this type of offence.
Standard CCTV has its place, it has its limitations
because you obviously have to identify vehicles.
So it's not often you may have a camera on a hotspot
when it's actually seeing the vehicle drive away
from the hotspot.
That's the key thing.
If members are interested about flight tipping and things
that can be done, I would point them
towards the Keep Britain Tidy.
They've got a big campaign on at the moment.
It talks about many of the things
that I've probably talked to individuals
about the courts taking it more seriously offence,
police working across the national barrier,
across county boundaries,
and it's a societal shift
where we do not accept flight tipping
as a sort of victimless crime,
but I would point members in the direction
of the Heat Britain Tidy campaign
for further sort of discussion on flight tipping.
Thank you. Do you have another question?
First of all, thank you for all of that.
That's really informative and really interesting.
I guess, as you know, because we've discussed this a few times before,
my underlying drive here is...
This is where I struggle with the KPIs a little bit
in that in the area of things like fly tipping,
we have a couple of very, in my mind, shallow KPIs
that don't really tell us what's going on and give us the direction of travel.
I think the two KPIs we have at the moment are around prosecutions and then there's a
fairly dry KPI around the number of cases that we have cleared up within a day.
And I think as you've wonderfully described there, there's an awful lot going on underneath
the surface there.
and in my mind if those KPIs are intended to see how we're keeping on top of a problem
and trying to manage it from all perspectives, including prevention, I think we need to be
reporting out on those overall figures.
Obviously there's caveats in these figures, there's some things that we have more control
over than others, but if we want to put a spotlight on a problem and show how we're
I think we need to have that that
broader perspective along the lines
of some of the points that you covered
there so we can have a proper conversation
around what we should what we should do
about it but thank you very much for that.
For I'm sure there's a bit of digging
that went on there so so thank you for that.
Yes, go ahead. Thank you,
chair. Thank you, counsellor.
Just to come back on that last point
about KPIs, can I suggest that?
There will be a future session, I'm not sure whether it will be when we do Q3 or the one after,
where we will be looking at our suite of, to agree our suite of KPIs for the new year,
at which point we will invite members to put forward views,
but we will also, as officers,
we'll need to have a look at the KPIs we've got,
make sure that they're effective,
and we'll be seeking more views on those.
We can make note of that,
so that we can perhaps have a look into that before that session.
Thank you. Councillor Thomas.
Thank you, Chair.
Just as a follow -up on the fly -tipping,
in terms of the analysis that's been carried out,
there's no evidence that there's any organised crime -related
associated with the flight shipping that we're seeing.
I love to say this anecdotally, rather than with any degree of certainty,
but the pattern we get in the urban areas is very much DIY waste,
furnishings, that's where you get the mattresses,
flats and houses being cleared out.
When you get to more of the rural areas,
that's when you get, I wouldn't say necessarily organised crime,
but we say the professional flight tippers.
We get the whole kitchen, hazardous work, particularly asbestos.
That's when you get more professional flight tippers.
Often maybe operating as looking like legitimate businesses,
but people aren't checking their waste carriers licences.
But the concern is, as you quite like,
to say that you get the big sites,
and there have been several examples across Kent,
where a bit of private land essentially becomes a dumping ground
and it's sometimes...
I don't know if it's organised crime,
but it's certainly very organised what's going on there,
and that's the big concern, and I say as I've pointed to,
This is one of the risks that keep Britain tidy,
are raising in the context of the involvement of the police
that is moving beyond people clearing our stuff on their doorstep
to professional fly -clipping, to serious organised crime.
It's not a victimless crime by any means.
Thank you very much for that.
Most of the points I've had written down have been covered except for one.
So under HOU4, which is Affordable Homes Delivery, in the quarter we've got zero.
We had 20 last time.
Underneath that there's a new KPI, which is Affordable Homes Delivered by the Council
and its partners, which is a cumulative total.
That shows the target of 160.
The affordable homes delivered by the Council as partners
in the financial year is 80.
We're predicting in the text here to hit 94
with the three sites that have been identified,
two of our own and one privately.
So my question really is, why is there a discrepancy between the 80 and HOU4
and the 160 and the cumulative KPI, which is the new one? Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor.
The targets listed in under HOU4, that's the target of 80 per year.
So the cumulative one is last year plus this year, which is 160.
Yes, yes.
But that's not the delivery. The delivery is what we've actually achieved from last year
plus what we've delivered so far this year.
So the commentary in the Cover report hasn't been delivered yet.
They're the ones which are in the pipeline which would be expected to, if delivered, meet the target.
but it's not going to show as meeting target until they've been delivered.
Thank you for that.
In the words that it said, 23 last year, 20 this year,
I couldn't align the 23 from last year,
which aligned with anything that I saw from last year's KPI report.
I was just, maybe I'd missed it, but I just didn't see that.
Thank you for the clarification.
Any other questions?
OK.
So recommendations are to receive a note report C2552, to note the corporate performance report
Q2 at Appendix 1 and to note the housing performance report Q2, Appendix 2.
Can I have a proposer, please?
Thank you, Councillor Martin and a seconder.
Thank you, Councillor Wing and a vote on it.
Thank you.

4 Draft General Fund Revenue Budget Monitoring 2025/26 - Q2

Okay, so we move on to Item 4, Q2 draught, General Fund Revenue Budgeting Monitoring Report and
and that's going to be presented by Jonathan Smith, Chief Officer for Financial Services.
Thank you, Chair. Members, this report summarises the financial monitoring information for the
general fund revenue as of September 2025, i .e. following the completion of the quarter
two of the year 25 -26. It provides the overview of budget performance. At the end of quarter
The financial position shows a projected year -end unfavourable position of $435 ,000 from a net
revenue budget of $22 .3 million.
So there's a small movement that's taking place between Quarter 1 reporting Quarter
2, i .e. of $77 ,000, an unfavourable variance.
Originally it was at Quarter 1.
The variance was $357 ,000 and it's now $435 ,000 as I've mentioned.
The movements that make up this are numerous, however, and they're sort of detailed or summarised
at paragraph 1 .5, and there's a table there just explaining sort of the movements that
have happened, which brings us down to the net position of the 77K.
Favourable and unfavourable variances are then detailed in sections 2 and 3 of the report,
providing a bit more details to the numbers that were highlighted in the summary at 1 .5.
And then there's also the notable items that are unchanged from Q1, also outlined in paragraphs
3 .7 to 3 .9 of the report. At that stage I'm happy to take any questions from you on the
content of the report and the numbers.
Thank you very much for that. Councillor Thomas.
Thank you chair. An excellent report and really easy to go through and see the things that
we can sort of have a little dig around at so thank you very much for that. Just one
thing for me and it aligns to something that we discussed in the previous section. So on
3 .6 under housing benefits, there's a piece in there about rent rebates, 949K, which in
quarter one was 865K, unfavourable barriers, driven by the combination of budgeted net
rebate costs, higher temporary accommodation costs and lower related subsidies received.
Does that align with what we talked about in the previous one to do with the higher
level of temporary accommodation that we're seeing and does that account for all of it
basically?
Thank you, Councillor Thomas. In relation to this question, yes, these items make up
effectively what we call the temporary accommodation subsidy gap. So it is the same point that
we were dealing with earlier. It's obviously split into component parts as part of the
revenue monitoring report, but effectively the components of it are the rent rebates
that we receive. There's also the housing benefit element. The combination of them together,
adding these two figures together brings us to effectively like the position we have on temporary accommodation
which is that sort of that £1 .3 billion estimated projected overspend in this position
based on obviously the demand with temporary accommodation.
Go ahead.
I just have one more question please.
and that relates to point 2 .4,
where we talk about the favourable position, the variances.
A number of those are associated with vacancies
that have changed within the period.
But again, I think we touched on it at the last meeting as well,
are these vacancies affecting the ability of the council
to deliver their services?
and are they contributing to some of the things we're seeing which are negative variances?
That's it, thank you.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Councillor Thomas, for that second question.
I understand that the Chief Officer for People and Customer Services responded specifically
on the vacancy point about just what's the nature of it.
As you'll see probably from this report that a number of those vacancies have been filled,
And there's always a case of there will be movements of staff and people leaving and
the like, and we projected at that stage there were certain vacancies that we weren't sure
about being able to build.
But obviously, certain vacancies have now been filled.
I haven't had any reports specifically from services on any particular problems, but I
could always follow up with HR in terms of delivery of services.
but of course the work services will continue to deliver even where there is one FT vacancy
and the work will continue to be worked on.
We would report on any issues if there were any issues that were affecting the delivery
of services to members.
Go ahead.
Yes, if I may, just following up on that.
One of the other things that's included in there was a favourable variance,
maybe 5K, associated with vacancies and reduced staff hours.
So where vacancies exist in a group,
is it normal for that to be covered through overtime
and therefore an increased cost associated with any kind of overtime provision
that might be there within an individual departmental budget?
Thank you.
Thank you, and thank you, Councillor Saunders.
Effectively, even where there's a sort of a grouping of the like, it would be dependent
on the service to decide.
And so it might be then the chief officer for the service decides that actually the
needs need to be met through certain regimes, whether or not it's temporary staff or additional
overtime.
But that will be determined on a case -by -case basis as those needs arise and to ensure delivery.
Right.
I thought I saw your hand up but you're finished, Councillor Thomas.
Any other questions?
Yes, Councillor Martin.
Thank you, Chair.
As you said in your summary, the picture hasn't changed a great deal from last time round
and there are some big unfavourable items in there but on things that it doesn't seem
like we've got a huge amount of control over, like the council tax reduction scheme and
the house benefits issue which we discussed quite a few times before.
On the recruitment, so we've raised that a number of times as there seem to be a growing
number of vacancies and as I read it, actually some of our unfavourable variants comes from
fact that we've actually filled a lot of those places this time around which is
I'm guessing a good thing although it doesn't necessarily look so in
the in the numbers. I was wondering if you could just speak a little bit about
the so in 4 .2 we're talking about so right at the end just before the
conclusion we're talking about this three and a half million pound being
written off from, well sorry, projects being written off and I wonder if you can just give
us a bit of clarity as to what makes up that three and a half million?
Thank you chair, through you.
So that's to do with Prince's Parade, so that's the cost that we've incurred to date, so as
that project is now complete, that will be the capitalisation that will be reversed and
that is the cost that will be met by that reserve.
Okay so can you just explain to me how we've been holding that then and then how that kind
through the numbers just from my own understanding.
Thank you and thank you Councillor Martin.
So where we have a capital project, so in this case there was a capital project, we
capitalised all of those costs and we were holding it with inflectively capital spend.
Where the project is for example say aborted, you need to write it out of capital because
you're not going to create an asset at the end of that which obviously you have going
forwards so it gets written back out from capital and into revenue.
So we previously used capital funding for the project and for the costs that are spent
to date but now that needs to be written back to revenue and where you're writing back to
revenue you need to have then revenue funding, a revenue funding source to cover that.
In this case it's obviously the reserves to be used.
Any more questions, members?
OK, so our recommendation is to receive a note report C2553.
I'd like to invite a proposer, Councillor Thomas, a seconder,
Councillor Wing and a vote, please.
Thank you.

5 Draft General Fund Capital Programme Budget Monitoring 2025/26 - Q2

Next item 5 Q2 draught General Fund Capital
Programme Budget Monitoring Report.
And we have our favourite officer,
Jonathan Smith again.
He likes to hog the whole meeting
reporting all this, thank you.
Thank you, chair. So the report now under
considerations the draught General Fund
Capital Programme Budget Monitoring for
25 -26, the second quarter.
This monitoring report provides a projection
of the current financial position for the General Fund
Capital Programme.
25 -26, based on expenditure to the 30th of September, 2025,
identifies variances compared to the latest approved budget.
It also includes details on proposed changes
to the current approved capital programme.
The key things to highlight in this report
are the recommendations around changes to the existing medium
term capital programme and the reduction
of £1 .6 million of capital spend for the year 25 -26. The latter is driven by a large
number of items which are explained in paragraph 3 .2 to the report, including coast protection
and the coastal park redevelopment, which will likely happen in the following year,
26 -27. The movements relate to the reprofiling in large part of £1 .8 million in total, rather
than any significant changes to the capital programme. There have also been £42 ,000 worth
the savings identified through capital budgets no longer being required but there also are
some other items that have increased.
So for example there's £260 ,000 worth of increased budgets but notably £240 ,000 of
that is grant funded and then some other items specifically relating to sort of onerous contracts
on the capital programme.
But I'm happy to take any questions that you might have from the report.
Thank you.
Councillor Martin.
Thanks very much.
This one's all quite self -explanatory.
The only one I wonder if you could just add a bit of colour to was to explain where we're
...
I can't remember quite where it is, but when we're talking about the match funding profile
change for the Folkestone future, brighter future project.
Thank you chair, I'll just locate that.
Wish I could help you.
5 .3.
So thank you chair.
So thank you, Councillor Martin.
So this is effectively where the project originally
would have forecast a funding source
as being capital receipts.
And so instead of using that capital receipts
and using money as capital receipts reserve,
effectively, it's changing that to use from community
infrastructure levy, CICIL, as it's known,
and also the High Street Reserve,
which obviously an earmarked reserve, which
is designed to effectively meet regeneration of the high street.
And so the most appropriate funding source
is proposed to be these two sources,
rather than using capital receipts, which have
a slightly more flexible use.
And so it's just about managing the financing
of the particular projects that we have
and ensuring that we're using the resources that we do
have to the best effect.
Yeah, thank you for that.
I mean that seems quite logical and appropriate, but interested what prompted us to change
how we were seeking to fund it.
Thank you, Chair.
I think in part, where we had availability from for example community infrastructure
levy, it's obviously useful to use that because obviously those are contributions based and
it avoids us then having to use the sort of the at the receipts we get from the sale of
our assets where for example effectively we have a useful source such as community infrastructure
levy much like we might use section 106 monies for certain projects. It's a funding source
that we can take advantage of and it's best to use those sources first again just to ensure
that then we can spend the capital receipts that we do have on other schemes which might
more appropriate. Effectively this is externally funded which if you count the infrastructure
levy as being an external contribution in it's best to use those sources first.
Thank you. Councillor Thomas.
Yeah, thank you chair. Small beer really but just in terms of in section 3 .2 budgets no
longer required. There are four items in there. Is that because we didn't actually need to
deliver those or are they actual savings against what was originally budgeted in those areas?
So the area offices, Bradner Park, Footpath, Coronation Parade and the welfare facilities
in New Romney. Thank you.
Thank you, I understand that these are effectively residual budgets that were left over that
are no longer required, so they're quite small amounts.
Any further questions? No, OK then, thank you. So we are to receive a note report C2554
Can I have a proposal please?
Councillor Martin, a seconder.
Councillor Thomas, a vote with a show of hands please.
Thank you.

6 Draft HRA Budget Monitoring 2025/26 - Q2

Item 6, Q2, Draught Housing Revenue Account Budget Monitoring Report.
And again, it's Jonathan Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
So members, the report now before you is the Housing Revenue Account Budget Monitoring
for Quarter 2.
So this monitoring report summarises the projections to the end of the financial year for the housing
revenue account, but it covers both the revenue and the capital expenditure, based on expenditure
up until 30 September 2025 again.
Key things to highlight from this report is just the addition of carry -forwards.
So carry -forward spend from 2024 -25, which was unspent, has been brought into this budget.
That explains the movements between the original budget and the latest approved budget for
quarter two.
Overall, the revenue budget is largely on target at the most moment, with three moderate
size variances netting each other off.
This is a rents projection, which was an item that we raised and reported at quarter one,
and remains unchanged.
There's a favourable movement, however, on the revenue contribution to capital, where
we may not necessarily require all of the carry -forwards specifically brought forward,
And some of that carry -forward revenue may not be fully required in the repairs and maintenance
budget, but that's obviously at the moment, that's a projection.
We are only the half -year point in repairs and maintenance is obviously a very much demand -led
particular service item.
On capital again, there are a number of changes to the budget relating to the temporary accommodation
strategy.
This is the £5 million we've discussed slightly earlier in the meeting.
that's the loan or funding available, budgets available to spend on temporary accommodation
and purchasing out the units that we discussed earlier. On the Social Housing Decarbonisation
Fund there's an 800k variance, you'll probably notice on the capital report, so that relates
to the match funding element because obviously the scheme was half match funded and half
grant funded and so what will happen is the thermal insulations or the thermal insulations
budget we have is our match funding element and the variance there will just be vied across
to the social housing decarbonisation fund budget overall.
So those are the only key things really to highlight on the report for your attention
but I'm happy to take any questions that you may have.
Thank you very much.
Members, do you have any questions?
Not on this one.
OK then, so to receive a note report C2555,
proposal please.
Thank you, Councillor Wing, seconder.
Thank you, Councillor Martin and let's vote on that please.
Thank you.
So we move on to item 7.
Q2 draught Treasury Management 2025 -26, again presented by Jonathan Smith.
Thank you, Chair.

7 Draft Treasury Management 2025/26 - Q2

So the report now before you is the draught Treasury Management 2025 -26 quarter two report,
again one of the requirements.
This report provides an update on the Council's Treasury management activities that have taken
place during 2025 -26 against the agreed strategy for the year.
The report also provides an update on the Treasury Management Indicators approved by
Cabinet earlier in the year as well.
There is nothing of specific note I wish to bring to your attention, save to highlight
Section 6 in the report.
And due to use of internal borrowing or using cash flow rather than external borrowing,
therefore lower actual borrowing requirements, we have lower borrowing costs and slightly
improved income on investments.
but I'm happy to take any questions that you may have on that.
Thank you again. Members, any questions? Okay, thank you. So we are to receive a note
report C2556, a proposal please. Thank you, Councillor Wing and seconder, thank you, Councillor
Thomas and a vote please. Thank you.

8 Fees and Charges 2026-27

So we move on to item 8, fee and charges on 2026 to 27 to be presented by Jonathan Smith.
Thank you, Chair. So the report now before you is the fees and charges report 2026 to
27 and the report focuses on the proposed fees and charges which will be taken forward
cabinet for approval.
It highlights obviously the fees and charges policy, which is attached to Appendix 1, proposes
the fee changes for the 26 -27 budget for cabinet's approval.
Fees and charges are normally uplifted by the Consumer Price Index, CPI, annually to
ensure that the costs of delivering discretionary services are kept in line with the prices
charged for these discretionary services.
When engaging with service departments,
the standard CPI is pegged to the June
rate of each year and this for this
purposes this report and that is 3 .6%.
Most fees are subject to appropriate
rounding with 3 .6 % increase to ensure
obviously it's service service deliverable.
And and the report specifically the
cover report specifically highlights
any any areas which don't necessarily
haven't followed that sort of standard
policy i .e. the fees that are frozen, the fees that have increased above 3 .6 % or any
sort of fees that are proposed to be either added or deleted and those ones are the ones
specifically contained within the covering report.
The appendices to the report highlight sort of the full list of the schedule of fees and
charges.
I'm happy to take any questions.
Thank you for that.
Members, any questions?
Yes, Councillor Thomas.
Thank you, Chair. I've got two actually.
Just under new and deleted fees, under 2 .15, we've got planning pre -application fees.
New fees are proposed to include the fast track and a non -domestic service.
Under what conditions can you apply for fast track against the other one?
How can you do one rather than the other? Thank you, that's the first question.
Thank you, I'll have to take that back to the planning service because we compile these
fees but obviously they're owned by these specific services but I will happily take
that back and get a response.
And I do have one more actually and that's to do with parking charges.
So if you look at the table for other Folkestone and Hyde areas and the short term, in Hyde
you've got Mount Street and you've got the rates up to 30 minutes up to one hour and
up to two hours.
It says hourly charge with linear per minute charging which is consistent across all of
them, minimum stay one hour, maximum stay four hours.
In the up to 30 minutes, in terms of the approved charge, it's got not applicable, not applicable
and then frozen.
Does that mean that you don't get charged for the first 30 minutes in that car park?
So you ask for an hour of it, you only pay for 30 minutes.
Is that correct or not?
Thank you, Jack.
Again, with the detail of that question, I may need to take that back to our Parking
Services Manager and confirm, but I will certainly take that away.
So much supplementary is, so why can't we apply it to New Romney Church Road?
The two car parks provide exactly the same service to the towns.
One is the main centre car park for Hyde and the other is for New Romney.
so arguably if you can apply to one, you should apply to the other.
So if it is 30 minutes free, can we have it in you, Romley, please?
Thank you.
Thank you, I'll take these questions away.
Thank you. Any other questions?
OK, so we're now to receive a note report C2557, Proposer, please.
Thank you, Councillor Wing and seconder.
Thank you, Councillor Martin.
And that's about it.
Okay, thank you very much.
So that is, unless I'm wishful thinking, I believe that is the last item.
So thank you very much Members and Officers.
Have a lovely evening.