Issue - meetings

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability introduced the report, and drew Members attention to Appendices A and B, which detailed revenue budget, forecast outturn and significant variances. He said that although these were disappointing, they were prudent, with the forecast overspend showing ‘one off items’.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability referred to Appendix C of the report which gave information about 2024/25 savings, and said that again these were disappointing, with some savings delayed.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability referred to Appendix D of the report, which gave details on the 2024/25 capital programme and forecast outturn, and said that there were very few variants, with ongoing projects within budget and mitigations in progress. 

The Chair thanked the Executive Member for Financial Sustainability for his report.

Councillor Deering said that he had attended the recent Executive meeting where the report had originally been presented and referred to the last bullet point of paragraph 2.7. He asked for clarification regarding Charringtons House, and asked if it would be demolished or be part of the redevelopment of Old River Lane.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability said that Charringtons House was part of the Old River Lane scheme, and that it would be sold to the developer once an agreement was signed, thus alleviating the council’s responsibility to pay business rates on the building. He said that due to the delay in signing the agreement consideration had been given to demolishing the building (again to negate the business rates responsibility), but this had proved too expensive.

Councillor Williams referred to Appendix D of the report and asked if the revised budget from the end of February was significant.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability said that the figures in the Appendix included carry forwards from previous years.

Councillor Williamson asked why Appendix E of the report did not appear to be included on the agenda.

The Head of Strategic Finance and Property said that Appendix E should have been included and would therefore be circulated to Members.

Councillor Nicholls referred to Appendix D and asked for more information about the sum of money allocated to the Pinehurst Community Hall.

The Head of Strategic Finance and Property said that these were Section 106 monies, for both work to the hall and an outside play area.  

Mr Sharman asked if there would be any impact on the current £2.9m level of outstanding debt. 

The Head of Strategic Finance and Property said that old debts would be worked on, and reviewed to see if they should be written off. He said that he was confident that with staff training recovery would be possible with regards to licensing debtors. He said that with effect from November a new payment system would be in place, allowing opportunities for more and enhanced card payments.

Mr Sharman said that this was good news, and asked how confident the Executive were that the level of underspend would not deteriorate in the coming months.

The Executive Member for Financial  ...  view the full minutes text for item 159

(a)The reasons for the net revenue budget end of year projected overspend of £1.1m be considered;

(b)The capital programme forecast outturn of £50k be considered.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability presented the financial forecast for 2024/25 at the conclusion of Q1. He said that the council were currently predicting a £1.1 million overspend in the revenue budget with a £50,000 underspend in the capital programme. He said the values presented were disappointing but said that efforts were being made to reduce the impact of the additional costs. He said that the circumstances that have led to a projected overspend were unforeseen at the time of budgeting and for reasons outside the council’s control.

Councillor Brittain proposed that the recommendations in the report be supported. Councillor Daar seconded the proposal.

Councillor Deering referred to paragraph 2.7 of the report and asked for clarification about the council’s intentions with Charrington’s House as the report seemed to suggest it would be disposed of.

Councillor Brittain said that the paragraph related to business rates on Charrington’s House. He said if it was demolished, the rate liability would go away.

Councillor Deering said the position was confusing because the council could not afford to demolish it but would not be disposing of it.

Councillor Brittain said the report was highlighting that it had been considered as an option.

The Head of Housing and Health clarified and said that if it was disposed of before the end of the year, the business rate liability would fall away. He said demolishing it was another way of potentially getting rid of the business rate liability.

Councillor Jacobs asked at which point did Charringtons House move from council ownership into developer ownership.

Councillor Brittain said it would transfer on the signing of the Development Agreement.

Councillor Estop asked if the developer disposed of it once it had ownership would it reduce the income to the council.

The Head of Strategic Finance and Property said that the Development Agreement would contain a Section 123 agreement. It would not affect the development value of the capital receipt.

Councillor Daar asked the value of the loan that the council had borrowed to fund the capital programme and what the interest rate was.

Councillor Brittain replied that £36million was the current value of council borrowing. He said this was funded from short term finance with various packages of loans with differing interest rates.

Councillor Jacobs referred to page 13 of the supplementary agenda and questioned why the £170,000 forecast on the United Reform Church Hall had not been spent.

The Head of Strategic Finance and Property explained that the £170,000 was to complete works on the hall. The council had expected the lease with the church to have ended but the works to the building had been delayed due to a land dispute. He expected the church to continue with the lease until March 2025 and the £170,000 expenditure would move into the 2025/26 financial year.

Councillor McAndrew asked about the bad debt arrangements at paragraph 2.5. He said the issue had been discussed for a number of years and the outstanding debt had actually increased since  ...  view the full minutes text for item 125