Agenda item

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability presented the report. The report set out an updated MTFP for 2026/27 to 2030/31 and the proposed Capital Programme for 2026/27 to 2028/29. Members heard that the Government’s settlement had aligned with the Council’s most optimistic assumptions, meaning that whilst funding had still declined it was less sharp than expected.

The final settlement confirmed an increase in grants for homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse, which would be reflected in the final budget. A review of the council’s finances had identified £706,000 of new pressures for 2026/27, alongside significant uncertainty linked to Local Government Reorganisation. To prepare, the Council had prudently set aside £1 million over two years. Slower than expected growth from BEAM also required a £203,000 contingency, though performance improvements were noted.

To maintain financial sustainability, the Council continued efficiency work and planned inflation?linked increases to fees and charges, whilst freezing some proposed car park rises. A favourable pension fund revaluation delivered nearly £1 million in annual savings, enabling the setting of a balanced budget and allowing additional reserves to be created to strengthen resilience.

Council tax for 2026/27 was proposed to rise by 2.99%. The capital programme remained limited due to low capital receipts, with new projects dependent on future asset disposals. The MTFP and draft budget had reviewed by the Joint Scrutiny Committee and the recommendations made were appended to the report.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability

proposed the recommendations as detailed in the report.

The Executive Member for Corporate Services seconded the proposal.

Members commented on why Local Authorities were expected to fund Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) themselves, and whether Councils would be incentivised to minimise costs or required to pool larger contributions into a shared fund for the new Unitary Authority. Officers explained that many details of LGR were still unknown, including which structural option the Government would choose. All district councils and the County Council had agreed to set aside initial funds, but this was being held until further information emerged. It was advised that costs would depend on the final model selected, noting that other councils elsewhere had set aside larger sums.

Members praised staff at BEAM, noting that they had been undertaking a significant amount of work across the building and its programming. It was highlighted that this effort had been ongoing for some time and that there were promising developments ahead.

In response to a Member question regarding whether recent Government changes to grant structures had effectively reduced funding for homelessness prevention, noting that the council now had to set aside its own money to cover temporary accommodation costs, officers explained that the situation was complex but confirmed that the temporary accommodation element of the homelessness grant had been moved into Revenue Support Grant. As a result, the Council had allocated around £400,000 from its general funding to cover these costs, as it had done in previous years. It was noted that this sat alongside roughly £1 million in other homelessness?related grants.

Members acknowledged how challenging the budget had been and praised officers for balancing it despite difficult economic conditions. It was noted that the introduction of the report highlighted the bleak wider economic outlook, including stubborn inflation and very modest national growth, which compared poorly internationally and contrasted with the more optimistic narrative from Central Government. Members highlighted that this context was important, particularly with Local Government Reorganisation approaching, as future Councillors would need to understand the realities they would face.

Members reflected on the Council’s current financial position, noting previous large loans and commended officers and the Executive Member for managing the situation well and leaving the Council in a stable position.

It was acknowledged that the budget had been further scrutinised by the Joint Overview and Scrutiny and Audit and Governance Committee. Comments made at the Joint Committee highlighted the use of £250,000 reserves set aside and Members were reminded that they could propose ideas for how those reserves could be used.

The motion to support the recommendations, having been proposed and seconded, was put to the meeting and upon a vote being taken, was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED – that the following recommendations be submitted to Council for approval as part of the final Budget for 2026/27:

a)    That the final General Fund Budget for 2026/27, including a Band D Council Tax of £207.03 (reflecting a 2.99% increase), be approved.

b)    That the updated position on the General Fund Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP), as set out in Appendix A, be noted.

c)     That the proposed fees and charges for 2026/27, as detailed in Appendix B, be approved.

d)    That the minimum level of General Fund balance of £3.649 million, based on the 2026/27 risk assessment of balances in paragraph 6.3, be approved.

e)    That the budget pressures identified in Section 4 of the report be noted.

f)     That the savings proposals identified in Section 5 of the report be noted.

g)    That the Section 25 Statement on the Robustness of Estimates and Adequacy of Reserves, as set out in Appendix D, be noted.

h)    That the Capital Programme for 2026 to 2029, as set out in Appendix E, be approved.

i)     That the minutes and comments of the Joint Meeting of Scrutiny Committees from 28 January 2026, as set out in Appendix F and paragraph 11.1, be noted.