Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from the following Councillors:

Councillor Shane Collins for whom Councillor Dave Mansell substituted.

Councillor Andy Soughton for whom Councillor Habib Farbahi substituted.

Councillor Nick Cottle for whom Councillor Steve Ashton substituted

Councillor Brian Smedley for whom Councillor Kathy Pearce substituted.

To receive and note any declarations of interests in respect of any matters included on the agenda for consideration at this meeting.

(The other registrable interests of Councillors of Somerset Council, arising from membership of City, Town or Parish Councils and other Local Authorities will automatically be recorded in the minutes: City, Town & Parish Twin Hatters - Somerset Councillors 2023 )

There were none.

To approve the minutes from the previous meeting.

The Committee was asked to consider the minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2025.  Councillor Hobhouse proposed and Councillor Trimnell seconded that they be accepted as a true and accurate record and were approved subject to adding Councillor Dave Mansell to those present online.  And also, an addition on page 16 of the minutes in the resolution in connection with the restructuring programme that waste services and the climate team be included in the potential consequential impacts.

The Chair to advise the Committee of any items on which members of the public have requested to speak and advise those members of the public present of the details of the Council’s public participation scheme.

For those members of the public who have submitted any questions or statements, please note, a three minute time limit applies to each speaker and you will be asked to speak before Councillors debate the issue.

We are now live webcasting most of our committee meetings and you are welcome to view and listen to the discussion. The link to each webcast will be available on the meeting webpage, please see details under ‘click here to join online meeting’.

Public Questions were received from:

·       David Redgewell

·       Seth Dallow

·       David Orr

·       Bernice Grundy

·       Nigel Behan

The questions and response provided are attached to the minutes in Annex A.

To consider the report.

Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Revenue Budget 2025/26, Capital Budget for 2025/26 to 2029/30, MTFP Update and 30-Year Business Plan Update

Councillor Federica Smith-Roberts, Lead Member for Communities, Housing Revenue Account, Culture and Equalities and Diversity, was invited to introduce the report.

This report stated, the Council had a legal duty to set a balanced budget for the Housing Revenue Account prior to the start of the financial year to which the budget related.  This report fulfilled this legal duty by presenting a balanced budget for 2025/26.  The following information was set out in the report:

1. The Housing Revenue Account (HRA):
   1. Annual Revenue Budget for 2025/26
   2. Capital Programme for 2025/26 to 2029/30

2. The Rent Setting and Fees and Charges for 2025/26 approved by Full Council on the 12 February 2025.

3. The proposals included in this report would enable the Council to set a balanced budget for the HRA for 2025/26.

4. This report also provided an update on the 5-Year Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) and the 30-Year Business Plan Review.

Scrutiny Corporate and Resources Committee were asked to consider and comment on the recommendations which would be for the Executive to consider.

During the discussion that followed a number of points were raised including:

·     The Officer explained that the reference to special services related to extra care provision and sheltered housing.  This was based on government requirements.

·     The Officer explained this year the figures had been calculated on 53 weeks.  She explained the impact this had on the figures in the report. 

·     In response to questions the Officer explained the Council had a programme for paying back debt.  However, some of this debt had been refinanced.  This new borrowing had been made within the HRA.

·     There was no opportunity to take more borrowing within the HRA.

·     Councillors were interested in how many houses needed urgent repair work.  The Council had an urgent repair and maintenance programme for its properties. 

·     Council Tax was paid on void properties.  Such properties were reviewed as to how they could be reused.

·     Each of the schemes within the HRA were monitored to make sure they remained affordable.

·     Members were disappointed the papers had not been available sooner, allowing them to have more time to scrutinise the detail.

·     Members noted the HRA budget had to balance each year.  Each year the HRA needed to be reviewed to make sure it balanced.  It was noted the HRA budget did not draw on any General Reserves. 

·     Members were pleased to note the Council’s aim to build, in relation to net zero emissions.  It was the Council’s ambition to build without installing new gas boilers.  However, sometimes partner developers used such boilers.  Members requested further information from the service about the occasions new gas boilers were used in new builds. 

·     Officers explained, on occasions, a regeneration scheme meant the demolition of some homes and building some new.  Thus, the difference in the number of homes, as reported, was the net gain.  Each project was different.  Councillor Diogo Rodrigues requested information  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

Report to follow.

The Section 151 Officer introduced this report.

This report was a statutory requirement made under section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003, which required the Section 151 Officer to report on the following matters to Council Members when agreeing its annual budget and Council Tax levels.

a.     the robustness of the estimates made for the purposes of the budget calculations, and

b.     the adequacy of the proposed financial reserves.

The report stated the Council had been unable to balance the Budget for the second successive year without reliance upon Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) from the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).  The Council received approval on 3 February 2025 to increase the Council Tax by an additional 2.5% above the limit which would normally require a local referendum, a total of 7.49% for 2025/26.  The Council received an ‘in principle’ approval for a Capitalisation Direction of £43.000m on 20 February 2025 provided by the Minister for Local Government.  The ‘in principle’ decision was subject to a range of conditions on the Council as set out in the letter and final approval of the Capitalisation Direction would be subject to the Council meeting those conditions over a period to be determined.

The Scrutiny Committee for Corporate and Resources was asked to consider and comment upon the recommendations in the report which the Executive would consider at its meeting on 3 March 2025.

During the discussion that followed a number of points were raised including:

·         Members were greatly relieved to note it could balance its budget this year.  However, it was noted the Exceptional Financial Support only really meant the relaxation of some rules rather than the provision of any external funding. 

·         Members noted the government was still only minded to approve Exception Financial Support at this stage.  The Officer said she was making it clear to the government that Somerset Council intended to draw down the full amount requested in the Reserves Directive and that the Council was depending on this measure.

·         Members said they had found the paper very useful, including the comparative work that had been reported on.

·         There was some concern that part of the budget relied on changes to parking charges which had not been agreed yet.

·         Members queried a large change to the savings in the booking and permit scheme in waste services.  The Officer explained how the savings were expected to be delivered.

·         The Officer re-iterated that whilst the Council could balance its budget, it was not able to do so in a sustainable way.  She explained some of the provisions she had made in the budget for future unknown costs, such as the future staff pay award.

·         In response to questions the Chief Executive said the Council did not believe it needed to review its plan for the disposal of assets, following the approval of the Exceptional Financial Support.  

·         The Officer said she believed that each of the actions within her report were being acted upon.

·         The Officer talked to Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

To consider the report.

Councillor Liz Leyshon, Deputy Leader of the Council and Lead Member Finance, Procurement and Performance, was invited to introduce the report.  She said she welcomed the government’s letter which was minded to approve the Exceptional Financial Support.  However, she was mindful any increase in the Council Tax would be difficult for householders.

She thanked the Section 151 Officer and her team who had worked hard and had worked long hours to report on the budget.

The report stated the Council must approve its Revenue Budget and set the Council Tax by 11 March 2025 in relation to 2025/26.  All councillors had a legal responsibility to set a balanced budget by this deadline.  In addition, the Council had a Best Value Duty to demonstrate financial sustainability through the delivery of a balanced Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP) over a period of at least 3 years.

The Scrutiny Committee for Corporate and Resources was asked to consider and comment upon the recommendations in the report which the Executive would consider at its meeting on 3 March 2025.

The recommendations to Council were the proposed Revenue Budget, Capital Programme, Treasury Management Strategy and Council Tax for 2025/26 and the Medium-Term Financial Strategy and Plan (MTFS and MTFP) for the period 2025/26 to 2029/30.

During the discussion that followed a number of points were raised including:

·       In response to questions the Officer said economic growth across the country had varied since the pandemic. 

·       Members were interested in whether the Council could help support the High Streets and the small/medium businesses to recover.

·       There was concern that savings would be made a service level.  However, it was noted that the Council did not intend to reduce its services.

·       There was concern the Council was losing the rural services delivery grant.  Members commented it cost more to deliver services in rural places.  The Council had made representation to government to try and reinstate the rural services delivery grant. 

·       In respect of the General Fund Revenue Budget members noted the Council was in a desperate position financially and this was very concerning into the future.   

·       In respect of the General Fund Capital, the Section 151 Officer pointed out there were a number of schemes.  The Council was currently waiting for final confirmation of such funding.

·       The Section 151 Officer explained the term under/over borrowed.  She said the Council was intending to take out more borrowing soon.

·       The former district council markets had been included in the report in case they could not be devolved to town/parish councils.

·       Members queried whether the report should say there had not been any consultation on the review of parking charges.

·       There was concern the highways budget would be reduced and services devolved.  Members said there needed to be real clarity as to what the town/parish councils were being asked to take on.  

·       With regard to Council Tax, some members said it was regrettable that Council Tax had not be increased more gradually in the past. 

·       There was a discussion about the bandings  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

To consider the report.

Councillor Richard Wilkins, Lead Member for Transport and Waste Services, was invited to introduce the report.

The report stated Somerset Council had inherited a range of parking policies from the previous District Councils and had the ability to bring consistency to those set out in the report.  In doing so it was anticipated that additional income would be received from which the Council would be able to reinvest into the service and its wider ambitions.

There was a long debate on this item, during which a number of points were raised including:

·       Members said the change to the Policy felt rushed.  There had been no consultation and no data collected to inform the change.  The change was bound to affect residents, but the Council did not have all the information on this yet.

·       Members suspected that this report had been brought to the Council now to help with the budget deficit rather than the review being motivated by a desire to mark the cost of parking consistent across the county.

·       Members said an economic assessment should have been carried out before any recommendations were made to change the Policy.

·       It was noted an equalities impact assessment had been added to the report, but there was concern that some groups would be unacceptably adversely affected.

·       There was concern that blue badge holders would be adversely affected and may choose to stay at home.  Though it was noted that blue badge holders could often park on the road for free.

·       Members said there were aspects of car parking across Somerset which should be harmonised, for instance, the cost of blue badges.

·       There was a discussion about the charges for disabled spaces.  The Lead Officer agreed to pass the concerns to the Equalities Manager ahead of any decision.

·       One member said not all customers were able to pay for parking via an app and it was important to provide alternatives methods of payment.

·       Members suggested either some of the car parks be withdrawn from the Policy, such as that at Wiveliscombe, or that the report should be deferred to gain more information. 

·       There was concern drivers would park on the streets across the county to avoid the parking charges.

·       There was further concern the introduction of new parking charges would adversely impact on small/medium businesses and the High Street.  Any harm to such businesses could potentially have a negative impact on the Council’s income from Business Rates.

·       Members of the Committee suggested the report be deferred. 

·       The Lead Officer said Officers had attended group meetings to introduce the new parking policy to Councillors.  It was then up to the Executive to decide whether to go forward with any changes.  This procedure was normal for policy change and it would go on to include a public consultation.  Such a consultation would be open to comments from anyone.

·       Members said changing the parking policy would be very complicated.  For instance, some residents had free parking and gates with planning permission, leading from their property to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

To consider the report.

Councillor Liz Leyshon, Deputy Leader of the Council and Lead Member Finance, Procurement and Performance, was invited to introduce the report.  She said it was vital the Somerset Council was able to avoid a Section 114 Notice because if decisions were made by Commissioners, Councillors would find such decisions very painful.

This report stated it was important to ensure that the Council continued to work to a balanced revenue and capital outturn and to maintain tight financial control over its budget.

The purpose of this report was to provide Members with a forecast of the 2024/25 year-end spend (Outturn) against the Council’s approved Revenue budget and Capital Programme budget as at the end of December 2024, and to explain forecast variances against individual revenue budgets, capital projects, and the capital programme as a whole.

The last report Executive received was the General Fund Revenue Budget

Monitoring Report for Month 7, as at the end of October 2024, which reported the revenue budget as on-budget.

The Council was still forecasting a balanced revenue position (on-budget). There was a forecast underspend of £14.005m within Service Directorates for 2024/25.  The Corporate contingency of £6.000m remained unallocated, leading to a revenue forecast underspend of £20.005m within budget lines. The £20.065m underspend would reduce the drawdown from Earmarked Reserves to £19.434m which had been utilised to balance the 2024/25 budget.

There has been an increase of £11.283m in the revenue forecast underspend position of £8.782m reported in Month 7.  The main movements were reported in the following areas:

•        Adults Services has an increased underspend of £0.428m mainly due to demand being less than originally anticipated.

•        Children, Families & Education Services, has a decreased overspend of £2.519m mainly due to revised forecasts, lower demand, additional income, and holding staff vacancies.

•        Strategy, Workforce & Localities has an increased underspend of £0.664m mainly due to the decentralisation of Employee Insurance, further underspends in the corporate training budget, and staffing costs.

•        Resources & Corporate Services has an increased overspend of £2.554m largely due to a reduction of income from Commercial Investment Properties mainly as a result of accelerated sales of investment properties.

•        Non-Service has an increased underspend of £10.028m due to the Council’s debt charges, which were forecast to be lower than anticipated at budget setting, whilst investment income is expected to be higher by the end of the financial year.  There had also been an underspend forecast for Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP).

During the discussion that followed a number of points were raised including:

·Members noted the overspends and underspends. 

·Regarding overspends, Scrutiny Members were encouraged to challenge any forecast overspends in the departments which they oversaw.

RESOLVED

To recommend that the Executive:

a.  Notes the Council is now forecasting a balanced revenue position (on-budget).

b.  Notes the total Council revenue forecast underspend of £20.065m for the year.  There is a forecast underspend of £14.005m within Service Directorates for 2024/25 and the Corporate Contingency of £6.000m, whilst remains unallocated it has been released into the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

To consider the report.

Councillor Liz Leyshon, Deputy Leader of the Council and Lead Member Finance, Procurement and Performance, was invited to introduce the report. 

This report set out the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Revenue and Capital Budget Monitoring Report for the end of December 2024, (Quarter 3).

Revenue

The last report the Executive received was for Quarter 2, as at the end of September 2024, which reported a forecast net overspend of £1.717m.

The Council was now forecasting a revenue overspend of £1.327m for 2024/25.

There had been a decrease of £0.391m in the revenue forecast overspend of £1.717 reported for Quarter 2.  The main movements were reported in the following areas:

Positive movements in forecast outturn:

•        Income - there was an overall increase in the forecast of the recovery of income of £0.117m, due to updated forecasts impacted by a reduction in the level of void properties.

•        Repairs and Maintenance – there was a reduction in the forecast outturn overspend of £0.134m, due to updated forecasts reducing the forecast overspend on voids as well as underspends in general repairs mitigating part of the overspend.

•        Supervision and Management – there was an increase in the forecast outturn underspend of £0.203m, due to multiple vacancies in job roles across the HRA

•        not being expected to be filled before the end of the financial year.

Work to ensure that the assumptions within the forecast were relevant and robust continued with the Housing Management Team especially those areas where there was demand led budgets, and pressures.

Capital

The last report the Executive received was for Quarter 2, as at the end of September 2024, which reported that the forecast capital outturn was £55.446m, with slippage of £37.723m and a forecast net overspend of £0.274m.

The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Capital Programme for 2024/25 onwards was £91.052m.  At Quarter 3 this forecast had reduced by £4.059m to £51.387m, with slippage of £39.664m being requested.

During the discussion that followed members thanked the Officers for their work in producing the report.

RESOLVED

To recommend that the Executive:

a.       Notes the Housing Revenue Account forecast overspend of £1.327m for 2024/25, the mitigations actions in the report and the impact on the HRA General Fund Reserve of this overspend.

b.       Agree to take further mitigating actions to pull back the forecast overspend to a balanced outturn.

c.       Notes the forecast outturn position of the Capital Programme of £51.387m for 2024/25.

d.       Notes the budget additions of £2.894m approved through Key Decisions as in paragraph 24 of the report.

e.       Notes the Capital virements in Appendix C of the report.

f.         Approve updated slippage of £39.665m into future years.

To consider the report.

Councillor Liz Leyshon, Deputy Leader of the Council and Lead Member Finance, Procurement and Performance, was invited to introduce the report. 

This report set out the Council’s proposed approach to risk management and aims to streamline and refine existing documentation to provide a clear and cohesive control framework for managing risk.  The approach built on previous transitional work to align risk management from the five predecessor Councils and built on testing and learning throughout the past 6-9 months. 

Recent Audit recommendations (Annual Audit Report 2023/24; CIPFA External Audit; Corporate Peer Challenge; Internal Audits) recognised the importance of strengthening risk management across the Council to identify, manage and mitigate risks more fully, effectively and efficiently.

Bringing together previous policy, strategy and framework documents into a single and simplified approach that was coherent with the Council’s wider strategic planning and performance frameworks, would support full and consistent implementation between now and summer 2025.

The Committee were asked to consider the proposed approach to risk management and provide feedback.

During the discussion that followed a number of points were raised including:

·     Members queried how they could get items on the risk register such as landslides and highways which was a current risk and not yet listed.  Members noted such requests could come via Scrutiny Committees and Service Lead Officers.

·     The Officer explained the difference between inherit risks, current and target risks.  She agreed to make the explanation clearer in the glossary.

·     She further agreed to make it clearer when the report suggested that a risk be terminated.

·     Members requested the risks be made clearer with improved colour coding.

·     The Officer said the intention was to train the whole organisation about the importance of assessing risks.

RESOLVED

To note and approve the Council’s approach to Risk Management as set out in Appendix One of the report.

To consider the report.

Councillor Liz Leyshon, Deputy Leader of the Council and Lead Member Finance, Procurement and Performance, was invited to introduce the report. 

This report outlined the performance of Somerset Council for Quarter 3 (end of December 2024) of the 2024/2025 financial year, against a suite of key indicators.

The individual corporate performance indicators, within the appendix to this report, had been organised under one of the four council plan priorities (or the overarching priority of ‘a financially sustainable and resilient Council’), instead of by directorate.  This change aimed to make the connection between performance information and the priorities clearer and was the first step to improving corporate performance reporting.

The performance indicators themselves remained the interim measures agreed upon at Vesting Day.  However, work was in progress to bring together a revised set of measures that better reflected each Council Plan priority and provided a more even distribution of measures across the priorities.

The committee was asked to review the performance information provided within appendix A of the report.

The Chair thanked the Officers for their report.

RESOLVED

To note the report.