Agenda item

The purpose of this report is to enable the Cabinet to make formal budget recommendations to the County Council.  

The report provides the Revenue Budget for 2022-23 and Revenue Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP) 2022-26 and the Capital Budget for 2022-23 and Capital MTFP 2022-26, following the Government’s Spending Round Announcement 2021 (SR 2021), on 27 October 2021, and the publication of the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement on 16 December 2021.  

It is important to note that there may need to be some revisions to the figures following receipt of the Government’s February 2022 Final Local Government Finance Settlement figures. It is proposed that any changes to the figures as a result of this announcement, which impact on the Budget 2022-23 and MTFP 2022-26 are delegated to the Council’s Section 151 Officer in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services. 

Councillor Richard Wearmouth, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services is required to attend for this item.

Councillor Glen Sanderson, Leader of the Council, Councillor Richard Wearmouth, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services and Jan Willis, Executive Director of Finance (Section 151 Officer) presented the report to the committee.  

The following comments were made in response to member’s questions: 

• It was confirmed to members that the addendum that was circulated wasn’t broken down separately due to the Seaton Valley schools consultation which has only recently concluded. 

• Members were assured that efficiencies made in Adult Social Care over the years had been scrutinised and appropriately reviewed. Efficiencies made were not at the detriment to the service and care provided.  
• Within Children Services efficiencies were also attained through careful review. It was highlighted that Independent Fostering Agency (IFA) placements were more costly than Local Authority placements, the service had managed to reduce the number of IFA placement significantly. The service would look to use internal resources first.  
• Kyloe House was the secure unit. It was noted that there was a high demand nationally for secure beds. It was agreed that the price increase was appropriate and in line with the national pricing structure.  
• Members noted that Children’s Services were investing in early help and prevention with families to prevent statutory intervention to assist families in  need.  
• The management structure review was still taking place. The review of the top tier had been provisionally agreed but not yet formally approved. The review would now be moving down the structure. It was noted that the £1 million savings was a target but members were assured that it was a robust estimate.  

• Members expressed concerns regarding recommendation 38 which proposed to increase Housing rent. It was noted that the Government had previously put a freeze on Housing rent, and it was felt that the increase was necessary as a catch up. Due to the increase in living costs it was suggested that this recommendation needed further discussion with a possible deferral to next year. Glen Sanderson, the Leader of the Council agreed to discuss the recommendation further.  
• Members were made aware that the Route 3 option for the Blyth Relief Road was no longer viable. A new bid had been organised and the outline business case had gone to Department of Transport. It was hoped that there would be a report brought to Cabinet soon.  
• The New Homes Bonus came from Central Government. There was no expectation for further New Homes Bonus and it was assumed only for one year. The bonus was used to cover any shortfall between Council Tax and services provided. The issue was to be looked at the Fair Funding Review.  
• Members noted there were 12 new infrastructure plans for cycling and walking. It was confirmed that Choppington was not one of the new areas.  
• It was clarified to members that the caseload for the Revenues and Benefits team had reduced since the introduction of Universal Credit and therefore the Service was able to remove vacant posts. It was confirmed that there were no vacant posts in the Leisure services explicitly but  the HR & OD directorate had made efficiencies in Services where possible. 

• Members noted that Business rates collected went into a National pot and were redistributed through a complex system. A review of the system was expected. It was also confirmed that the Business Rate Baseline reset was National and guidance had not yet been received. 
• Members noted that British Volt was not in the LEP Enterprise zone and it was expected that there would be additional income and benefits. 
• Members were aware that fixing landslips was reactive. It was noted that the road outlined in the report was a difficult and technical problem to solve. It was hoped that the work set to be carried out would solve the issue once and for all.  
• It was explained to members that it was normal practise for any changes to be delegated to the Section 151 Officer in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services. It was a pragmatic arrangement for minor adjustments as the final Local Government Settlement was usually received at a later stage into the budget papers. If there were significant changes needed the report would have had to go through the normal decision-making avenues.  
   

RESOLVED?the Committee agreed to note the recommendations subject to further consideration of the proposal to increase Housing rents.