Agenda item

Cllr Shires explained that NNDC was looking at a surplus at year end but warned the Committee to be mindful of the ‘unknowns’ that lay ahead, such as what was the Government funding settlement.

Cllr Penfold asked if the Council had an idea of the impact food waste collections would have on the budget and was the Council trying to mitigate any additional costs by looking to phase in the scheme. Cllr Shires explained that Central Government had vastly underestimated what it would cost to implement food waste collections. The Council was investigating the exact costs involved and seeking ways that would have the minimal impact on budget, but it would be an additional revenue cost.

Cllr Cushing asked what capital funded projects was the Council borrowing. Cllr Shires explained, when setting out the Capital Programme, they always indicated the intention to borrow but they were not currently borrowing. Cllr Shires said that to fund any project the Council would always look for best value for money so if they had the fluid funds available and didn’t have to pay the interest on borrowing, then the choice would always be not to externally borrow. Cllr Shires confirmed Cllr Cushing’s thinking was correct in that the figure £6.175m was just what could be borrowed but wasn’t currently being borrowed. The DFR explained in terms of funding capital expenditure there were three sources that could be used, capital receipts, grants or other forms of external income, or borrowing. Borrowing could be internal or external. The Council hadn’t needed to use external borrowing yet as it had used its own working capital, classing it as internal borrowing until such time the Council needed to borrow externally.

Cllr Cushing then queried the Council’s Capital Financing Requirement (CFR) and how that fitted in with borrowing. The DFR explained that was the element of internal and external borrowing that the Council hadn’t yet funded.

Cllr Hankins commended the finance team on the savings made but queried why the savings in business growth staffing had not been met. Cllr Shires explained the saving of £55k was put forward but at that stage they were not sure if they were going to get the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) money or any other grants. However, the Council received those grants but provided the Council didn’t get them next year the efficiency would be made. If it did receive the grant money the Council would retain the staff members necessary to enable those schemes to run properly.

The Chair had a query about restructuring and how much was coming out of revenue and how much out of reserve. The DFR did not have a precise split but advised that where restructuring savings were made by deleting temporary posts there was very little in terms of restructuring costs; where those posts were from the establishment or where compensation was due to individuals it was then that the Council would seek to use reserves, if it had them. Some areas of the Council used a lot of interim resource and had been trying to build up reserves for such occasions. The DFR agreed to try and find a breakdown for that split.

The Chair also queried the spending on software for Customer Services given the longevity of the organisation. The DFR explained the additional capital spend for the software was an oversight in the original budgeting of the project. The Officers had not realised the configuration of the software would be an additional charge by the supplier. As the funds for the project had already been committed before LGR, they had to spend the additional amount to get the full efficiency of the application.

The DFR confirmed any future investment that would outlive the projected life of the organisation was considered and the Council was mindful that some of its investments may have had a limited shelf-life.

Cllr Housden, asked about the increase in budget for Holt Country Park (HCP) and what the contribution was from the external Section 106 fund and if this was the £40k stated with the Council expected to find the additional £100k. Cllrs Shires believed it was, and that this had been put into the capital programme. Cllr Housden also queried what the £57k for supplies and services for travellers related to. Cllr Shires said that was most likely for utilities and other things needed to maintain the traveller’s sites which was a statutory requirement, but she agreed to provide a breakdown to the Committee for exactly what those costs related to.

In response to a query from Cllr Bayes regarding the Net Zero budget, Cllr Shires said there was a reserve for Net Zero initiatives, but some funding was external. Cllr Bayes said he was happy to get a more substantial written explanation on the income from associated Net Zero initiatives but wished to clarify that zero pounds of NNDC money was being spent on advertising the Make My House Green scheme. Cllr Varley said NNDC had received a contribution for each installation, which he believed totalled around £250. That money was ringfenced for specific green projects.

The Committee RESOLVED to recommend to Full Council:

a)        Note the contents of the report and the current forecast year end position.

b) Seek approval of Full Council to increase the 2025/26 capital budget for the Holt Country Park Eco Learning Space to £140,000. This is to reflect the apportionment of £40,000 from external S106 contribution towards the scheme.

c) To acknowledge the increased Customer Services C3 Software 2025/26 capital budget to a total of £32,600. This is following approval of an additional £9,200 towards the project from the Delivery Plan Reserve by the Director of Resources/S151 Officer.