Agenda item

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW

(Papers relied on to write the report, which do not contain exempt information and which are not published elsewhere)

Cllr E Seward – Portfolio Holder for Finance and Assets introduced the report and stated that at present, there were no significant changes expected between pre-scrutiny consideration and Council, though there was scope for changes should any of the funding arrangements or business rates retention change. The DFR stated that if required, any changes would be incorporated into the Cabinet report, but this would be dependent on receiving confirmation of the Local Government Financial Settlement.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The Chairman asked which aspects of the budget presented the most risk or the greatest concern, to which Cllr E Seward replied that staff cost inflation had presented the most significant concern, though the rising costs of capital projects was also a major issue with costs doubling in some cases. He added that further concerns included some tenders only bringing one or two bids, which further increased costs through a lack of competition, therefore it was hoped that costs may begin to stabilise, or the Council would struggle to meet them.

      ii.          Cllr J Toye referred to the tax base identified and asked whether it was possible to determine how this had changed as a result of holiday homes being registered for business rates and subsequently being granted business rates relief. The DFR replied that she could review the tax base over the previous five years and share the information with Members. Cllr A Brown expected that some research on the potential reduction of the tax base may have been undertaken as part of the review on the impact of second homes and holiday lets. Cllr E Seward confirmed that the information was held by the Revenues Manager. Cllr L Withington suggested that it may be helpful to consider the impact of a reduction in new homes, as a result of nutrient neutrality legislation.

     iii.          Cllr C Cushing referred to proposed savings and income generation in Appendix A, and asked whether an amended table could be shared with Members that would differentiate between the two. He added that it would be helpful to have an indication of confidence for each proposal, to determine how likely they were to be achieved. The DFR replied that subject to Members’ approval, the savings had already been included as part of the budget-setting  process, so she had full confidence that they would be achieved, and she could seek to provide confidence indicators on the income generation proposals. The Chairman referred to the proposals and suggested that it would be helpful to include separate totals for the revised savings and income generation. Cllr E Seward confirmed that the total figure was combined savings and income, but he would be happy to separate the two. The DFR referred to the original savings figure and noted that these had already been taken out of the budget, and whilst the more recent savings figures and income generation proposals had been included, they were still subject to approval by Members. She added that the balanced budget was reliant on realising the savings and income generation proposals, though an alternative solution could be to use reserves, though it was not a preferred option.

    iv.          Cllr J Rest referred to Appendix B and asked whether the 39% difference identified in registration services was correct. The CE replied that the difference reflected changes in the budget as a result of the four-yearly election cycle, where the budget would be significantly lower on the three non-election years. He added that District elections had to be fully funded by the Council whereas Parliamentary, County, or other elections would be externally funded.

      v.          Cllr P Heinrich stated his regret regarding the reduction in Sustainable Communities Funding, and expressed hope that it could be reinstated to its former level from 24-25 onwards. The CE replied that the SCF had previously been funded by second home Council Tax funding passed to the NNDC by NCC, though pressures on the County budget meant that this arrangement would end and the Council was not able to self-sustain this funding. He added that a number of community funds had been made available via the offshore wind sector, and the Council would need to do more to help promote available grants amongst communities. Cllr P Heinrich sought assurances that communities would be fully informed of the various funds available, though it was noted that some would still choose not to apply. Cllr S Penfold stated as Chairman of the SCF that some Parishes applied more than others, and efforts would continue to find a way to maintain the fund into the future. Cllr E Seward noted that funding remained for one more year, but beyond this it would be difficult to find and sustain new funding streams.

    vi.          The DSGOS noted that the written recommendation should include recommending the Budget to Full Council for approval, if minded to do so. The Chairman noted that there was also an action required to clearly differentiate between savings and income generation in Appendix A. The recommendations were proposed by Cllr P Heinrich and seconded by Cllr S Penfold.

RESOLVED

1.     To note the proposed draft Budget for 2023/24 and recommend to Council for approval.

ACTIONS

1.     To request that savings and income generation totals be clearly differentiated within Appendix A.