Issue - meetings

To receive a report from the Deputy Chief Executive (S151) presenting to Member’s the updated Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) which covers the period 2026/27 to 2028/29 and to discuss initial options for cost pressures/savings or income related to the services covered by the Policy Development Group (PDG).

The Group had before it a report * from the Deputy Chief Executive (S151) presenting the updated Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) which covered the period 2026/27 to 2028/29 and which discussed initial options for cost pressures/savings or income related to the services covered by the Policy Development Group.

A summary of the report and the relevant factors was provided as follows:

·       The report was a little different to that provided in previous years. This was due to theraft of changes expected from 2026/27 and the longer term restrictions placed upon the Council byLocal Government Reorganisation (LGR). The report didn’t give a forecast shortfall to beaddressed. Instead it highlighted the unprecedented level of uncertainty faced by all councils inrespect of funding from 2026/27 onwards and estimated a range that the shortfall could fallwithin.

·       The Chancellor’s Autumn Budget would not be available until the end of November 2025. This would have a knock on effect of delaying the detail at individual local authority level. The uncertainty regarding future funding could not be overstated.

·       Over the summer officers had identified a range of budget options to address the budgetshortfall, using the Red, Amber and Green (RAG) assessment, which were being presented tothe relevant Policy Development Groups for discussion, with the recommendation to support the Green and Amber options.

Discussion took place regarding:

·       The majority of the cost pressures listed were outside of the Council’s control.

·       The possible reasons why this Council had been targeted as part of a minority group of around 50 authorities that would be one of the biggest losers based on the Government’s initial draft calculations on funding. It was suggested that a possible reason could be that the Council had performed so well with Business Rates.

·       Whether it was possible for officers to take a proactive and flexible approach to lease additional space within Phoenix House in order to maximise opportunities for income? It was explained that with Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), the Council’s options were restricted in terms of leasing out available space to new tenants until more was known about how the building was to be used in the future following LGR.

·       The implications of significant decreases in funding on the Economic Development Team.

·       Dialogue had been undertaken with Town and Parish Council’s regarding the transfer of assets but there had not been much progress. This explained why the draft budget was showing a cost pressure of £30k in this area as those savings had not materialised.

·       It was highly likely that Reserves would need to be used to fill the budget gap this year.

·       Consideration needed to be given to better use of the car park at Lords Meadow Leisure Centre in Crediton in order to alleviate a need for local business to park in that area and achieve increased income for the Council. It was AGREED that this would be taken back to the Car Parking Working Group for them to explore further.

RECOMMENDED to the Cabinet  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21