Agenda item

To present to Member’s the updated Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) which covers the period 2024/25 to 2028/29 for the General Fund (GF) and consider initial savings options.

The Group had before it, and NOTED, a report * from the Deputy Chief Executive (S151) presenting the updated Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) which covered the period 2024/25 to 2028/29 for the General Fund (GF) and considered initial savings options.

The following was highlighted within the report:

·         This was a 5 year plan with figures in relation to years 2 – 4 being best guesses.

·         The previous budget gap for 2024/25 of £1.5m had now increased to over £2m partly as a result of stubborn inflation and the Government’s indicative increase in planning fees not transpiring.

·         Assumptions had been made in terms of not using any reserves and the need to revise the capital programme.

The Group considered the savings options outlined in Appendix 2 and discussion took place regarding:-

• The Council was not intending to achieve savings by imposing compulsory redundancies but rather it would consider not replacing people automatically when they left and would undertake a thorough review of the risks involved in each case.
• What the green, amber and red risk categories meant. –

GREEN :– a saving which did not significantly impact upon service delivery.

AMBER: - savings would impact on service delivery but that impact would be manageable.

RED: - savings would impact upon service delivery and would require changes to the levels of services offered.

• How staff sickness could best be managed and what the Council was already doing regarding this.

·         The savings did not add up to £2.1m and there would need to be a further round of cuts.

The shortfall covered two aspects;

• £1m in year savings targets – a £400,000 staffing saving and £625k to avoid drawing from General Reserves.
• Hopeful if not confident that the Council would be able to absorb this - recommendations would be fed back to the Cabinet.
• £1m inflationary pressure across pay, utilities and supplies and services.

Consideration was given to:

·         The impact on planning advice and planning applications.

·         Training and development for staff to encourage staff retention.

·         Setting up a Community PDG working group to invite organisations to present a business case for grant support.

·         The costs of agency staff particularly in Waste and how this can be reduced by increasing the establishment budget to reduce reliance on agency support.

·         Energy costs and where savings can be made to Leisure Centres.

·         Fuel saving costs with introduction of electric vehicles.

·         Staff savings and the welfare of staff when posts were not replaced.

RECOMMENDED to the Cabinet:-

·         Items rag rated as green were APPROVED.

·         Items rag rated as amber were further broken down into:-

a)    Community grants were APPROVED with Cllr B Holdman and Cllr D Broom abstaining.

b)    All other items were APPROVED with Cllr C Harrower and Cllr S Robinson abstaining.

·         Items rag rated as red were APPROVED

It was NOTED that there could be possible cost reductions in relation to Business Rates, energy costs and fuel costs during 2024/25

(Proposed by the Chairman)

Reason for the decision

By undertaking an annual review of the MTFP the Council could ensure that its Corporate Plan priorities were affordable. The implications of the revised budget gap were set out within the paper. Many areas require greater clarity, particularly around national funding and the possibility of additional funding to offset the implications of the Cost of Living Crisis. Therefore a number of key assumptions underpinned the reported position, which would be refined as greater clarity was received through the budget setting process.

Notes

(i)       * Report previously circulated.

(ii)        Cllr S Robinson declared an interest.