Agenda item

N Howcutt took the report as read, highlighting his hope from a financial perspective that there would be very little significant change before the year end, barring policy change or significant environmental or economic impacts on the authority. The general fund was noted to be projecting a surplus of £0.5 million, with some pressures around staffing at Cupid Green, and some of the work on optimisation and place-shaping, including temporary staff. Increased treasury returns and a bumper windfall from green waste income were noted as offsetting factors. HRA (Housing Revenue Account) was identified as the headline of the report, with a pressure of £0.4 million but a huge amount of work done in the first six months of the year. Pressures started to be coming from the supervision and management of the service through the transformation programme, general service delivery and improvements, and around £5 million from repairs and maintenance due to post-Covid catch-ups and increasing costs, which N Howcutt identified would be examined in great detail at the next month's scrutiny as part of the HRA business plan. It was confirmed that the contribution to capital had been removed, so future capital programmes would rely more on borrowing than reserve contributions, and emphasised that the current treasury windfall of £1.8 million was only short-term, with cash balances for the HRA expected to reach a point next year where they were borrowing. Income increases were identified as a result of faster property turnaround times, leading to more rental income and leaseholder charges.

Cllr Capozzi referred to section 7, asking where the relief was coming from for the pressures in point 4. N Howcutt suggested looking at Appendix B, and a table of all subsets without narratives. The Chair asked for a summation of the categories in the table in 7.4. N Howcutt explained that, (1) compliance planned maintenance was around gas, electric safety, fire safety, legionella, and asbestos, that (2) the responsive repairs was for repairs that needed to be responded to within a day or two days and was predominantly delivered through Osborne, that (3) empty homes had an average cost of £8,000 in repairs with around 330 re-lets per month, that (4) main contact overheads were those involved in the management of all other work.

Cllr Williams questioned the number of re-lets, and N Howcutt agreed to check and clarify with all committee members.

Cllr Guest referred to paragraph 1.1 in the executive summary, wondering how the figure of £0.5 million had been reached. N Howcutt stated that it was based on the final offer put forward of £1,925 per employee for the year, except those above spinal point 45, which was at 3.88% and came out a little under £500,000 that was now planned to be paid through the December payroll following confirmation.

Cllr Pound referred to capital programme at Appendix C, item 83, Rossgate Shops structural works, £315,000 and asked when work was scheduled to start, as recently some concrete had fallen onto workers heads. N Howcutt expressed his belief that he had circulated a timeline update, and that he would recirculate it, but that he thought it was about due to start. Cllr Hannell confirmed that there had been some slippage at Bennetts Gate and Rossgate, but that residents didn't know when the work was due to start, as they had been informed it would be in October. Cllr Pound further wondered what area of the shops it was. N Howcutt admitted that he didn't know, but would confirm as part of the update.

Cllr Capozzi referred to paragraph 2.1, asking for clarification on how to read the columns in Appendix C. N Howcutt briefly ran through the column headings and calculation of figures, agreeing to take the discussion into more detail offline.

The report was noted.

Action: N Howcutt to check and clarify the number of re-lets per month to committee members.

Action: N Howcutt to liaise with the project lead for Rossgate regarding a timeline update and confirmation of the area affected.