Cabinet Member for Finance
Decision:
Minutes:
77.1 Councillor Ward – Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance introduced the report, which was an update from the first quarter of the current financial year. He then drew Members’ attention to the following:
· The strategic response was summarised in the 5 key actions in paragraph 4.1.
· General Fund Revenue Account:
· The key variations on expenditure and income compared with the budget was identified and presented in the table in paragraph 5.8
· There was a favourable variance of £639k, which was an improvement of £862k. This was largely due to a one-off additional benefit of £722k from the business rates retention pilot, over and above the growth funds allocated to the Council and set aside for earmarked schemes, as agreed by Cabinet last month.
· There was an improvement of £233k in the position for CIFCO.
· There was an improvement in planning income, partly offset by the cost of additional professional ecology and landscape consultancy.
· There now existed an adverse variance of £54k for housing solutions, which was a movement of £185k.
· NOTE: that the variance total in paragraph 5.8 on page 18 was correct; but that the table total on page 26 had not been updated.
· Transformation Fund
· The current Transformation Fund projects was listed in appendix B.
· The table in paragraph 5.10 indicate an improvement in the balance. for the transformation fund at the end of the year, which was now expected to be £285k, enough to cover the outstanding commitments.
· MTFS Update
· An update to the MTFS was to be provided as part of these monitoring reports.
· The cumulative funding shortfall over the four years from 2019/20 to 2022/23, was currently standing at just under £1.2M (line 41 of appendix B on page 32). Note that this includes the minimum NHB and was in excess of £2M without that.
· Capital Programme
· There was a favourable variance of £6.8M anticipated for capital expenditure and the reasons for this were summarised at paragraph 5.19.
· The capital programme was set out in appendix E.
77.2 Councillor Barrett congratulated the Finance Team for the positive update.
77.3 Councillor Lawrenson agreed and said there had previously been excess funds available to the Council but that these had been used on various projects and not on infrastructure projects. He suggested that this new excess fund was used to grow the economy in areas such as Sudbury. He said that the Council had to rely on Suffolk County Council (SCC) to fulfil the demands for hospital, highways etc. and SCC had failed to deliver. Sudbury needed to take control of its own area. Carparking could raise a substantial amount of money, which together with Business Rates and CILL could raise an substantial amount.
77.4 Councillor Lawrenson continued and said that the Council needed to put money aside to invest in Sudbury, and that there was a need for better infrastructure to get people into the town. He felt that SCC had failed to invest in key infrastructure for the area.
77.5 He suggested a fund to be set up for infrastructure and growth and Councillor Barrett agreed.
77.6 Councillor Ward said he would set up a meeting with Kathy Nixon – Strategic Director, to discuss the matter further. He agreed that it was a huge blow to Sudbury that the bypass was not to be developed. The town centre was troubled by traffic and growth was being stunted by this.
77.7 Councillor Lawrence reminded Members that the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) had provided money for a study of the infrastructure in the County and that the Council was entitled to review all the information and studies for he transport and infrastructure.
77.8 Councillor Barret asked that the full report be requested for the Cabinet to review.
77.9 He asked, how did Local Government provide the incentive to growth if not by investing in infrastructure, which clearly presented a case to show this improved local economy. He continued that SCC had failed to provide an infrastructure, which was robust and sustainable and that he felt the Council had been let down by SCC.
77.10 Councillor Ward said he would write a letter to the leader of SCC on behalf of the Cabinet.
77.11 Councillor Ridley returned to the matter of the Joint Local Plan which was going to Cabinet in January. He was concerned that development sites in the Joint Local Plan, especially Chiltern Woods, would be affected. There was a risk that the Planning Inspector would not approve of this development, as it was not supported by robust infrastructure. He that requested this was also raised with SCC.
77.12 Councillor Lawrenson referred to the costings included in the press release, of which he had been unaware. He added he would like to see the actual costings as well as the transport studies from SCC.
77.13 Councillor Ward MOVED the Recommendations on 3.1 and 3.2 on page 15 which was seconded by Councillor Barrett.
By a unanimous vote.
It was RESOLVED: -
1.1 That subject to any further budget variations that arise during the rest of the financial year, the following net transfers of £639k be noted:
· £94k to Carry Forwards (Strategic Planning and Policy Strategy Health and Well-Being)
· £27k to Waste
· £10k to Elections
· £10k to Strategic Planning
· £59k from Planning for appeal costs
· £54k from Homelessness
· £50k from Commuted Maintenance Payments
b) The remaining balance of the General Fund surplus of £661k be transferred to Business rates Equalisation Reserve.
1.2 The revised 2018/19 Capital Programme referred to in Appendix E and section 5.19 be approved.
REASON FOR DECISION
To ensure that Members are kept informed of the current budgetary position for both General Fund Revenue and Capital.
Supporting documents: