Agenda item

To consider the Council’s general fund outturn for 2023/24, the financing of the capital programme and the annual treasury management report and performance and to approve the transfers to and from earmarked reserves. 

1.     That the Council’s general fund outturn for 2023/24, the financing of the capital programme and the annual treasury management report and performance be NOTED.

2.     That the transfers to and from earmarked reserves be APPROVED.

8.1             The report of the Associate Director: Finance, circulated at Pages No. 15-46, highlighted the Council’s financial performance for the previous year, setting out the General Fund and capital outturn positions.  Members were asked to consider the General Fund outturn for 2023/24, the financing of the capital programme and the annual treasury management report and performance; and to approve the transfers to and from earmarked reserves.

8.2             In introducing the report, the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management felt it should be noted that the report had been put together during a period of high intensity for Officers with them having to close the financial year, whilst also supporting the delivery of the Parliamentary election, as well as having auditors undertaking their work related to the accounts and year end.  Reporting on the quarter 3 position, the Executive Committee had been updated in March that a forecast £202,000 surplus was anticipated by the end of the financial year.  From reading the report, Members would note that the Council had performed significantly better than predicted with a final outturn of £2.9m surplus.  It should be noted that a transfer of £1.49m to externally ringfenced reserves was required, which left an overall surplus of £1.4m.  As had been the case throughout the year, some areas had overspent whilst there had also been higher levels of income than expected elsewhere.  He had picked out some key details which included a surplus of £1.9m in services expenditure largely due to the cost of employees being £218,000 under budget; however, it should be noted that there was a target within the Council’s corporate expenditure to save £209,000 from employment costs across the Council which reduced the predicted underspend to £9,000.  Payments to third parties showed a £550,000 overspend which included an additional £235,000 for the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) gate fee, and emergency homeless accommodation costs were £128,000 over budget due to increased demand. Externally funded projects showed an underspend of £1.03m due to phasing of funding and project delivery – these funds had been transferred into reserves for use when required.  Income showed a £1.5m surplus, primarily linked to payments including the Council being awarded a significant costs claim against two defendants in health and safety cases, planning fees and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) administration fees.  It was noted that corporate expenditure was in surplus by £919,000 with the main reasons being an additional £539,000 of treasury investment income compared to budget as a result of the high interest rates and timely management decisions, and business rates retention being £222,000 higher than budget.  With regard to capital budget and reserves, set out at Appendices B and D respectively, spending was broadly in line within the approved budgets.  It was worth noting that capital spend was approximately £550,000 underspent due to longer than expected lead times for new vehicles and would now be purchased in the next financial year, as well as a £280,000 underspend on the installation of the new heating system for the Public Services Centre.  In terms of the surplus, decisions on how this was utilised would be taken after the formal accounts had been completed; these would be presented to the Audit and Governance Committee in September.  Unfortunately, due to the timeline for publication of the Executive Committee Agenda, the final figures for the Ubico contract had not been available ahead of today’s meeting; however, this had now been reported as £156,000 under budget and the details would be presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee next week.  Throughout this year, the Key Performance Indicators (KPI) report, attached at Appendix E to the report, gave further context to the financial performance, and, based on the recent requirement from the revised Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Prudential and Treasury Codes to report the prudential indicators on a quarterly basis, these were attached at Appendices C and F of the report.  

8.3             A Member drew attention to Page No. 19 of the report which showed an underspend in relation to Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) – this was not surprising as she was aware from her casework that a lot of people were ineligible for things which they required such as dropped kerbs for access and wet rooms.  She found it particularly concerning that people living in properties owned by housing associations were able to pay for adaptations themselves but were required to remove these when they left at the end of their tenancy.  She asked if there was anything the Council could do in terms of speaking to the government about relaxing the criteria as people who needed help were not currently getting it.  In response, the Associate Director: Finance clarified there was an overspend in relation to DFGs – Tewkesbury Borough Council was given £800,000 by the County Council but the actual outturn position was £878,851.  The Head of Service: Environmental Health advised that applications could only be processed by the Council on receipt of a referral from Occupational Health; however, he undertook to raise the issue in relation to adaptations in housing association properties at the Gloucestershire DFG Liaison Group.  The Chair indicated that he was also happy to raise this with housing associations and pointed out it was not just adaptations which had to be removed when tenants moved out – if any carpets were put down these also had to be taken out despite many being in perfectly good condition so it was worth having a discussion around that.

8.4             A Member noted there was an underspend of £117,000 in relation to the Heritage Action Zone yet Appendix B stated this had been completed so he asked what would happen to that money and whether it had been allocated to any projects.  In response, the Associate Director: Finance advised that the scheme had ended in March but, as there were projects in place, this had been allowed to be carried over and she confirmed all of the money had been spent in April.  The Member acknowledged there was a £12,000 overspend on Environmental Health agency contracted services, of which £8,000 was for boarding up Healings Mill due to the health and safety risk to the public.  He asked if it was possible to recoup any of this from the owner; in his view Healings Mill was an eyesore and boarding it up was no improvement.  The Chief Executive advised that, if the owner did not bring a satisfactory solution forward for the building, there may be an opportunity for the authority to step in to deliver the project and discussions were taking place with the relevant government departments in relation to funding for that.  He undertook to circulate a recent newspaper article which described Tewkesbury as a ‘hidden gem’ and he felt there was a real opportunity to use the Healings Mill site to build on that – this would be particularly important in setting Tewkesbury apart from Cheltenham and Gloucester in terms of any devolution deal for Gloucestershire which may be forthcoming as a result of plans outlined in the King’s Speech.  The Head of Service: Environmental Health advised that a Community Protection Notice had been served on the owner of Healings Mill requiring them to put permanent security measures in place; they had not complied which had resulted in antisocial behaviour at the site.  The Council wanted to prosecute in the hope a court order would be issued which would persuade the owner to take action.  Although there had been detailed discussions with the owner about their intentions for the building going forward, that was not a reason to defer taking enforcement action on public health grounds. 

8.5             A Member felt that £233,000 in Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) administration fees seemed quite high and asked if it was due to inaccuracies in estimations.  In response, the Executive Director: Resources advised that the administration fee was generally 5% depending on the number of properties and Tewkesbury Borough Council’s administration fees were a lot lower than expected.  It was intended to put in place external resource and expenditure so it was closer to 5% and to utilise the money for the benefit of Tewkesbury Borough and the county.  The CIL Manager explained that his figures were likely to be different to those in the accounts due to a variation on how they were recorded – accruals made a difference as, when the demand notice was issued, this set out a schedule of instalments towards the cost of the whole notice whereas he reported on cash in year.  A Member asked if the figure in the report was just for Tewkesbury Borough and confirmation was provided that was the case.  The Member asked if there was any frustration on the part of Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils that the money had not yet been spent and the CIL Manager advised that Gloucester City Council was grateful for the support – without the partnership, it would probably not be a CIL authority - and nobody at Cheltenham Borough Council had raised it as an issue.  The Chief Executive explained that, if infrastructure needed to go into other authority areas to provide strategic capacity there should be no objection in that sense; however, if Tewkesbury Borough had its own strategic requirements on the CIL list, it would be able to use CIL money generated in its own area for those requirements.  He did not think it was a problem that CIL was not ringfenced for Tewkesbury Borough alone.

8.6             It was proposed, seconded and