Agenda item

The Commission considered a report of the Director of Corporate Resources, the purpose of which was to provide an update on the 2020/21 revenue budget and capital programme monitoring position as at the end of period 10 (the end of January 2021).  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 10’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion the following points arose:

(i)              Each government grant was subject to its own conditions and many required the money to be spent within a set timeframe or at the very least by the end of the financial year.  This was very difficult for many local authorities to achieve and therefore such conditions had been softened to require spend to only be committed this financial year.  This meant some funds could now be carried forward to 2021/22.  However, despite this, the potential funding gap in 2021/22 remained substantial.

(ii)             Nationally, vacancy levels in care homes had increased as views on preferred care settings continued to change towards care at home.  Some providers were beginning to close some homes which were no longer viable, though this did not seem to be an issue in Leicestershire at the current time.   The County Council had provided interim support to local care homes and they had adapted well during this difficult time.  It was accepted, however, that further pressures on the market lay ahead.

(iii)           Members noted the overspend on commercial services, recognising that this had been a very difficult year for the Council’s traded activities.  Members were advised that services would be reviewed on a case by case basis.  Where a fundamental review was necessary requiring significant changes to a service area, proposals would be presented to the Cabinet and the Scrutiny Commission in the usual way.   Members noted that whilst some areas, such as cafes in parks, had continued to do well, other areas had been significantly impacted by Covid restrictions, for example, Beaumanor Hall which had been closed for almost a year.

(iv)           The Cabinet would consider the reallocation of unringfenced undersepnds as part of the usual outturn in May/June and redirect such funds as it considered appropriate at that time.

(v)            The M1 Junction 23/A512 overspend would not likely increase further as the scheme was due to be completed in May 2021.  It was hoped that further funding received through section 106 developer contributions would reduce the overall cost to the Council.

(vi)           A member questioned what would happen to the section 106 funding secured for the creation of secondary places in the Coalville area now that this could not be used towards a new building at Newbridge High School.  The Director advised that this would depend on the specific terms of the section 106 agreement entered into with the developer.  The Head of Law confirmed that the agreement would be reviewed to ensure, as far as possible, the funding was not lost but reallocated as appropriate.

(vii)         A member asked for an update on the proposed development of Leaders Farm in Lutterworth which had been progressing for some time.  The Director confirmed this was not yet developed enough to be regarded as a live scheme within the capital programme.  Work to secure planning permission for the site was still in progress.

(viii)        A member raised concern about the continued slippage and increased costs for the proposed Zouch Bridge replacement which had been ongoing since 2013.  Members noted that refurbishment techniques had improved over recent years and consideration would therefore be over the summer to whether this would be a viable option, as opposed to its replacement.  A further update would be provided as part of the MTFS monitoring report in the Autumn.  The Director confirmed that the bridge continued to be subject to regular inspections and that works to date had ensured that it had remained open.  Whilst it was noted that the River Soar was the boundary between Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire, the bridge fell within Leicestershire County Council’s remit. 

(ix)           Members raised concerns about the length of time some schemes remained listed in the capital programme and questioned how these were reviewed to ensure extensions or other changes did not affect the best value assessments or forecasted yield/returns estimated when they were first agreed, particularly when some were listed for several years.  A member raised further concerns about schemes not listed in the programme but which were under development (such as Leaders Farm) and which still incurred costs in the background.  Members questioned how long a scheme was or should continue to be pursued, the cost implications of this and what was the overall impact on the capital programme. 

The Director emphasised that schemes tended to be added to the capital programme long before construction works began.  This was felt to be appropriate to allow for proper oversight and management of the programme over the duration of the MTFS (i.e. 4 years).   However, it was acknowledged that timescales were sometimes overoptimistic, and this was something officers were seeking to address. 

The Director confirmed that the continued extension of schemes could result in increased costs and use of officer time.   Members noted that business cases for a project would be assessed at the outset and thereafter reviewed as necessary following any change, but a review of the overall capital programme for the overall impact of delays was not carried out.

The Director agreed to consider the concerns now raised both in respect of individual schemes and the programme overall.  He further agreed to consider the need for stricter timelines for both schemes listed in the capital programme and those which were under development.  Members requested that the next MTFS monitoring report presented to the Commission provide some narrative on these issues and detail projects which had been delayed, the justification for this and potential cost implications.

RESOLVED:

(a)  That the update now provided be noted;

(b)  That the Director of Corporate Resources be requested to consider the concerns now raised by the Commission and to provide an update in the next MTFS Monitoring report to the Commission in the Autumn.