Agenda item

The Commission considered a report of the Director of Corporate Resources which set out the provisional revenue and capital outturn for 2022/23.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda item 11’ is filed with these minutes.

The Chairman welcomed Mr L. Breckon CC, Lead Member for Resources, who attended for this item.

Arising from discussion, the following points arose:

(i)               A Member raised concerns that whilst the meeting held between the Leader, Deputy Leader, Lead Member for Resources, Chief Executive, Director of Corporate Resources and the Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt MP, had been promoted to be a success, it was not clear what tangible outcomes had been achieved.  The Lead Member for Resources confirmed that the discussions had been helpful and promising, but that there would not be an overnight fix.  Officers would next be meeting with Government officials to discuss the Council’s proposed solution in more detail.

(ii)              As the Government did not propose to look at Fair Funding for local government until 2025/26, the Council was seeking the early introduction of a funding floor (which was part of the overall solution for Fair Funding) as soon as possible.  This had been done for schools and so was technically possible, but it was not yet clear if this would be practicable given national financial pressures.  It could, however, make a significant difference to the Council’s immediate financial position. 

(iii)            Whilst many tourist attractions were bouncing back after the Pandemic, a Member commented that Beaumanor Hall still appeared to be lagging behind and questioned if the Council had the right skill set to perhaps diversify and maximise trading opportunities at this site.  Members noted that advisers had been consulted on how best to drive this part of the Council’s traded service forward, particularly in respect of weddings.

(iv)            Whilst Members were pleased to see business rates were being retained locally, concerns were raised about ongoing discussions as to how this would be split between the City, County and district councils.  Members noted proposals for the income to be split by way of a third each, but that much of the growth coming into Leicester and Leicestershire would fall within the County and so would likely affect the County Council more than the City Council.  The Lead Member commented that it was right for the Council to seek to ensure it received a fair split that would reflect where growth would fall.  However, Members raised concerns that if an agreement could not be reached, there was a risk that the income would revert back to Government resulting in significant loss to all, although it would be in no local council’s interest if this did happen.  Members encouraged continued dialogue between the respective Council Leaders and for a resolution to be found as soon as possible.   

(v)             Post the Covid-19 pandemic it was clear that more resources were needed in adult social care services.  The Department had done a lot of innovative work over the last four years to reduce costs but not the quality of service and that it had performed well despite the challenges faced during that period.  However, a Member commented that more needed to done by the NHS locally as Leicestershire had the fewest number of nursing places funded within the community.  A Member commented that this was a key issue that needed to be addressed. 

(vi)            Members raised concerns about the continued level of slippage within the capital programme and the impact this had on overall costs incurred.  A Member commented that large schemes cost a lot in officer time which also increased with delay.  The Director commented that slippage would always be incurred, and in part was due to the single cut-off date at the end of the financial year.  Slippage was also more likely in time of high inflation as investments needed to be regularly reassessed in light of the latest information available.  Members noted that the quarterly budget monitoring reports presented to the Commission identified where slippage would likely be incurred to keep Members informed throughout the year.    

(vii)          A member questioned the likely impact of slippage on the provision of additional school places and the SEND Programme. The Director commented that ultimately most of the slipped scheme would be delivered eventually.  Whilst there would inevitably be some impact on delivery of required school places, much of the slippage was due to revised timelines for developer funded housing development.

(viii)         The costs of repairing Zouch bridge continued to rise and delays in being able to secure government funding for the project had been an issue as the Council’s initial levelling up bid had been unsuccessful.  Options were being considered.

(ix)            Consideration was being given to all options to pursue the Lutterworth East SDA now that the judicial review case had been resolved.  Members noted that the scheme would need to be reviewed as much had changed since this had first been put together both in terms of cost estimates, and in terms of the need for office space post Covid.  This was being worked on by officers and an update would be provided in due course.  Members requested that a detailed update on all Investing in Leicestershire Programme projects be provided as part of the planned annual performance report on the Programme which it was due to receive in September.

(x)             A Member questioned the reasons for delay in the Council, as the Highway Authority, being able to agree road schemes which were developer led.   Delays resulted in costs increasing over time which in turn risked developers choosing to no longer build on the basis these schemes became unviable.  A member commented that this posed a risk to residents that needed this infrastructure, and to the County Council that might then have to provide alternative highway solutions.  It was questioned to what extent delays were balanced against these kinds of risks.  It was suggested that this should be the subject of a separate report to the Highway and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

(xi)            A Member sought more clarity on the current position regarding delivery of the Melton Mowbray Distributor Road (MMDR).  It was noted that whilst the North and Eastern section of the road had been approved and funding secured, the southern section was currently in the design and testing stage.  It was suggested that a briefing for relevant local members be provided regarding current progress.

RESOLVED:

(a)  That the provisional Revenue and Capital Outturn for 2022/23 be noted;

(b)  That a detailed update on all Investing in Leicestershire Programme projects be provided as part of the planned annual performance report on the Programme which it was due to consider in September.

(c)   That a report be presented to a future meeting of the Highway and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee regarding the process and balance of risk undertaken by the Council as the highway Authority in respect of developer led road schemes.

(d)  That relevant local Members be updated regarding current progress on delivery of the MMDR.