Doncaster Metripolitan Council
Councillors:
56
Wards:
22
Committees:
25
Meetings (2025):
88
Meetings (2024):
113
Meeting
Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee - Doncaster
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Monday, 10th February 2025
12:30 PM
Monday, 10th February 2025
12:30 PM
End:
Monday, 10th February 2025
4:30 PM
Monday, 10th February 2025
4:30 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed; Reconvened meeting from 30th January 2025
Confirmed; Reconvened meeting from 30th January 2025
Date:
10 Feb 2025
10 Feb 2025
Location:
Council Chamber - Civic Office
Council Chamber - Civic Office
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Conservative Group Leader
Co-Optee
Antoinette Drinkhill
Church of England Education representative
Apologies
Co-Optee
Bernadette Nesbit
Diocese of Hallam Roman Catholic Church
Apologies
Council Staff
AHW_PA
Expected
Vice-Chair
Councillor Andrea Robinson
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Leanne Hempshall
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Richard A Jones
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Glynis Smith
Present, as expected
Agenda
0
A. Reports where the public and press may not be excluded.
1
Apologies for absence.
Minutes
Apologies for absence were received from Co-optees Antoinette Drinkhill and Bernadette Nesbitt.
2
To consider the extent, if any, to which the public and press are to be excluded from the meeting.
Minutes
There were no items where the public and press were to be excluded from the meeting.
3
Declarations of Interest, if any.
Minutes
No declarations of interest were made at the meeting.
4
Public Statements.
[A period not exceeding 20 minutes for statements from up
to 5 members of the public on matters within the
Committee’s remit, proposing action(s) which may be
considered or contribute towards the future development of
the Committee’s work programme].
to 5 members of the public on matters within the
Committee’s remit, proposing action(s) which may be
considered or contribute towards the future development of
the Committee’s work programme].
Minutes
There were no public statements.
5
Corporate Plan 2025/26
Minutes
The Committee considered a report presenting the Corporate Plan 2025/26 that detailed the Council’s priorities and headline activity for the coming year, prior to consideration by Full Council on 27th February 2024.
The key points discussed included:
Fairness and Wellbeing Commission Recommendations - The Committee asked about the impact of the recommendations arising from the Fairness and Wellbeing Commission on the Corporate Plan. Reference was made to the reports four key areas and Members were informed of a ‘call and response’ exercise whereby all organisations reported to the Commission on how they could support those areas. It was noted that the Corporate Plan featured a number of examples that hit one of the four areas, such as, the Youth Council. It was explained that it was not just a Council response but a wider response to ensure that it was place based and not organisation based, and that everyone had a contribution to make. Members heard that the Commission would want to check progress after a number of years to see how the report’s recommendations were being progressed. It was explained that not all recommendations were measurable with some being actioned and others being more directional and therefore more difficult to show progress.
Communication of Corporate Plan – It was asked what lessons had been learnt from the previous year in communicating the plan across the Council to staff and partners. Members heard that it took a long time for messages to spread and therefore continuity was needed using a wide range of methods already in place.
Fairness and Inclusive – A Member of the Committee referred to the Fair and Inclusive section not being identified as a priority. The Committee recognised the work being undertaken around this area and felt that it should be strengthened by making it a priority and being part of the Great 8 Priorities Table. Members believed that by making such changes it would help strengthen this area even more and highlight its importance in everything the Council was looking to achieve.
Members heard how Fairness and Inclusive was placed at the heart of everything and reference was made to activity shown throughout the Corporate Plan underpinning all the other priorities and particularly around Equalities Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) objectives. Examples were shared such as Remake Learning, Family Hubs and Children and Adults Learning Disability and supporting young people into paid employment. It was explained that EDI objectives were about how we can design services to be more inclusive and accessible.
Targets and Resources – It was questioned how targets set from the Corporate Plan priorities were monitored and kept achievable. It was also asked whether our resources were sufficient to deliver what was set out in the Corporate Plan. It was explained that the plan and budget were brought back together each year to ensure that the resources matched the Councils priorities and budget set on an annual basis. Members were reminded that what was set out in the Corporate Plan and budget were monitored on a quarterly basis. It was explained that there was a mixed set of service standards in place with some set within the service, and that benchmarking was undertaken to understand where we were with our nearest neighbours, regionally or nationally. Also, that some targets were nationally driven and therefore a level would be set by Government.
RESOLVED that:
1. The Corporate Plan, be supported;
2. For future consideration that “Fair and Inclusive” be made one of the Great 8 priorities; and
3. The Chair be given delegated authority to prepare the response on behalf of the Committee, be approved.
The key points discussed included:
Fairness and Wellbeing Commission Recommendations - The Committee asked about the impact of the recommendations arising from the Fairness and Wellbeing Commission on the Corporate Plan. Reference was made to the reports four key areas and Members were informed of a ‘call and response’ exercise whereby all organisations reported to the Commission on how they could support those areas. It was noted that the Corporate Plan featured a number of examples that hit one of the four areas, such as, the Youth Council. It was explained that it was not just a Council response but a wider response to ensure that it was place based and not organisation based, and that everyone had a contribution to make. Members heard that the Commission would want to check progress after a number of years to see how the report’s recommendations were being progressed. It was explained that not all recommendations were measurable with some being actioned and others being more directional and therefore more difficult to show progress.
Communication of Corporate Plan – It was asked what lessons had been learnt from the previous year in communicating the plan across the Council to staff and partners. Members heard that it took a long time for messages to spread and therefore continuity was needed using a wide range of methods already in place.
Fairness and Inclusive – A Member of the Committee referred to the Fair and Inclusive section not being identified as a priority. The Committee recognised the work being undertaken around this area and felt that it should be strengthened by making it a priority and being part of the Great 8 Priorities Table. Members believed that by making such changes it would help strengthen this area even more and highlight its importance in everything the Council was looking to achieve.
Members heard how Fairness and Inclusive was placed at the heart of everything and reference was made to activity shown throughout the Corporate Plan underpinning all the other priorities and particularly around Equalities Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) objectives. Examples were shared such as Remake Learning, Family Hubs and Children and Adults Learning Disability and supporting young people into paid employment. It was explained that EDI objectives were about how we can design services to be more inclusive and accessible.
Targets and Resources – It was questioned how targets set from the Corporate Plan priorities were monitored and kept achievable. It was also asked whether our resources were sufficient to deliver what was set out in the Corporate Plan. It was explained that the plan and budget were brought back together each year to ensure that the resources matched the Councils priorities and budget set on an annual basis. Members were reminded that what was set out in the Corporate Plan and budget were monitored on a quarterly basis. It was explained that there was a mixed set of service standards in place with some set within the service, and that benchmarking was undertaken to understand where we were with our nearest neighbours, regionally or nationally. Also, that some targets were nationally driven and therefore a level would be set by Government.
RESOLVED that:
1. The Corporate Plan, be supported;
2. For future consideration that “Fair and Inclusive” be made one of the Great 8 priorities; and
3. The Chair be given delegated authority to prepare the response on behalf of the Committee, be approved.
6
Overview and Scrutiny consideration of the Mayor's Budget Proposals 2025/26 - 2028/29
Attachments:
- Document Overview and Scrutiny consideration of the Mayors Budget Proposals 202526 - 202829 31 Jan 2025
- Document Capital Strategy and Capital Budget 202526 - 202829 31 Jan 2025
- Document The Treasury Management Strategy Statement 202526 - 202829 31 Jan 2025
- Document Revenue Budget 202526 - 202728 31 Jan 2025
- Document Housing Revenue Account Budget 202526 - 202829 31 Jan 2025
- Document HRA Cabinet 12.2.25 31 Jan 2025
Minutes
The Chair outlined to the Committee that it needed to ensure that the budget provided financial stability moving forward. She stated that to do this the Committee was required to address the information contained within the budget reports, rather than identifying new proposals, and that it should not go through the budget line by line as this would make it difficult to see the full picture, but Members needed to focus on wider outcomes.
· The Executive Director for Corporate Resources and Service Director for Finance and Technology and Section 151 Officer were invited to introduce the Committee to the reports including the Capital Programme, Housing Revenue Account, Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Revenue Budget. The following points were outlined to the Committee:Revenue budget amounted to £708m net budget spend of £271m, set by core Government funding which in real terms equated to a 20% reduction compared to a 15% average for England, equating to £294 per resident;
· Greater spend was targeted on Adults, Childrens and Public Health;
· The budget incorporated robust assumptions, for example, income including the Collection Fund: Council Tax and Business Rates;
· Fees and Charges had been updated with an increase of 2.2% in line with inflation;
· Work had been undertaken with all the Council’s Directorates to develop the budget, taking into account Central Government Policy and grant allocation;
· Areas within the budget required updating, for example, following receipt of the conditions for the Childrens Prevention Grant to ensure the Local Authority Plan meets the policy;
· Overall the Settlement was better than expected enabling funding to be provided for service pressures outlined at Appendix B of the report.
· Additional funding for one-off priorities with £10.7m increasing to £14m over the budget period;
· Council Tax increase of 1.99% with a Social Care precept 2% increase equating to 3.99% which had been carefully considered to ensure service delivery but also recognising pressures on residents. This was below the 5% increase allowable and therefore the Local Authority wasn’t required to request any special dispensation;
· The budget included the estimated cost of inflation of £20m increasing to £44m by 2027/28;
· The budget included pre-approved savings of £6.3m and confirmed uncommitted general reserves remained at £12.7m. Appendix H of the report outlined what could be required from uncommitted general reserves;
· The key risk for the Local Authority remained with the Dedicated Schools Grant estimated at £39m by the end of March 2025 increasing to £52m by 2027/28;
· Assurance Statement – the provisional Local Government settlement was incorporated but the final settlement had been received therefore updates would be made to the final report to be considered by Full Council on 27th February 2025;
· It was noted by the Committee that this was a holding position for 2025/26, with all significant changes for 2026/27 onward detailed in the report including the review of local government funding, spend reform heavily linked to the Dedicated Schools Grant and Business Rates reset. With regard particularly to the Dedicated Schools Grant it was noted that information had been received from CIPFA to ensure it was as robust as possible due to it being a risk across the sector nationally;
· £502m Capital investment over the next 4 years proposed £214m for 2025/26;
· Borrowing – Health and Safety, essential spend and projects from grant funding had been prioritised; and
· Asset Rationalisation Project would continue and was an example of balancing the long and shorter term needs with savings in the revenue budget realigned to achieve targets to deliver services.
The Director for Corporate Resources St Leger Homes of Doncaster continued by outlining the proposals within the Housing Revenue Account including:
· a 2.7% rent increase, significantly lower than in previous years;
· Fees and charges 2.2% in line with inflation with the exception of a couple of minimal services which were applied to a small number of specific tenants; and
· The rent funded all services for tenants including long terms investments set out in the 4 year, 10 year and 30 year budget, which were sustainable over that period.
The Committee noted the information provided and addressed the following areas in more detail.
Rent Increase – In response to how the rent increase would meet the requirements of service delivery and challenges faced by rising inflation and other pressures, it was explained that the highest figures within the Housing Revenue budget was income from rent based CPI inflation plus 1% enabling more income to be generated.
It was noted that over recent years building materials and building works had increased beyond inflation but St Leger Homes of Doncaster undertook £14m of its own repairs and capital investment giving the company an element of control over the costs. It was noted that the Company had budgeted for staff salaries to increase by 2%, again lower than inflation.
With regard to risks, the results from the Stock Condition Surveys had indicated that the right areas were being invested in and nothing that had not been identified and therefore supported the sustainability of the 4, 10 and 30 year plan.
Risks and significant challenges - the following information was provided by the Executive Directors following the Chair requesting that they outline the main risks and significant challenges in their Directorates.
Chief Executive’s Directorate – the Executive Director of Chief Executives explained that the largest risk, was managing funding streams, due to the nature and range of different timescales and complexities associated with each funding pot. For example;
· the Shared Prosperity Fund had been available for 3 years and extended for a further year but this and the amount would not be confirmed until just before Christmas 2025;
· Long term plan for towns had been delayed a year and would now be available in 2026/27, leaving a gap in 2025/26; and
· Community Regeneration Partnership (formerly levelling up partnership) due to commence later in 2025.
It was stressed that some of the one-off pots of funding were due to come to an end. To help mitigate the position and through the budget described, the local authority had been able to use some of its own funding to assist, for example, to support ambitions in the City Centre plan. It was noted that during March Cabinet was due to give consideration to a report to address the Shared Prosperity Fund and Economic Inactivity Trailblazer scheme.
With regard to cash limits for each Directorate, which was used as flexibly as possible, for example, underspends in one area be offset against pressures in other areas. It was outlined that the budget did not provide for two security staff, but demands required this need, so such flexibility ensured resources were used effectively.
Adults, Wellbeing and Culture Directorate – an overview of the areas supported by the Directorate was provided by the Executive Director for Adults, Wellbeing and Culture were set out below. He stressed that the proposed budget met the service needs but careful management of the significant challenges would be required throughout the year.
· adult social care;
· care and support for people experiencing homelessness;
· support for people experiencing domestic and sexual abuse; and
· culture and heritage services across Doncaster.
The need to shift focus away from firefighting and towards wellbeing and prevention both through practice and system development within the Directorate and through connection with wider work, for example the Thrive programme, was highlighted.
He explained that close work with local NHS services and helping develop joint approaches that avoid passing people round a complicated system and focus on getting things right first time, was imperative. In particular, the need to do additional work this year to help more older people to go straight home after hospital stays rather than moving to a care home.
A closer focus on home support for adults of working age who were sometimes described as having complex needs, was required. This would involve working more closely with young people preparing for adulthood, and also with referral routes from the NHS. It would also involve development of greater housing options for this group. It was noted that this work could help more people experience the opportunities that the rest of us take for granted while reducing exposure to high costs in institutional arrangements that could sometimes increase peoples’ needs.
Development of a stronger foundation for Culture and Heritage services that supports services and facilities, was necessary to enrich many peoples’ lives in the City and maximised opportunities for external income.
He concluded by stating he had absolutely no doubt that the budget for 2025/26 was sufficient to keep Doncaster adults safe. The proposals built on the considerable investment put in by the Council over several years to ensure a strong supply of funded care in the City and ensured Doncaster people who need more support to live their lives, were not left behind.
Children, Young People and Families Directorate – it was confirmed, corporately, that there was confidence in the proposed budget to support children, keep them safe and support pressures, by the Executive Director for Children, Young People and Families. It was outlined that the previous additional funding provided to children’s social care services had been maintained whilst delivering on previously approved savings.
It was noted that Service pressures and inflation amounted to £6.4m 2025/26 increasing to £6.5m by 2027/28.
The Executive Director continued to report that the main risks to the General Fund budget were:
· the social care ladder and costs of transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities due to the continued demand for the services.
· Out of Authority (OOA) placements due to the significant cost attached to the placements and local authority current provision not being sufficient, but work was being undertaken to address the position and assured Members that keeping children with their families or returning them to family care as far as possible or not being able to live with family but in family type placements was having a positive impact. It was confirmed that the OOA placements had reduced from 54 in April 2022 to 32.5 for 2025/26 with further reductions due in 2026/27. Caution was aired and recognised that all placements were complex and could be volatile, particularly in an emergency.
· Childrens social care and education policy reform currently being implemented and strengthening multi-agency childrens protection teams. To implement reforms continuation of several grants had been provided by Central Government with this funding aiding transformation.
· Dedicated Schools Grant created challenges as had been highlighted earlier in the discussion but due to mitigating actions, the pace of increase in the grant had reduced.
Other areas the Committee were made aware of included the permanence planning for children and young people, Sufficiency Strand and Commissioning Strategy to increase foster care and residential placements and strong partner relationships to ensure the safety of Doncaster’s children.
The Committee welcomed the £1m investment programmed for a 3 year period to expand the universal Youth Offer including the award winning summer holiday activity programme provided across 32 areas of the City. It was noted that last year 10,000 young people attended various activities.
Place Directorate – the Executive Director for Place reminded the Committee of the front facing services provided by the Service and confirmed confidence in the proposed budget. He reiterated that there were challenges to deliver front line services within communities’ expectations. He again highlighted the challenges faced with the Asset Rationalisation programme and the need to align service delivery with the Council’s property portfolio. He explained the income driven complexities around the Place Directorate budget and highlighted the income gap within bereavement services, that required addressing. The areas regularly monitored were the response to increased demands following to storms, requirements for gritting throughout the winter and flooding events. With regard to flooding he stressed the significant capital investment made and flood prevention works undertaken.
The Chair thanked the Executive Directors and reminded the Committee of the following four key questions it was required to address.
i. To what extent are the Mayor’s proposals in line with Central Government policy, pressures and directives?
ii. To what extent will the Mayor’s proposals ensure that the Council is able to contribute to the outcomes detailed within Doncaster Delivering Together bearing in mind the constraints detailed at i. above?
iii. To what extent do the Mayor’s proposals demonstrate that the results of any consultation, research or other evidence have been taken into account?
iv. To what extent are the challenges in delivering the savings within the timescales and the capacity to deliver services with reduced resources being addressed?
The Committee then continued its deliberation in more detail on the following areas:
Central Government Policy and Directives – In response to a Member highlighting financial constraints impacting everyone and local authorities and seeking confirmation that the budget can meet Central Government requirements, it was outlined that the Local Authority must operate within legislative and statutory requirements. To ensure this was undertaken resources were managed against competing priorities and explained that the process looked at current services in place, associated costs and legislative requirements eg. child prevention and all the information was collated to create the proposed budget to support all required areas and challenges that had been presented to the Committee earlier in the meeting. The Committee was of the opinion that there were sufficient resources in place to deliver the proposals and key priorities outlined in the Corporate Plan.
A Committee Member thanked the officers for the work they undertook to prepare the budget but also for service delivery throughout the year and appreciated the difficulties and challenges faced.
The Chair referred to the Fairness, Wellbeing, Equalities and Inclusion discussion as part of the Corporate Plan but wished to reiterate it’s importance.
Capital Programme key investments – It was explained that the £502m includes funding for HRA acquisitions and continued maintenance ensuring a decent homes standard with the remainder ensuring delivery of key major schemes and those that were on the horizon.
An ambitious capital programme had been set but slippage was expected due to, for example, time delays from scheme design, going out to tender and mobilisation. The two major Town Deals to complete additional to work required at local leisure facilities, were highlighted as were monies made available through SYMCA for active travel. Members noted the challenge due to not having unlimited resources and that all schemes and programmes were being supported by business cases.
With regard to the Asset Rationalisation Programme the ambitious challenge this presented was acknowledged, particularly the aging estate and maintenance required to some of the properties. The approach of making assets fit for purpose either through investment and how communities and partners work together to ensure strong service delivery, or if ultimately required, disposal, was acknowledged.
It was noted that since the targets set in the 2024 budget a lot more data had been acquired on the assets portfolio not just for council assets but in communities. A lot had already been achieved for example, the capital receipt from disposal of the Mary Woollet Centre. Overall the Programme had not moved as quickly as had been wished for due to undertaking work sensitively with partners to achieve the best outcomes. The programme needed to continue and work to undertake on the very old asset base, was noted. Appendix B to the report outlined the pressures savings targets totalling £1.9m and despite the continued efforts there was a shortfall of £600,000 over the two year period.
In response to a further question, it was confirmed that the asset costs were known but changes had been made to how the programme was undertaken, working differently alongside localities and community assets, in more detail, through indepth examination and with fewer assets the challenge becomes greater. It was acknowledged that remaining assets needed to be of a good quality and deliver a good service. It was also confirmed that all health and safety legislation was adhered to, for example the undertaking of annual electrical tests. If a major component failed, eg if a boiler failed at the cost of £1m, then the short and long term position would be be addressed.
In relation to a query relating to rent levels on community buildings, it was explained that consideration was given to the level set in the context of the objective that was trying to be achieved, whilst considering the social objectives. It was explained that with regard to the disposal of assets, as part of the capital programme funding and expectation of capital receipt delivery, if this was not achieved then there would be the need to utilise the MRP or look to borrow funding to achieve the capital programme. It was acknowledged that some enterprises had more opportunities to access other funding and take greater risks that the Local Authority was unable to do.
In connection with the Edlington Leisure Facility it was clarified that it would be funded from a mixture of funding for example underspends or revenue contributions to the capital programme and not funding through borrowing.
Reserves – the Section 151 Officer highlighted their Assurance Statement that set out, whether in their view, the reserves of £12.7m was efficient. It was explained that a detailed analysis against reserves was undertaken against risks to ensure the correct contingencies were available. For example, the estimated 2% pay award would need to be met if it increased more than this figure. It was highlighted that, for example if a flooding event was to happen, there were specific schemes including Belwin to aid recovering costs but acknowledged there was a set figure the Local Authority would need to provide before this could be applied for.
With regard to the Dedicated Schools Grant that had been highlighted earlier in the meeting, it was noted that the override for that was in place until March 2026 and results of the SEND review were awaited, that would inform the DSG, but remained a key financial risk.
Consultation undertaken to help develop the proposed budget – It was confirmed that engagement was undertaken internally with Executive Directors and the Local Authority’s legislative or operating frameworks were continually updated. Ensuring the Authority was appraised, the Trade Unions were regularly consulted. An example of consultation with children and families was highlighted to influence the budget with young people highlighting that Youth Services were important to them and provide safe places to play.
Income generation – It was outlined that all assumptions were set out in Appendix A to the report, the monitoring fund was examined quarterly addressing aspects in both Council Tax and Business rates including collection rate and growth ensuring assumptions were up to date. With regard to fees and charges the 2.2% increase was based on inflation however because activities across the board were monitored, some were retained at the current rate. A similar monitoring process was also undertaken for housing rents.
Support for vulnerable residents and essential services – the support the proposed budget allows for these services and people of all backgrounds in Adults Social Care and how investment had allowed that to grow, was reiterated. The Committee noted that the average fee increase for independent sector provision had been increased higher than most other Council’s over the last few years. It was also noted that people who required home care were provided with the service immediately and the investment supported the community and Doncaster’s social care workforce. It was recognised that extensive work would continue with partners for example, to provide earlier planning and improved hospital discharge to help people to return to their homes sooner.
RESOLVED that:-
1. The Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee confirmed it had:
i. Considered and responded to the Mayor’s draft budget proposals;
ii. Adopted the key questions identified at Paragraph 5 of the report as a focus for its review; and
iii. Adopted the guidance detailed at Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the report.
2. The Mayor’s proposed budget, be supported; and
3. The Chair be authorised to send a letter to the Mayor, on behalf of the Committee outlining it’s response to the proposed budget.
· The Executive Director for Corporate Resources and Service Director for Finance and Technology and Section 151 Officer were invited to introduce the Committee to the reports including the Capital Programme, Housing Revenue Account, Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Revenue Budget. The following points were outlined to the Committee:Revenue budget amounted to £708m net budget spend of £271m, set by core Government funding which in real terms equated to a 20% reduction compared to a 15% average for England, equating to £294 per resident;
· Greater spend was targeted on Adults, Childrens and Public Health;
· The budget incorporated robust assumptions, for example, income including the Collection Fund: Council Tax and Business Rates;
· Fees and Charges had been updated with an increase of 2.2% in line with inflation;
· Work had been undertaken with all the Council’s Directorates to develop the budget, taking into account Central Government Policy and grant allocation;
· Areas within the budget required updating, for example, following receipt of the conditions for the Childrens Prevention Grant to ensure the Local Authority Plan meets the policy;
· Overall the Settlement was better than expected enabling funding to be provided for service pressures outlined at Appendix B of the report.
· Additional funding for one-off priorities with £10.7m increasing to £14m over the budget period;
· Council Tax increase of 1.99% with a Social Care precept 2% increase equating to 3.99% which had been carefully considered to ensure service delivery but also recognising pressures on residents. This was below the 5% increase allowable and therefore the Local Authority wasn’t required to request any special dispensation;
· The budget included the estimated cost of inflation of £20m increasing to £44m by 2027/28;
· The budget included pre-approved savings of £6.3m and confirmed uncommitted general reserves remained at £12.7m. Appendix H of the report outlined what could be required from uncommitted general reserves;
· The key risk for the Local Authority remained with the Dedicated Schools Grant estimated at £39m by the end of March 2025 increasing to £52m by 2027/28;
· Assurance Statement – the provisional Local Government settlement was incorporated but the final settlement had been received therefore updates would be made to the final report to be considered by Full Council on 27th February 2025;
· It was noted by the Committee that this was a holding position for 2025/26, with all significant changes for 2026/27 onward detailed in the report including the review of local government funding, spend reform heavily linked to the Dedicated Schools Grant and Business Rates reset. With regard particularly to the Dedicated Schools Grant it was noted that information had been received from CIPFA to ensure it was as robust as possible due to it being a risk across the sector nationally;
· £502m Capital investment over the next 4 years proposed £214m for 2025/26;
· Borrowing – Health and Safety, essential spend and projects from grant funding had been prioritised; and
· Asset Rationalisation Project would continue and was an example of balancing the long and shorter term needs with savings in the revenue budget realigned to achieve targets to deliver services.
The Director for Corporate Resources St Leger Homes of Doncaster continued by outlining the proposals within the Housing Revenue Account including:
· a 2.7% rent increase, significantly lower than in previous years;
· Fees and charges 2.2% in line with inflation with the exception of a couple of minimal services which were applied to a small number of specific tenants; and
· The rent funded all services for tenants including long terms investments set out in the 4 year, 10 year and 30 year budget, which were sustainable over that period.
The Committee noted the information provided and addressed the following areas in more detail.
Rent Increase – In response to how the rent increase would meet the requirements of service delivery and challenges faced by rising inflation and other pressures, it was explained that the highest figures within the Housing Revenue budget was income from rent based CPI inflation plus 1% enabling more income to be generated.
It was noted that over recent years building materials and building works had increased beyond inflation but St Leger Homes of Doncaster undertook £14m of its own repairs and capital investment giving the company an element of control over the costs. It was noted that the Company had budgeted for staff salaries to increase by 2%, again lower than inflation.
With regard to risks, the results from the Stock Condition Surveys had indicated that the right areas were being invested in and nothing that had not been identified and therefore supported the sustainability of the 4, 10 and 30 year plan.
Risks and significant challenges - the following information was provided by the Executive Directors following the Chair requesting that they outline the main risks and significant challenges in their Directorates.
Chief Executive’s Directorate – the Executive Director of Chief Executives explained that the largest risk, was managing funding streams, due to the nature and range of different timescales and complexities associated with each funding pot. For example;
· the Shared Prosperity Fund had been available for 3 years and extended for a further year but this and the amount would not be confirmed until just before Christmas 2025;
· Long term plan for towns had been delayed a year and would now be available in 2026/27, leaving a gap in 2025/26; and
· Community Regeneration Partnership (formerly levelling up partnership) due to commence later in 2025.
It was stressed that some of the one-off pots of funding were due to come to an end. To help mitigate the position and through the budget described, the local authority had been able to use some of its own funding to assist, for example, to support ambitions in the City Centre plan. It was noted that during March Cabinet was due to give consideration to a report to address the Shared Prosperity Fund and Economic Inactivity Trailblazer scheme.
With regard to cash limits for each Directorate, which was used as flexibly as possible, for example, underspends in one area be offset against pressures in other areas. It was outlined that the budget did not provide for two security staff, but demands required this need, so such flexibility ensured resources were used effectively.
Adults, Wellbeing and Culture Directorate – an overview of the areas supported by the Directorate was provided by the Executive Director for Adults, Wellbeing and Culture were set out below. He stressed that the proposed budget met the service needs but careful management of the significant challenges would be required throughout the year.
· adult social care;
· care and support for people experiencing homelessness;
· support for people experiencing domestic and sexual abuse; and
· culture and heritage services across Doncaster.
The need to shift focus away from firefighting and towards wellbeing and prevention both through practice and system development within the Directorate and through connection with wider work, for example the Thrive programme, was highlighted.
He explained that close work with local NHS services and helping develop joint approaches that avoid passing people round a complicated system and focus on getting things right first time, was imperative. In particular, the need to do additional work this year to help more older people to go straight home after hospital stays rather than moving to a care home.
A closer focus on home support for adults of working age who were sometimes described as having complex needs, was required. This would involve working more closely with young people preparing for adulthood, and also with referral routes from the NHS. It would also involve development of greater housing options for this group. It was noted that this work could help more people experience the opportunities that the rest of us take for granted while reducing exposure to high costs in institutional arrangements that could sometimes increase peoples’ needs.
Development of a stronger foundation for Culture and Heritage services that supports services and facilities, was necessary to enrich many peoples’ lives in the City and maximised opportunities for external income.
He concluded by stating he had absolutely no doubt that the budget for 2025/26 was sufficient to keep Doncaster adults safe. The proposals built on the considerable investment put in by the Council over several years to ensure a strong supply of funded care in the City and ensured Doncaster people who need more support to live their lives, were not left behind.
Children, Young People and Families Directorate – it was confirmed, corporately, that there was confidence in the proposed budget to support children, keep them safe and support pressures, by the Executive Director for Children, Young People and Families. It was outlined that the previous additional funding provided to children’s social care services had been maintained whilst delivering on previously approved savings.
It was noted that Service pressures and inflation amounted to £6.4m 2025/26 increasing to £6.5m by 2027/28.
The Executive Director continued to report that the main risks to the General Fund budget were:
· the social care ladder and costs of transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities due to the continued demand for the services.
· Out of Authority (OOA) placements due to the significant cost attached to the placements and local authority current provision not being sufficient, but work was being undertaken to address the position and assured Members that keeping children with their families or returning them to family care as far as possible or not being able to live with family but in family type placements was having a positive impact. It was confirmed that the OOA placements had reduced from 54 in April 2022 to 32.5 for 2025/26 with further reductions due in 2026/27. Caution was aired and recognised that all placements were complex and could be volatile, particularly in an emergency.
· Childrens social care and education policy reform currently being implemented and strengthening multi-agency childrens protection teams. To implement reforms continuation of several grants had been provided by Central Government with this funding aiding transformation.
· Dedicated Schools Grant created challenges as had been highlighted earlier in the discussion but due to mitigating actions, the pace of increase in the grant had reduced.
Other areas the Committee were made aware of included the permanence planning for children and young people, Sufficiency Strand and Commissioning Strategy to increase foster care and residential placements and strong partner relationships to ensure the safety of Doncaster’s children.
The Committee welcomed the £1m investment programmed for a 3 year period to expand the universal Youth Offer including the award winning summer holiday activity programme provided across 32 areas of the City. It was noted that last year 10,000 young people attended various activities.
Place Directorate – the Executive Director for Place reminded the Committee of the front facing services provided by the Service and confirmed confidence in the proposed budget. He reiterated that there were challenges to deliver front line services within communities’ expectations. He again highlighted the challenges faced with the Asset Rationalisation programme and the need to align service delivery with the Council’s property portfolio. He explained the income driven complexities around the Place Directorate budget and highlighted the income gap within bereavement services, that required addressing. The areas regularly monitored were the response to increased demands following to storms, requirements for gritting throughout the winter and flooding events. With regard to flooding he stressed the significant capital investment made and flood prevention works undertaken.
The Chair thanked the Executive Directors and reminded the Committee of the following four key questions it was required to address.
i. To what extent are the Mayor’s proposals in line with Central Government policy, pressures and directives?
ii. To what extent will the Mayor’s proposals ensure that the Council is able to contribute to the outcomes detailed within Doncaster Delivering Together bearing in mind the constraints detailed at i. above?
iii. To what extent do the Mayor’s proposals demonstrate that the results of any consultation, research or other evidence have been taken into account?
iv. To what extent are the challenges in delivering the savings within the timescales and the capacity to deliver services with reduced resources being addressed?
The Committee then continued its deliberation in more detail on the following areas:
Central Government Policy and Directives – In response to a Member highlighting financial constraints impacting everyone and local authorities and seeking confirmation that the budget can meet Central Government requirements, it was outlined that the Local Authority must operate within legislative and statutory requirements. To ensure this was undertaken resources were managed against competing priorities and explained that the process looked at current services in place, associated costs and legislative requirements eg. child prevention and all the information was collated to create the proposed budget to support all required areas and challenges that had been presented to the Committee earlier in the meeting. The Committee was of the opinion that there were sufficient resources in place to deliver the proposals and key priorities outlined in the Corporate Plan.
A Committee Member thanked the officers for the work they undertook to prepare the budget but also for service delivery throughout the year and appreciated the difficulties and challenges faced.
The Chair referred to the Fairness, Wellbeing, Equalities and Inclusion discussion as part of the Corporate Plan but wished to reiterate it’s importance.
Capital Programme key investments – It was explained that the £502m includes funding for HRA acquisitions and continued maintenance ensuring a decent homes standard with the remainder ensuring delivery of key major schemes and those that were on the horizon.
An ambitious capital programme had been set but slippage was expected due to, for example, time delays from scheme design, going out to tender and mobilisation. The two major Town Deals to complete additional to work required at local leisure facilities, were highlighted as were monies made available through SYMCA for active travel. Members noted the challenge due to not having unlimited resources and that all schemes and programmes were being supported by business cases.
With regard to the Asset Rationalisation Programme the ambitious challenge this presented was acknowledged, particularly the aging estate and maintenance required to some of the properties. The approach of making assets fit for purpose either through investment and how communities and partners work together to ensure strong service delivery, or if ultimately required, disposal, was acknowledged.
It was noted that since the targets set in the 2024 budget a lot more data had been acquired on the assets portfolio not just for council assets but in communities. A lot had already been achieved for example, the capital receipt from disposal of the Mary Woollet Centre. Overall the Programme had not moved as quickly as had been wished for due to undertaking work sensitively with partners to achieve the best outcomes. The programme needed to continue and work to undertake on the very old asset base, was noted. Appendix B to the report outlined the pressures savings targets totalling £1.9m and despite the continued efforts there was a shortfall of £600,000 over the two year period.
In response to a further question, it was confirmed that the asset costs were known but changes had been made to how the programme was undertaken, working differently alongside localities and community assets, in more detail, through indepth examination and with fewer assets the challenge becomes greater. It was acknowledged that remaining assets needed to be of a good quality and deliver a good service. It was also confirmed that all health and safety legislation was adhered to, for example the undertaking of annual electrical tests. If a major component failed, eg if a boiler failed at the cost of £1m, then the short and long term position would be be addressed.
In relation to a query relating to rent levels on community buildings, it was explained that consideration was given to the level set in the context of the objective that was trying to be achieved, whilst considering the social objectives. It was explained that with regard to the disposal of assets, as part of the capital programme funding and expectation of capital receipt delivery, if this was not achieved then there would be the need to utilise the MRP or look to borrow funding to achieve the capital programme. It was acknowledged that some enterprises had more opportunities to access other funding and take greater risks that the Local Authority was unable to do.
In connection with the Edlington Leisure Facility it was clarified that it would be funded from a mixture of funding for example underspends or revenue contributions to the capital programme and not funding through borrowing.
Reserves – the Section 151 Officer highlighted their Assurance Statement that set out, whether in their view, the reserves of £12.7m was efficient. It was explained that a detailed analysis against reserves was undertaken against risks to ensure the correct contingencies were available. For example, the estimated 2% pay award would need to be met if it increased more than this figure. It was highlighted that, for example if a flooding event was to happen, there were specific schemes including Belwin to aid recovering costs but acknowledged there was a set figure the Local Authority would need to provide before this could be applied for.
With regard to the Dedicated Schools Grant that had been highlighted earlier in the meeting, it was noted that the override for that was in place until March 2026 and results of the SEND review were awaited, that would inform the DSG, but remained a key financial risk.
Consultation undertaken to help develop the proposed budget – It was confirmed that engagement was undertaken internally with Executive Directors and the Local Authority’s legislative or operating frameworks were continually updated. Ensuring the Authority was appraised, the Trade Unions were regularly consulted. An example of consultation with children and families was highlighted to influence the budget with young people highlighting that Youth Services were important to them and provide safe places to play.
Income generation – It was outlined that all assumptions were set out in Appendix A to the report, the monitoring fund was examined quarterly addressing aspects in both Council Tax and Business rates including collection rate and growth ensuring assumptions were up to date. With regard to fees and charges the 2.2% increase was based on inflation however because activities across the board were monitored, some were retained at the current rate. A similar monitoring process was also undertaken for housing rents.
Support for vulnerable residents and essential services – the support the proposed budget allows for these services and people of all backgrounds in Adults Social Care and how investment had allowed that to grow, was reiterated. The Committee noted that the average fee increase for independent sector provision had been increased higher than most other Council’s over the last few years. It was also noted that people who required home care were provided with the service immediately and the investment supported the community and Doncaster’s social care workforce. It was recognised that extensive work would continue with partners for example, to provide earlier planning and improved hospital discharge to help people to return to their homes sooner.
RESOLVED that:-
1. The Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee confirmed it had:
i. Considered and responded to the Mayor’s draft budget proposals;
ii. Adopted the key questions identified at Paragraph 5 of the report as a focus for its review; and
iii. Adopted the guidance detailed at Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the report.
2. The Mayor’s proposed budget, be supported; and
3. The Chair be authorised to send a letter to the Mayor, on behalf of the Committee outlining it’s response to the proposed budget.
7
South Yorkshire Airport City - Approvals required to support the reopening of the Airport - Report to Follow
Attachments:
- Document OSMC Draft Airport Covering Report ver 2 FINAL 100225 31 Jan 2025
- Document South Yorkshire Airport City - Approvals Required to Support the Reopening of the Airport 31 Jan 2025
Minutes
The Committee considered a report on the “South Yorkshire Airport City – Approvals Required to Support the Reopening of The Airport”decision ahead of Cabinet on the 12th of February 2025. The Committee welcomed the opportunity to review the report and provided comments and feedback for consideration by the Executive prior to the decision being taken. The report provided a summary of what had taken place over the last 2 and a half years and covered the procurement process, the enhanced due diligence undertaken and next stages. The report also considered the public subsidy application and matters arising as a result of that. Finally, the report covered the Outline Business Case and how that progressed to the Full Business Case that went to Cabinet in June 2024.
The key points discussed included:
Due Diligence Process – The Committee welcomed the outline of the extensive due diligence process undertaken to date as part of a lengthy process. Members were informed that in trying to achieve the objectives in mind, a range of different approaches were considered followed by a decision on which procurement route to take. It was explained that following extensive market engagement, a formal process which included three stages had commenced. Further detail and insight were provided on each of the stages including the process involved and an outline was provided of the Evaluation Panel.
A Member sought clarification in whether Fly Doncaster was the operator and if so, did they have the experience required by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to run the airport. Reference was made to the announcement by the Mayor regarding flights going out of the Airport by Summer 2026. In terms of experience, it was explained that the MAI had the technical expertise, and that throughout this process had our own technical expertise from Aviation Consultants who were supporting us in regard to the reinstatement of the airspace. It was continued that there was a meeting with the CAA on the 14th of February 2025 around our airspace. Reference was made to the strategic lobbying involving 130,000 individuals (including businesses) from Doncaster and the region. It was noted that our airspace had been suspended although not removed, and that there were a number of airports operating within the UK from an unlicensed activity point of view. It was expressed that there was a confidence that the airspace would be returned. Reference was made to a number of other factors that included the financial envelope in regard to the capital infrastructure required, a national shortage of Air Traffic Controllers and interest from previous Doncaster Sheffield Airport staff. It was shared that there was a keenness to get our airspace back to 24 hours for next year.
Project Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 9:1 – The Panel formed a better understanding around the reported project benefit cost ratio of 9:1 (£1 invested resulting in £9 of benefits generated), how it had been formed, what it could mean for Doncaster and the certainty in being able to deliver this with the reopening of the airport. It was explained that the cost: benefit ratio had been generated based on Treasury Green Book business case assessment and the appraisal of the projects that might require public sector investment. It was noted that this had been undertaken by Jacobs who had been commissioned to produce the business case. Reference was made to the potential that the project had in transforming Doncaster’s economy. It was outlined that the 9:1 BCR was considered as a very high category and represented excellent value for money. It was viewed that the airport would act as a catalyst to generate jobs as well as other benefits on a wider scale beyond the airport. It was acknowledged that it would require considerable collaborative work to deliver and was currently being assessed as part of the SYMCA process. Members heard that through delivering the project there would be direct, indirect, and catalytic jobs by inference which had the potential to go beyond South Yorkshire.
Differences from when Airport was operating previously – Reference was made to new ambitions considered as key in rebalancing those opportunities in terms of Northern airports, by significantly increasing freight volumes at the airport (potentially operating at 100,000 tonnes compared to a previous 23,000 tonnes in 2019). It was also explained that for an airport to be successful, it needed airlines in place and through working with advisers from Munich there was the intention to contact a number of airlines. Members were made aware that conversations had already taken place during the last 12 months with certain airlines and there was the view that 4 to 5 airlines were required. Finally, it was considered that a tight fiscal control in terms of finances was key in regard to the airport going forward. In relation to carbon reduction and Net Zero ambitions, the airport presented offers around energy capture that would help to meet 2050 Net Zero targets. Reference was made to the education element around all the institutions within our region and outside in becoming a part of the South Yorkshire City Airport programme, and that conversations were taking place with education providers. Regarding the investment zone and 9:1 BCR, it was clear during negotiations with Peel that it was wanted to grow the airport. It was explained that the ability to develop airside aviation industries would be key and bring significant revenue not only into the airport but also into Doncaster as part of an aspirational model. Members were also told about the work being undertaken with Turley’s in co-production with Doncaster Council and Peel that had produced a wider masterplan for the whole locality including Gateway East. It was continued that Turley’s had been asked to do a more in-depth piece specifically around the DSA 04 and the airport and the opportunities that had presented themselves.
Private Sector Investment – The Committee learned more about why it had not been possible to secure a higher amount of private sector investment. Members heard about the different avenues and options explored during the process seeking investment over a significant amount of time. Reference was made to the procurement process where significant efforts were made during the Summer as part of due diligence to seek whether external private sector funding could be obtained. It was explained that due to the complexity of the proposal, the risks involved (including the risk element of the market in terms of providing that private investment), there had been a financial viability assessment which had concluded that public sector investment was needed. It was continued that a point was reached where options for private investment had been significantly explored and therefore consideration was given as to whether it could be achieved through public sector investment subsidy. Members heard that areas for improvement that had been identified would now be considered. It was added that there was complexity around the proposal in terms of lease. Members heard that securing private sector investment finance would have cost more and that Local Authority rates secured were less than what the commercial banks would offer and therefore would not represent Value For Money (VFM).
A Member spoke about the financial support coming from SYMCA and that having a single entity did not feel right to them. It was also commented that all Councillors should be kept aware of what was being faced as part of the process. A Member relayed how they had previously asked for communication to be put out to them and the public to keep everyone with the story as it progressed, and this had not been undertaken. Concern was raised that there had been no consultation for a project that involved millions of pounds to be spent. Members were informed that there was a push for the airport to be licensed 24 hours to enable commercial activity and that decision was with the Civil Aviation Authority.
Timescales - In terms of timescales, it was acknowledged that a significant period of time had already passed in reaching this current stage and that there was now a focus on reopening and mobilising the airport. Members expressed concern around the timescales in place and the ability to make the airport operational for commercial flights in 2026. There was a brief recap of the process during which the first report had gone to Full Council on the 17th of November 2022 and that there had been several reports since then. Reference was made to the Rule 16 report signed on the 20th of March 2024 which communicated to decision makers that the Council was entering into a fundamental lease. It was explained that a framework and time period was set out of 7 years in order to provide sufficient time to get the airport reopened, operational and to commence development. Members were assured that work had been undertaken as quickly as possible due to the time it took to carry out the preparation.
Risk Management – Concerns were raised regarding the financial risks involved with the reopening of the airport. Members were informed of the careful management of risks (including those within the top 5 detailed within the report) and an outline was provided of how those risks could be mitigated. In response to concerns raised, Members were provided with further information regarding the roles of the Directors of Fly Doncaster Ltd, who were also current employees of the City of Doncaster Council. Clarification was provided regarding what this meant and what the Company Board could look like going forward. Members were assured that the operational arrangements were currently being drafted including the Memorandum and Articles of Association. Reference was also made to the strategic risk of not being able to obtain airspace which would have a detrimental impact on providing flights. It was explained that airlines needed at least 12 months’ notice before they could start operating flights. Members heard that mitigations had been built in and risks had been considered throughout the programme with advice being sought wherever possible.
Airport Name – The Committee heard that the name of the airport, would be given further consideration in the future although it was acknowledged that renaming it could be costly.
Use of Gainshare Resources – A discussion took place around the use of Doncaster’s gainshare resources on the reopening of the airport and the potential impact of this on areas across the city. Reference was made to the decision took to enter into lease negotiations and Break Clauses. Members were reminded of the opportunities arising from the Business Case that will permeate across the city and the whole of South Yorkshire, and that the Government was supporting the reopening going forward. Concern was raised regarding the commitment from SYMCA itself alongside the financial risk of reopening the airport.
Employment and Creating a More Diverse Workforce – There was an acknowledgement of what the airport was able to offer in terms of employment and helping to create a more diverse workforce within Doncaster. Members heard how this could be supported by the airport utilising its strengths through its recruitment processes and working more closely with public, supporting local businesses and making a positive impact within schools from an early age. Members were informed that from a recruitment point of view, efforts had been made to look at what had been done with the iPort Academy and the Gateway East Academy. It was continued that this could also look at the future business needs from a supply chain of staff and key businesses that were looking to locate around the airport. It was noted that the Council was in talks with both private sector recruitment providers and public institutions, colleges, and schools to make sure it was right before starting to populate a structure containing a number of employees. It was recognised that this would not happen in isolation and efforts would be made to ensure that the right approach was in place first.
Role Of Scrutiny – Members heard that there would be a full clear business case in the Summer and other future decisions coming forward as well as a number of key activities that would be taking place soon. Members were advised that the engagement with the CAA would not be an outcome that could be reported on but more part of the dialogue going forward. Members welcomed the opportunity for continuing scrutiny involvement and engagement on this important issue to support a transparent approach going forward.
Resolved that.
1. The report be noted; and
2. That a future report be brought back in Summer 2025 and when appropriate on key activities and milestones to ensure that OSMC is kept fully engaged.
3. The Chair be given delegated authority to prepare the response on behalf of the Committee, be approved.
The key points discussed included:
Due Diligence Process – The Committee welcomed the outline of the extensive due diligence process undertaken to date as part of a lengthy process. Members were informed that in trying to achieve the objectives in mind, a range of different approaches were considered followed by a decision on which procurement route to take. It was explained that following extensive market engagement, a formal process which included three stages had commenced. Further detail and insight were provided on each of the stages including the process involved and an outline was provided of the Evaluation Panel.
A Member sought clarification in whether Fly Doncaster was the operator and if so, did they have the experience required by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to run the airport. Reference was made to the announcement by the Mayor regarding flights going out of the Airport by Summer 2026. In terms of experience, it was explained that the MAI had the technical expertise, and that throughout this process had our own technical expertise from Aviation Consultants who were supporting us in regard to the reinstatement of the airspace. It was continued that there was a meeting with the CAA on the 14th of February 2025 around our airspace. Reference was made to the strategic lobbying involving 130,000 individuals (including businesses) from Doncaster and the region. It was noted that our airspace had been suspended although not removed, and that there were a number of airports operating within the UK from an unlicensed activity point of view. It was expressed that there was a confidence that the airspace would be returned. Reference was made to a number of other factors that included the financial envelope in regard to the capital infrastructure required, a national shortage of Air Traffic Controllers and interest from previous Doncaster Sheffield Airport staff. It was shared that there was a keenness to get our airspace back to 24 hours for next year.
Project Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 9:1 – The Panel formed a better understanding around the reported project benefit cost ratio of 9:1 (£1 invested resulting in £9 of benefits generated), how it had been formed, what it could mean for Doncaster and the certainty in being able to deliver this with the reopening of the airport. It was explained that the cost: benefit ratio had been generated based on Treasury Green Book business case assessment and the appraisal of the projects that might require public sector investment. It was noted that this had been undertaken by Jacobs who had been commissioned to produce the business case. Reference was made to the potential that the project had in transforming Doncaster’s economy. It was outlined that the 9:1 BCR was considered as a very high category and represented excellent value for money. It was viewed that the airport would act as a catalyst to generate jobs as well as other benefits on a wider scale beyond the airport. It was acknowledged that it would require considerable collaborative work to deliver and was currently being assessed as part of the SYMCA process. Members heard that through delivering the project there would be direct, indirect, and catalytic jobs by inference which had the potential to go beyond South Yorkshire.
Differences from when Airport was operating previously – Reference was made to new ambitions considered as key in rebalancing those opportunities in terms of Northern airports, by significantly increasing freight volumes at the airport (potentially operating at 100,000 tonnes compared to a previous 23,000 tonnes in 2019). It was also explained that for an airport to be successful, it needed airlines in place and through working with advisers from Munich there was the intention to contact a number of airlines. Members were made aware that conversations had already taken place during the last 12 months with certain airlines and there was the view that 4 to 5 airlines were required. Finally, it was considered that a tight fiscal control in terms of finances was key in regard to the airport going forward. In relation to carbon reduction and Net Zero ambitions, the airport presented offers around energy capture that would help to meet 2050 Net Zero targets. Reference was made to the education element around all the institutions within our region and outside in becoming a part of the South Yorkshire City Airport programme, and that conversations were taking place with education providers. Regarding the investment zone and 9:1 BCR, it was clear during negotiations with Peel that it was wanted to grow the airport. It was explained that the ability to develop airside aviation industries would be key and bring significant revenue not only into the airport but also into Doncaster as part of an aspirational model. Members were also told about the work being undertaken with Turley’s in co-production with Doncaster Council and Peel that had produced a wider masterplan for the whole locality including Gateway East. It was continued that Turley’s had been asked to do a more in-depth piece specifically around the DSA 04 and the airport and the opportunities that had presented themselves.
Private Sector Investment – The Committee learned more about why it had not been possible to secure a higher amount of private sector investment. Members heard about the different avenues and options explored during the process seeking investment over a significant amount of time. Reference was made to the procurement process where significant efforts were made during the Summer as part of due diligence to seek whether external private sector funding could be obtained. It was explained that due to the complexity of the proposal, the risks involved (including the risk element of the market in terms of providing that private investment), there had been a financial viability assessment which had concluded that public sector investment was needed. It was continued that a point was reached where options for private investment had been significantly explored and therefore consideration was given as to whether it could be achieved through public sector investment subsidy. Members heard that areas for improvement that had been identified would now be considered. It was added that there was complexity around the proposal in terms of lease. Members heard that securing private sector investment finance would have cost more and that Local Authority rates secured were less than what the commercial banks would offer and therefore would not represent Value For Money (VFM).
A Member spoke about the financial support coming from SYMCA and that having a single entity did not feel right to them. It was also commented that all Councillors should be kept aware of what was being faced as part of the process. A Member relayed how they had previously asked for communication to be put out to them and the public to keep everyone with the story as it progressed, and this had not been undertaken. Concern was raised that there had been no consultation for a project that involved millions of pounds to be spent. Members were informed that there was a push for the airport to be licensed 24 hours to enable commercial activity and that decision was with the Civil Aviation Authority.
Timescales - In terms of timescales, it was acknowledged that a significant period of time had already passed in reaching this current stage and that there was now a focus on reopening and mobilising the airport. Members expressed concern around the timescales in place and the ability to make the airport operational for commercial flights in 2026. There was a brief recap of the process during which the first report had gone to Full Council on the 17th of November 2022 and that there had been several reports since then. Reference was made to the Rule 16 report signed on the 20th of March 2024 which communicated to decision makers that the Council was entering into a fundamental lease. It was explained that a framework and time period was set out of 7 years in order to provide sufficient time to get the airport reopened, operational and to commence development. Members were assured that work had been undertaken as quickly as possible due to the time it took to carry out the preparation.
Risk Management – Concerns were raised regarding the financial risks involved with the reopening of the airport. Members were informed of the careful management of risks (including those within the top 5 detailed within the report) and an outline was provided of how those risks could be mitigated. In response to concerns raised, Members were provided with further information regarding the roles of the Directors of Fly Doncaster Ltd, who were also current employees of the City of Doncaster Council. Clarification was provided regarding what this meant and what the Company Board could look like going forward. Members were assured that the operational arrangements were currently being drafted including the Memorandum and Articles of Association. Reference was also made to the strategic risk of not being able to obtain airspace which would have a detrimental impact on providing flights. It was explained that airlines needed at least 12 months’ notice before they could start operating flights. Members heard that mitigations had been built in and risks had been considered throughout the programme with advice being sought wherever possible.
Airport Name – The Committee heard that the name of the airport, would be given further consideration in the future although it was acknowledged that renaming it could be costly.
Use of Gainshare Resources – A discussion took place around the use of Doncaster’s gainshare resources on the reopening of the airport and the potential impact of this on areas across the city. Reference was made to the decision took to enter into lease negotiations and Break Clauses. Members were reminded of the opportunities arising from the Business Case that will permeate across the city and the whole of South Yorkshire, and that the Government was supporting the reopening going forward. Concern was raised regarding the commitment from SYMCA itself alongside the financial risk of reopening the airport.
Employment and Creating a More Diverse Workforce – There was an acknowledgement of what the airport was able to offer in terms of employment and helping to create a more diverse workforce within Doncaster. Members heard how this could be supported by the airport utilising its strengths through its recruitment processes and working more closely with public, supporting local businesses and making a positive impact within schools from an early age. Members were informed that from a recruitment point of view, efforts had been made to look at what had been done with the iPort Academy and the Gateway East Academy. It was continued that this could also look at the future business needs from a supply chain of staff and key businesses that were looking to locate around the airport. It was noted that the Council was in talks with both private sector recruitment providers and public institutions, colleges, and schools to make sure it was right before starting to populate a structure containing a number of employees. It was recognised that this would not happen in isolation and efforts would be made to ensure that the right approach was in place first.
Role Of Scrutiny – Members heard that there would be a full clear business case in the Summer and other future decisions coming forward as well as a number of key activities that would be taking place soon. Members were advised that the engagement with the CAA would not be an outcome that could be reported on but more part of the dialogue going forward. Members welcomed the opportunity for continuing scrutiny involvement and engagement on this important issue to support a transparent approach going forward.
Resolved that.
1. The report be noted; and
2. That a future report be brought back in Summer 2025 and when appropriate on key activities and milestones to ensure that OSMC is kept fully engaged.
3. The Chair be given delegated authority to prepare the response on behalf of the Committee, be approved.
8
Overview and Scrutiny Work Plan and the Council's Forward Plan of Key Decisions
Minutes
In accordance with Council Procedural Rules, it was agreed to defer this item to the next meeting.
RESOLVED that consideration of the item be deferred to the next meeting.
RESOLVED that consideration of the item be deferred to the next meeting.
Previous Meetings
Future Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in