Hart Borough Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee Meeting

The minutes of 10 December 2024 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

The Chair advised that Cabinet had sent a response to the O&S Committee recommendation on the chairing of the Multi-Agency Flood Forum.  It was stated that Cabinet felt it was not appropriate for a Member of Cabinet to chair that meeting from a procedural point of view. As the Forum had been created from O&S it should be chaired by a Member from this Committee.

Members discussed this advice.

Members received a presentation from Marie Greenhalgh from Inclusion Education, a core grant recipient, outlining the impact the core grant has had on their organisation.  

Members heard:

·         The complex neurodiversity and mental health needs of many of the students and the barriers this causes to mainstream education and employment.

·         The progress of EB8, the Employment Support Hub since its launch. The hub supports students with their employability and workplace behaviours and is partnered with local businesses. 20 new students will be joining in September.

·         Project Iris; a new project that has received government funding to help young people who have suicidal thoughts and behaviours.  The 6-week course combines learning around their mental health and strategies with green therapies and equine therapy.

·         68 young people have attended to date and 30 more are currently on the course. Very strong positive outcomes have been identified.

·         The Baton of Hope, a suicide prevention initiative will be visiting Hart on 25 September 2025. Members were invited to get involved.

Members thanked Ms Greenhalgh for her interesting presentation on the impact of the core grant provided by Hart.

Apologies had been received from Cllr Taylor.

No declarations made.

No announcements from the Chair.

The Deputy Chair advised that Members of the Fly-Tipping Task and Finish Group had met with the new Fly-Tipping Officer. It was an excellent meeting where they were shown examples of cases and were advised that 2 cameras are in operation. Community Protection warnings, Community Protection Notices and Fixed Penalty Notices have all been issued and court cases are moving forward. Partnership working has been strong with other local authorities.

None.

The Biodiversity Officer introduced the Hart Habitat Bank. The Environment Act 2021 requires developments to achieve a 10% “Net gain”? for biodiversity. Developers can deliver Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) on-site, off-site, or they can purchase credits from an off-site provider. Projects and changes in management on Hart District Council sites can be used to provide an improvement to biodiversity and create biodiversity units to be sold as Biodiversity Credits for developers who are unable to achieve 10% net gain themselves.

Members were advised:

·         An Offsetting Feasibility Study and Nature Offsetting Business Plan had been produced.

·         The habitat bank on Hart sites can deliver up to 280 biodiversity units, across 7 sites.

·         Modelling shows that £30K per unit would mean each site is self-financing for its lifetime.

·         Resources for the operation of the Habitat Bank and Monitoring had been considered.

·         Capital cost for the first BNG Project have already been approved – up front investment in BNG has been shown to deliver better enhancement of sites.

·         All projects and costs, including future resource, after this initial project would be funded from the Habitat Bank reserve.?

·         The proposal from the Council is that each site is viable individually, which lowers the risk. This follows the same structure as the Offsetting Business Plan which assessed the viability of the Habitat Bank as a whole, but with a focus on sites.

·         A contingency is included that allows for remedial works or reinvestment in ?future sites to continue the Habitat Bank in the future.?

·         Maintaining the site for BNG purposes allows for some savings in the ?

SANG budget on staff costs, maintenance costs, and equipment ?costs.?

Members queried:

·         Potential tension between SANG and BNG land for access and usage by residents.

·         The amount of the Biodiversity Officer time allocated to this project.

·         The potential of partnership working with national companies.

·         How the £30k per unit was achieved and what benchmarking was undertaken.

·         Opportunities to work with other local authorities and options to make a profit.

·         Whose responsibility it is to check developers to have the correct level of credits.

·         Developer preference between BNG and SANG land.

Members heard:

·         Access to land for residents would take precedence, sites would only be restricted for short periods if maintenance/improvements were required as it is now.

·         Partnership with national agencies was considered but the skills and opportunity were available in house and would lead to greater control of our sites, wider access for residents and financial gains.

·         The modelling costs were undertaken by a financial consultant, £30k was chosen as it is the pint that every site becomes viable.

·         The Biodiversity Officer is currently responsible for checking developers have the necessary credits.

·         Developers do not have a choice between SANG and BNG, there are different criteria for each.

The Executive Director - Corporate added that this is a new initiative, and it is not an established market. Hart has the advantage of owning or managing the land. A balance had to be found between covering our costs, but also not pricing ourselves out of the market. The risk mitigations had been discussed in depth and should changes need to be made to adjust these costs further approval can be sought.

The Committee was supportive of the proposal and no specific comments were made on the recommendations to pass to Cabinet.

The Executive Director – Corporate introduced and set the context for the report. It was explained to the meeting that the Council must set a balanced budget for 2025/26. Any comments Members made would be put to Cabinet for consideration and the budget itself would then be taken to Full Council for approval.

The headlines were:

·         Members were advised that the £600K funding gap presented to Members in November had widened due to a reduction (£300K) in the government grant settlement announced on 18 December 2024.

·         Work has been undertaken throughout the year to identify savings with service managers.

·         The Government has confirmed that Council Tax can be raised by 2.99% and that is the proposal.

·         Fees and charges can be raised by inflation, unless for good reason.

·         Currently we are comfortably within budget for 2024/25 and have a balanced budget for 2025/26.

·         2026/27 forecasts a deficit of £1.4M in the residual budget after a council tax rise.

·         Reserves will not need to be used for 2025/26 but their use will need to be considered for 2026/27 onwards.

The Finance Manager explained how the deficit of £830K had been addressed via identifying savings as follows:

·         Government Settlement: the New Homes Bonus decreased by £367k – a large number but softened by additional non-ring-fenced grants of £147k – so net impact £220k. The Budget gap had increased from £610k to £830k.

·         Collection Fund: the MTFS assumed an increase of £263k by using current data this was recalculated to be £319k – an increase of £56k.

·         Employee Costs: The 2024/25 budget assumed an increase in pay awards of 6.7% - the actual pay award was only 4% - therefore the base employee costs on which to build the 2025/26 employee costs was £156k lower.

·         Treasury interest was reevaluated as interest rates have not fallen as fast as our advisors predicted - £34k.

·         Contracts: The 2024/25 budget assumed an inflationary increase in contracts of 6.7%, this was lower – between 1.7% and 3% consequently the base on which to add the 2025/26 increase was lower saving c.£100k.

·         Expenditure: Budget Holders have released contingency funds with the understanding that if an unforeseen event happens budget will be found so that our residents are protected. This has saved c. £200k

·         Fees & Charges: assuming green waste subscribers remain at 2024/25 levels the net recycling income will increase by £105k

·         Officers worked with Portfolio holders to look at car park fees. The proposed increases, which are detailed in Appendix 1 will generate an additional £130k.

Members queried:

·         The impact of not receiving New Burdens funding.

·         The risk and likelihood of central government trying to offset Extended producer Regulations against new Burdens funding in subsequent years.

·         The potential loss of New Homes Bonus funding.

·         Local retention levels of business rates.

·         When initial costs of devolution and local government reorganisation will be available.

Members were advised:

·         The impact of not receiving New Burdens funding was a risk and this was why EPR funding is in the reserves and not being used to balance the budget.

·         No assumptions have been made in relation to New Burdens funding.

·         The latest Government consultation indicates that the distribution of funding will be weighted heavily around deprivation.

·         Local retention levels of business rates are being reviewed by central Government.

·         Too early for any initial costs of devolution and local government reorganisation, possibly in March/April.

No comments were identified by the Committee on the report or recommendations to pass to Cabinet.

The Executive Director – Corporate introduced the report, stating that much was prescribed by regulation and statutory guidance. It outlines the approach taken focusing on security, liquidity, yield and environmental, social and governance based investing framework (ESG). No material changes had been proposed to the policy.   

Members considered the report and no comments were made.

Members considered and noted the Cabinet Work Programme.

Members considered and amended the Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme as follows:

·         To add an item: Update on Affordable Homes Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) following public consultation to February 2025 meeting.

·         To add an item: Update on UKSPF 2025/26 additional funding round as announced in the Chancellor's budget statement to February 2025 meeting.

A Member queried when an update on Heathlands Court would be brought to the Committee. It was confirmed that it would be later in the spring.