Hart Borough Council Cabinet Meeting

The minutes of 2 January 2025 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Proposed by: Cllr Neighbour;  Seconded by: Cllr Radley; Unanimously agreed by those present at the January meeting

Apologies had been received from Cllr Quarterman.

Cllr Bailey declared a personal interest in the UKSPF item, as he was now a member of the Parochial Church Council of St Peter’s in Yateley.  He would not comment during the discussion on this item nor vote, but would remain in the room.

The Chair announced that he had made an Emergency Decision on Monday 20 January 2025 to advise the Government, through Salix, that the grants for the public sector decarbonisation programme projects for both The Harlington and the Civic Offices would not be drawn down, as the projects would not be going ahead at this time.

There were none.

Cabinet considered the Examiner’s report into the Draft Odiham and North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan Review 2014-2032 (the Draft Review Plan), and to decide whether it should proceed to referendum with any modifications deemed necessary.

Members heard:

·       That the Plan Review was being undertaken against the NPPF dated 2023

·       The major change was the removal of one of the sites, but that this would not impact delivery of the Hart local plan in any way

·       If the plan was accepted, when new housing targets came into effect from 1 May 2025, it would be discussed further with the Parish Council

·       That there was an error in the covering report, in paragraph 36, the word “not” had been omitted.  The sentence should read “…Policy 2i referred to above at paragraphs 19 and 20 does not differ from the Examiner’s recommendations…”.

Proposed by:  Cllr Oliver;  Seconded by:  Cllr Neighbour

Thanks were given to members of the Parish Council and local community for their assistance in the review of one of the first Neighbourhood Plan’s brought forward in the District. 

Unanimously agreed.

Decision

Cabinet agreed the following:

               i.         The Examiner’s recommended modifications set out at Table 1 of the Decision Statement at Appendix 2, for the reasons set out in the Examiner’s report.

              ii.         The Council make one additional modification - to delete criterion (g) of Policy 2i Land at Longwood - to correct an error.

             iii.         To resolve that the Draft Review Plan, incorporating the both the Examiner’s recommended modifications, and the corrective modification referred to in Recommendation 2, meets the necessary legal tests set out at Appendix 3 of this report and must therefore proceed to referendum.

            iv.         The referendum area coincides with the designated neighbourhood area i.e. Odiham Parish.

That the Decision Statement at Appendix 2 is published in accordance with Regulation 18(2) of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Planning Regulations 2012 (as amended).

Cabinet considered using council-owned land to create biodiversity net gain units and form a habitat bank. This involved the creation of a new earmarked reserve to enable the carry forward of the balance of income from the sale of the units to fund the costs of maintaining the land over the length of the scheme.

Members heard:

·       This paper had been to Overview and Scrutiny Committee and its comments had been taken into consideration

·       The Environment Act 2021 required developers achieve 10% biodiversity net gain for each site

·       Work has been done with consultants to ensure that we could offer habitat banks to developers both in our own and other districts/boroughs – a suite of sites had been identified that could be used to meet demand in the first instance with the potential for any profits being used to purchase additional sites to meet future demand

·       The fee had been set at £30,000 per biodiversity unit, but this would be kept under review

Proposed by Cllr Neighbour; Seconded by Cllr Clarke

Members questioned:

·       What a biodiversity unit was

·       How the fee of £30,000 had been arrived at and how this compared to the market in general

·       What the correlation between the number of houses built and the number of habitat banks needed was

·       Whether each unit was a fixed size and whether they could be anywhere in the country

·       Whether it would be possible to increase the cost in the future part way through an agreement

·       Whether developers had the potential to purchase more than the equivalent to 10% of biodiversity units

·       Whether the use of SANG space for biodiversity projects was allowed

Members discussed:

·       That this is an emerging market and that we would need to monitor the market and refine our offer as required

·       That this was the start of our offer, and that we were “ahead of the curve” in this area

·       That the charging mechanism would allow the scheme to provide some funding to help purchase further sites

·       That if any future review showed a high demand, then a further paper would be brought back to Cabinet for approval

·       Funding had been included in the budget for 2025/26

Unanimously agreed.

Decision

Cabinet agreed the following:

1. The standard cost for unit sales is set at £30,000 in the first instance, subject to annual review to ensure that the scheme and all associated costs remain self-financed
2. A new earmarked reserve is created to enable the carry forward of the balance of income from the sale of the units to fund the total costs of administrating the scheme and maintaining the land over the length of the scheme
3. That authority be delegated to the Executive Director - Communities and the Section 151 Officer, in consultation with the Cabinet Members for Countryside and Finance, to fund the remaining project costs subject to detailed costings being agreed upon and conditional on the scheme being demonstrated as viable to the market
4. To recruit 1.5 full-time staff members to support the running of the new Habitat Bank and associated services, including software
5. The council should enter into reciprocal arrangements with other bodies and local authorities for monitoring habitat banks, and the Executive Director—Communities be given authority to enter into legal agreements for monitoring and reporting our habitat bank sites.

The council offers a service of monitoring third-party sites within Hart and neighbouring districts, e.g., Rushmoor District Council and Hampshire County Council

Hart District Council (HDC) has been granted £1million through the Government’s UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) to fund projects identified in HDC’s Local Investment Plan (LIP). This report provides an update on the financial plan.

As declared earlier, Cllr Bailey did not take part in the discussion or vote on this item.

Members were reminded that the Council had received just short of £1m in funding from the Government, and that most schemes had now either been delivered or were in the final stages.

A further funding round for 2025/26 had been agreed by the Government, with Hart being awarded £327,000.  A paper would be brought to March Cabinet on this.

The following amendment to recommendation (i) was proposed:

“Approves the allocation of the programme’s remaining funds in accordance with Table 1 and 2 below and delegates authority to the Director of Corporate Services, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to allocate any remaining balance to any scheme(s) on this list as appropriate”

The amended recommendations were proposed by Cllr Neighbour and seconded by Cllr Wildsmith.

Unanimously agreed by all those who voted

Thanks were given to those Officers who had worked on the UKSPF scheme over the past three years.

Decision

Cabinet agreed to:

1. Approve the allocation of the programme’s remaining funds in accordance with Table 1 and 2 below and delegated authority to the Director of Corporate Services, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to allocate any remaining balance to any scheme(s) on this list as appropriate

Note the revised financial plan for 2024/25 in Appendix 1.

Cabinet received the Q3 Budget Monitoring Report and Forecast Outturn for 2024/25, and to receive the report on Treasury Activity.

Members heard:

·       At the end of Q3, there was a forecast underspend of £1.33m, which was a similar position to the forecast at the end of Q2

·       The Capital Budget underspend was £5.5m at present, although this reflected that capital projects spanned several years

·       Future reports would show a capital budget report timeframe of three years, rather than just one, to give a better overview

·       Interest received continued to be high, although interest rates were now slowly dropping

·       The building control service was now budget neutral

·       Of the projected £1.3m surplus, £1m had been set aside for work on the local plan, and £90,000 to help tackle fly tipping

Members discussed:

·       The forecasted increase in rent deposit payments, and whether this was a local or national issue

Decision

Cabinet:

1. Noted the projected Revenue outturn for 2024-25
2. Noted the forecast Capital position for 2024-25

Noted the Treasury Management position at 31st Dec 2024

The Council must set a balanced budget for 2025/2026. The draft revenue and capital budget proposals are summarised in this report.

Members heard:

·       That the Council was presenting a balanced budget for 2025/26, despite several significant challenges

·       Funding received from central government had been lower than in previous years

·       There was an expectation from government that the Council would increase council tax by 2.99% to cover any gap in funding

·       There would be an annual council tax increase of £204 for a Band D property

·       Fees and charges would generally be increased in line with inflation

·       Car parking charges would be increased for the first time in six years

·       It was proposed that the extended producer responsibility funding expected from the government be transferred to reserves to help mitigate costs

·       The increase in National Insurance costs would be in the region of £300,000, and £70,000 funding had been received from the government to help offset these costs

The following amendment to the recommendations (iv) was proposed by the S151 Officer: 

“that the 2025/26 Extended Producer Responsibility funding be transferred to the waste cost contingency fund reserve, and the National Insurance funding is transferred to the budget pressures reserve, this approach to be reviewed in future years”

The amended recommendations were proposed by: Cllr Radley and seconded by:  Cllr Neighbour  

Members discussed:

·       Why the UKSPF funding for 2025/26 had not been included in the budget

·       How developer contributions were dealt with in the budget and whether there was any clear understanding of how much s106 money would be received in 2025/26

·       Whether there had been any additional growth items received that had not been put forward for inclusion in the budget

·       The number of planned projects that already had allocated funding from reserves that would be started or continued in 2025/26

·       That a business case for resource funding for work on the local government reorganisation would be coming to April Cabinet.  Funding had already been set aside from reserves to cover this work.

·       Potential underfunding from the government for the costs associated with food waste collection

·       Whether the fair funding review would still go ahead

The S151 Office also advised Cabinet that the 2026/27 Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) highlighted that there are emerging budget challenges which would need to be addressed as soon as possible, and these were outlined in Appendix 4 of the report.

The amended recommendations were unanimously agreed.

Decision

Cabinet

A.    noted the S151 Officer’s advice on emerging 2026/27 MTFS budget pressures;

B.    agreed to recommendation to Council:

1. a 2.99% increase in Hart District Council’s Band D Council Tax Charge for 2025/26,
2. changes to fees and charges for 2025/26 in line with the principles set out in this report (full details will be reported to full Council),
3. approval of the changes to the car park charges as set out in Appendix 1
4. that the 2025/26 Extended Producer Responsibility funding be transferred to the waste cost contingency fund reserve, and the NI funding is transferred to the budget pressures reserve, this approach to be reviewed in future years approval of the draft Revenue Budget for 2025/26 as summarised in paragraph 19 and Appendix 2, incorporating the baseline net service cost variations included at paragraph 21 and Appendix 2,
5. approval of the 3-year Capital Programme as detailed in Appendix 3, noting that 2026/27 and 2027/28 are subject to confirmation of funding
6. approval of the Medium-Term Financial Strategy as set out in Appendix 4, incorporating the budget principles and plan,
7. that a new earmarked reserve be set up to meet the costs of preparing for devolution and local government reorganisation, the amount to be determined in a report to Cabinet setting out a costed resource plan
8. approval of the continuation of the capital receipt flexibility strategy allowed under the Government direction, as detailed in the report.

not to change the Council’s existing Council Tax Support Scheme other than the required statutory uprating

Cabinet was presented the draft of the Treasury Management Strategy Statement for 2025/26 which incorporates the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) Policy, Annual Investment Strategy and Prudential and Treasury Indicators. Setting a Capital Strategy, which is also presented for consideration, is also a statutory requirement and this sets the overall strategic context for the treasury activity. There are no major changes proposed in the 2025/26 draft documents compared to the current year’s approved ones.

Members heard

·       That this was similar to last year’s paper as the strategy had proven to work extremely well

·       The Council continued to invest ethically

·       With a slow downturn in investment rates, it was likely that returns would not be as healthy as they had been recently

Proposed by:  Cllr Radley;  Seconded by:  Cllr Neighbour

Members received assurance that with interest rates potentially remaining higher than anticipated earlier in year, that figures in the budget were realistic.

Unanimously agreed.

Decision

Cabinet agreed the following recommendations to Council:

               i.         To approve the draft Treasury Management Strategy Statement and the Prudential Indicators and Minimum Revenue Provision policy contained within it.

              ii.         To approve the Annual Investment Strategy.

To approve the draft Capital Strategy.

Cabinet was requested to approve the Financial Regulations and Contract Procurement Rules. The biennial review has been undertaken and no material changes have been proposed to these documents.

Members noted:

·       A full review of both the Contract Procedure Rules and Financial Regulations had been undertaken two years ago, and would be kept on a two year review cycle

·       The Contract Procedure Rules had been amended to ensure that they were compliant with the new Procurement Act

Proposed by:  Cllr Radley; Seconded by:  Cllr Neighbour; Unanimously agreed

Recommendation

Cabinet recommended to Council that the reviewed Financial Regulations, and Contract Procurement Rules, were approved

The Cabinet Work Programme was considered and amended as follows:

·       Papers on local government reorganisation would be brought to Cabinet as and when required.  A paper on funding for resources would be brought forward in April, and this was included in the work programme

It was proposed that the Hartley Wintney Conservation Area Appraisal item be removed from the work programme, as the Parish Council had decided not to move forward.  Proposed by Cllr Neighbour; Seconded by Cllr Oliver; unanimously agreed.