Agenda item

Paul Webb (Cabinet Member for Community and Regulatory Services), Paul King (Cabinet Member for Environment, Coastal Regeneration and Special Projects), David Wimble (Cabinet Member for Economic Developments and Special Projects), Peter Osborne (Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport) with support from Dave Shipton (Head of Financial Strategy) and Kevin Tilson (Finance Business Partner, Growth, Environment and Transport)

1.Dave Shipton updated the Cabinet Committee on the following aspects of the GET Draft budget:

a)    The draft budget balances a significant increase spend of £179.5 Million and had signified an 11.7% in spending. The figure also balanced the reversal of £28 million of savings seen from previous years. Spending pressures were partly offset by the impact of net changes in reserves of £14.7 Million and £ 61.7 million of new and full year effect savings plans and £14.6million of income generation.

b)    Mr Shipton added that once the discussed elements were considered, there was a net increase of spending of £ 116.5 Million (up 7.6%). Net increase was funded by a combination of funds from central government and local government. Capital programme also included a near £500 million increase over the 10-year period but would be entirely funded from external source or from within already approved borrowing in the existing capital programme. No new borrowing was raised.

c)    The majority of the capital programme was directed towards investment in school buildings, highways asset management, and the maintenance and improvement of other council-owned facilities. Mr Shipton highlighted the £21.7 million increases related to the Growth, Environment and Transport portfolios.

d)    Highlighted the key components that Members needed to be aware of when setting a budget such as local government finance settlement and Council tax arrangements.

e)    Officers urged caution in understating the risk captured within the draft budget. Aspects such as the significant pressures seen in areas such as Adult Social Care (£90 million) and Children’s Social Care (£50 million) provisions, whilst not part of the discussed portfolio, the discussed functions still impacted the wider budget as a whole. Deterioration to GETs asset stock was flagged as a significant risk to the GET portfolio. Mr Collins praised the work Mr Shipton and colleagues had completed in delivering the draft budget.

2) In response to the presented Draft Budget, Members asked the following:

a)    Members discussed the highlighted spending growth pressure but queried if the provision of future increase of waste tonnage (984,0000) was correct as building targets had stagnated. Mr Tilson responded that the provision was included in the budget for demographic?driven increases in waste tonnages and was based on modelling linked to new housebuilding. The discussed assumptions were reviewed annually, with budgets adjusted for any under? or over?delivery. For 2026–27, slower?than?expected housing growth had resulted in the removal of approximately 5,000 tonnes from the forecast. This had ensured the medium?term plan reflected expected tonnage changes alongside evolving recycling targets.

b)    The £660,000 on street car parking was raised by Members who specifically queried on how the County Council would recoup this cost and enforce the issue further into the future throughout the County. Mr Osborne responded that since publication a number of funds had been recovered from district partners with discussion continuing. Simon Jones further confirmed that a wider conversation with Districts and Boroughs was underway to target a collaborative approach that would make the service more efficient in the future.

c)    The Kent Travel saver was discussed and Members asked if any increases in cost were to be observed going forward. Mr Bushell responded that considerations for reviewing the Kent Travel saver would be undertaken with officers exploring the wider issues and implications throughout KCC. Officers would bring further information on the initiative back to the Committee at a later date.

d)    Clarity on the library’s material fund was sought as the reported direction of spend and future spends remained unclear. Mr Pearson confirmed that the materials fund covered all forms of book material. There had been a small one-off reduction to the materials fund, but this was to be offset by the use of Section 106 developer contributions. Mr Pearson also confirmed there was despite that still a healthy materials fund of over £900,000 to cover books and supporting resources and confirmed that new popular bestsellers would be covered as part of KCC’s new stock buying.

e)    Members questioned the awaiting confirmation (Section 2.6.6) of the Bus Services Improvements Plan (BSIP grant). Mr Bushell confirmed that the item would be presented back to the committee for discussion once the funding proposal had been received in March.

f)      Questions on exploring the property portfolio as an alternative funding stream from potential assets were mooted. Members noted that the budget appeared to be constrained and potentially be easily impacted by unforeseen events.

g)    Mr Shipton responded that discussions on income from KCC’s properties lay likely within the Policy and Resources Cabinet Committee scope. Mr Shipton further expanded upon the Section 25 assurance statement, elements of risk that impacted and the overall robustness of estimates that are calculated to alleviate concerns. An independent statement would be given by the Chief Finance Officer at full Council for wider discussions and considerations.

h)    Members asked for further clarity on the option of an increased premium paid by parents to the Kent travel Scheme. Members were concerned on the figures produced for the Highways Investment Budget and the perceived size of increase on the associated budget. Officers explained the role of capital grants and their application to the totals in detail. It was suggested that once the full budget was approved further investigations would take place. Members suggested a Direct Debit option to spread the cost be applied.

i)      It was outlined that pavements and highways would require an additional £110 million a year to maintain. Members discussed the declining state of both assets and queried on what could be done to close the budget gaps and improve both assets. The respective Cabinet Member responded that once the full Department for Transport (DfT) budgets were in place and realised, actions to address this would then commence.

j)      Concerns were raised on the potential removal of documentation from the KCC archive pages and if this was potentially part of a wider cost cutting scheme. Mr Ratcliffe suggested that budgetary cuts had not been responsible for documentation being made unavailable. The officer would look to investigate further.

k)    Clarification on the Medium-term financial plan (MTFP) viability of being balanced over three years were flagged. Mr Shipton responded that the position had been compared against the government’s multi?year settlement, which had left a remaining gap to be addressed.

l)      While the requirement to set a balanced budget had applied only to the forthcoming financial year, good practice required a consideration of the medium?term outlook when balancing the 2026–27 budget. It was deemed acceptable for the medium?term plan to show a gap, provided it was clear that this would need to be closed through further savings, income generation, cost?avoidance measures, or future council tax decisions. The plan was illustrative, as was stated at the outset.

m)  The savings incorporated into the budget from recycling were based on the additional work currently being undertaken with District and Borough Councils, particularly in relation to food?waste collection. Several authorities had recorded significant increases in food?waste capture notably up to 25% in some areas. As a result of this work there was an achieved saving of approximately £600,000.

n)    Further initiatives were underway to improve recycling performance in flatted properties and to reduce contamination which had also carried a cost within the recycling budget. Through the Kent Resource Partnership which had brought together all 13 Kent authorities, Officers were exploring initiatives and opportunities on a borough?by?borough basis to support improved local recycling performance and deliver additional efficiencies.

o)    Members referenced a past paper that had previously been presented and had indicated an assumed £16 million cost by 2028 which related to future waste?management requirements. At the same time, the current budget had included a proposed saving of £1.75 million, based on anticipated reductions in emissions arising from higher recycling rates. Members agreed that the saving line was clear but noted that trying to identify the section of the budget where the corresponding future £16 million requirement referred to in the earlier paper, had been reflected or costed.

p)    The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) impact falls in Quarter 4 of Year 3 of the MTFP. At current stage it had been budgeted for one quarter of the potential risk in 2027–28, with the full financial impact expected to materialise in the year immediately following the current MTFP period.

q)    Focus had been on increased recycling levels and reducing the exposure that the function could face when the scheme takes effect. Current work was ongoing and would continue throughout next year. Officers would then then be in a position to set out the revised level of risk or liability in Year 3 of the next MTFP and would be brought forward when Cabinet meets again at this time next year.

r)     Members queried the included £400,000 reduction in staffing cost that had equated to a 1% saving. The papers had stated that this reflected a 1% allocation against the GET net staffing budget, with each director required to review their service structures, examine vacant posts for potential deletion, and consider existing vacancy?management targets and capacity Members asked how many staff posts did the £400,000 reduction represent.

s)    Officers responded that operational staff would always be replaced. When a member of staff left through natural attrition, the post would be reviewed to determine whether it needed to be re?filled.  Officers suggested that this was the extent of the commitment at this stage.

t)      Concerns were raised on the potential increased cost of the Kent Travel Scheme, and the risks associated with the income generated from car parks. Efficiency savings to libraries were highlighted by the Cabinet Member (Auto terminals) as an already successfully implemented cost measure. Similar initiatives were also underway.