Agenda item

 

Report from the Strategic Director of Finance and Customer Services.

 

Recommendations:

 

That Cabinet:

 

1.    Note the current General Fund Revenue Budget forecast overspend of £6.1m.

2.    Note that actions will continue to be taken to reduce the overspend position but that it is possible that the Council will need to draw on its reserves to balance the 2024/25 financial position.

3.    Note the updated position of the Capital Programme, including proposed capital programme variations to expenditure profiles and funding.

 

 

At the Chair’s invitation, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Safe and Clean Communities introduced the report and explained that the report set out the Council’s financial position as of July 2024, with an estimated overspend of £6.1 million for the financial year.

 

This was largely due to demand which had put additional pressures on children’s placements, adult social care packages, and home to school transport as well as the expected impact of the Local Government Pay Awards.

 

In addition, the Council had been impacted by inflationary pressures within the economy. Whilst the actual overspend of £17 million was concerning, it was stated that elements of the overspend had been forecasted and the two key budget contingencies were created as part of setting the Council’s Budget and Medium-Term Financial Strategy for 2024/25. The Council had set Social Care contingency of £3.4 million and a Corporate Budget Provision of £3.5million to support anticipated pressures across social care and home to school transport. The Cabinet Member explained that detailed review work of those services had begun, and operating improvements had been made to reduce cost pressures and create avoidance in further overspend.

 

The Council’s Treasury Management Strategy had continued to perform well as a result of the Councils’ approach to borrowing, which had been adapted to minimise its level of borrowing. Members were informed that this position had improved due to reprofiling of the capital programme delivery, which had pushed back the requirement to borrow more. It had been estimated that this would support the Council to generate savings of at least £4 million, however, Members were informed there was still a possibility that this figure could change due to market conditions which were beyond the Council’s control.

 

As a result of the corporate provision and savings, an underspend of £10.9 million had been forecasted within Central Services bringing the Council's net overspend to down to £6.1 million. The Overview and Scrutiny Manager Board (OSMB) was told that uncertainty still remained within the local government sector beyond the 2024/ 25 budgets, in relation to further allocation funding beyond one year. It was acknowledged that the financial challenges faced by the Council were the same challenges faced by other the councils across the country, with some local authorities even being issued with section 114 notices.

 

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member for this overview and then invited the Strategic Director for Finance and Customer Services, Judith Badger to provide some further context. The Strategic Director for Finance and Customer Services felt it was important to emphasise the various budget contingencies put in place at budget setting, which were there as some overspend was expected.

 

OSMB was informed that while some of the overspends were expected, it was important to consider the context of why they had occurred. This was illustrated by an example in relation to the placement pressure on Children and Young People's services which had been managed through a long-term plan which had been in place for several years. This plan had showed positive results with evidence indicating its effectiveness over time. However, despite the plan, overspends would continue to occur, which was why a contingency had been included within the Council’s overall budget process to address ongoing overspends.  Further to this, it was explained that there was no intention of distorting the future budget for children’s services, which should ultimately be lower in value, which made the budgeting process somewhat complex.

 

Another significant area of overspend was the home to school transport service. The Council knew that this budget would need to be reset in the future, however extensive work was required to understand the correct level.  It was noted that the Council’s overarching budget had catered for the overspends to some degree.

 

The overarching budget position of £6.1 million overspend did raised some concerns regarding next year’s budget and beyond however the at the moment the Council needed to wait and see what would come from the Chancellors Autumn Budget Statement, which would give an indication of the implications for the following year.

 

OSMB would have oversight of the Medium-Term Financial Strategy updates later in the financial year.  It was noted that eliminating the overspend completely would be a substantial challenge however lots of discussions were taking place.

 

In response to the overspend in the Council’s budget, Councillor Blackham enquired about the measures being taken to reduce the £6.1 million overspend. He also asked if the mitigation would involve using reserves for the current financial year, and if so, which reserve would it come from. The Assistant Director for Financial Services advised that as stated in the report, reserves would serve as a backstop with the remainder of the financial year focused on mitigating the overspend as much as possible. However, it was acknowledged that eliminating the£6.1 million pressure would be a significant challenge for the Council, and therefore it would fall on reserves.

 

Councillor Yasseen agreed that issues around overspending had been ongoing for the Council and wanted to know why the Council had not allocated the budget directly to services instead of maintaining a contingency fund. In addition, Councillor Yaseen wanted clarification on the financial approach to managing this consistent overspend for the Council.  The Strategic Director for Finance and Customer Services acknowledged that addressing the continued overspending had always been a key priority for the Council. However, she conveyed that there were multiple factors had collectively impacted the Council’s ability to reduce the overspend. An example was the home-to-school transport service, which could not be predicted.  It was known that the service would overspend but the pressures for this financial year could not be predicted.  The service was undertaking lots of work to understand the needs however it additional funding was provided it could distort the figures further because the additional funding could be too much or too little.

 

Regarding children’s placements, the social care contingency was intended to address less predictable pressures, particularly in adult care. Efforts had been made to increase in-house placements and recruit more foster carers, although delays could occur due to factors such as property purchases or staffing issues. Allocating additional funds would create confusion for service, as the budget they had was the budget target they needed to meet. The Council’s financial approach was to set a realistic budget for the future while managing short-term pressures. It was believed that this approach helped to better understand and manage departmental pressures more effectively and was strongest way to manage the budget.

 

The Chair then queried as to why costs had gone up so much for the home-to-school transport service, which in parts was outsourced to private companies to deliver the service on behalf of the Council’s. In response, the Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene confirmed the Council provided a mix of transport solutions which included a number of in-house routes as well as a number which were contracted to private companies.  The rising price of fuel, over the past couple of years had posed a significant challenge and added financial pressure.  Efforts were made to reduce costs by placing more young people on the same routes to drive down single occupancy routes. However, it was noted that the underlying pressure for the service was the actual increase in demand, and the impact these measures on further reducing costs.

 

The Chair asked for clarification on which budget the additional funds would come from if this service continued to overspend, would it be the Children’s Services Budget or the Central Budget and then reallocated to the Children’s Services Budget. The Strategic Director for Finance and Customer Services confirmed it would come from the Central Budget as the Council’s approach was not to transfer funds from one budget to another. Additionally, members were informed that a complexity with the home-to-school transport budgets meant they currently spanned multiple departments. However, ongoing work by the finance service aimed to align these budgets.

 

Councillor Yasseen asked for clarification on why Rotherham spent significantly more on child placements compared to councils like Barnsley and Sheffield. Rotherham’s weekly expenditure per child was 27% which was 20% more than other councils. Councillor Yasseen also inquired whether finance had worked with Children’s Services to determine if the additional costs were justified by offering better services.  The Strategic Director for Finance and Customer Services explained that prior to 2016, the number of placements had been around 400. Due to increased demand had the number had risen to around 660. She noted that ongoing efforts were focused on reducing costs and enhancing the Council’s support for those children and families. This included reducing caseloads through early intervention, which had helped prevent children from entering various care settings. As a result of these efforts, the number of placements had reduced to 500 placements but unfortunately the associated costs had not decreased proportionally. However, work had been undertaken around modelling, and while costs were not fixed due to factors such as inflation, it was evident that departmental efforts had reduced costs in real terms when accounting for inflation.  It was acknowledged that once a child or family was in the system, their appropriate needs were appropriately assessed, and the right service or support provided. This support cannot be abruptly removed but stepped down in a way that would not put children at risk. The service had made significant efforts in this area, focusing on step-downs and transitioning children from one type of support to another aiming to reintegrate them into normal family placements. However, for children with complex needs, the cost of high-cost placements could be substantial. Despite this, efforts over the past few years had led to a reduction in costs. Regarding the number of child placements compared to other local authorities there could be a wide range of reasons and factors for the differences, which might relate to different practices, or varying needs of the children.

 

The Assistant Director of Financial Services confirmed that the Council had worked to reduce the overspend in relation to the excessive costs within this area. However, efforts undertaken had meant that average unit costs had reduced significantly. The Council had also been trying to transition placement types from external, expensive residential placements to internal residential placements, while maximising its fostering opportunities. However, in relation to other authorities and their placement numbers and costs, it was acknowledged that Rotherham had faced the children’s placement challenge much earlier than other areas and had experienced significant rises in costs. Through the work being undertaken the Council hoped to reduce these costs and improve its cost position to a more static level, which was why the budgets had been maintained at the current level.

 

The Joint Assistant Director for Commissioning and Performance confirmed that reviews on costs and placements had been frequently considered using local benchmarking data on the numbers of children who had gone into care, children in need, and those on child protection plans. It was also acknowledged, that Rotherham’s spending had been comparable with most other local authorities in the region, as these challenges had been seen across the country. It was hoped that national efforts could support councils in reducing the costs of external placements for children.  Regarding the number of children in care, while other local authorities had experienced a rise in these figures, Rotherham had taken a different path. Despite starting with slightly higher number, the Council had implemented numerous initiatives to support families in caring for their children longer. As a result, there had been a reduction in the number of children entering care, contrary to the trend observed elsewhere. This was a particularly important development, and there had been no negative impacts from this approach.

 

Councillor Yasseen acknowledged that the Council had done everything to provide the best possible care for the borough’s children but had concerns regarding the £5 million overspend even though much had been achieved in terms of progress and interventions.

 

Councillor McKiernan requested further clarification on the decision-making process for budget overspends, particularly when the budget had already been set but additional spending became necessary across various sectors. He enquired about who was responsible for making those decisions.

 

The Strategic Director for Finance and Customer Services explained that once the budget had been set it would go through the Council’s decision-making processes and would be agreed by Full Council. However, this would be based on professional advice from both the Strategic Director for Finance and Customer Services and the Assistant Director for Financial Services.

 

Councillor McKiernan was further informed that officers only provided advice on the budget required to deliver on the priorities determined by the Council. For example, officers might estimate the current costs of children’s services based on caseloads and activities, and project the costs of actions that could reduce those expenses. The budget was assembled to avoid overspending, based on the best available information and assumptions. However, there could be unavoidable cost pressures, such as an unexpected increase in home-to-school transport needs. In such cases, the goal would be to manage these costs effectively. Additionally, budget holders at various levels had individual budgets, and if they overspent without justification, it became a management issue to address. Efforts to tackle overspending included reviewing all expenditures and identifying areas where costs could be reduced, such as postponing non-essential training courses and other cost-reducing measures. At a detailed level, budget holders managed their own budgets, contributing to the Council’s overall financial position. However, the Council’s overall overspend was primarily due to two or three key issues, and efforts were being made to address these challenges and manage the problem effectively.

 

Councillor McKiernan sought further clarification as to who would approve additional spending and at what point would that spending be challenged there was an overspend.  The Chair informed Councillor McKiernan that officers were responsible for running the authority operationally and managing budgets. If there was any overspend, they were expected to report and discuss this with the relevant Cabinet Member. Elected members were responsible for setting policy and addressing overspend.  OSMB had opportunities throughout the year to scrutinise the budget.

 

Councillor Keenan remarked that, as a trustee for the homeless charity ‘Help for Homeless Veterans,’ she had observed a substantial increase in homeless veterans seeking accommodation. Additionally, there had been a rise in early releases from prison without adequate support services, due to current challenges facing the Probation Service. Considering this, along with the ongoing high costs to Neighbourhood Services and housing individuals or families in hotels, Councillor Keenan asked about the measures Council had taken to address the growing homelessness issue within the borough.

 

It was noted by the Assistant Director of Financial Services that homelessness presented a significant challenge for the borough, especially since COVID-19 which saw a noticeable increase in homelessness across the country. It was noted that policies during this time, were implemented to ensure councils provided housing for everyone, which had led to a substantial increase in homelessness. OSMB was told that this trend had continued since COVID-19, which resulted in increased use of hotels to meet the demand. The Council had explored a number of options to address this challenge, but was focused on optimising its operational model, especially around temporary accommodation. This had involved using the Councils existing temporary accommodation stock and if a unit became vacant then the property would be repaired and prepared for the next occupant. This approach enabled the Council to maintain a constant flow of available temporary housing.

 

Additionally, the Council had reviewed the operations of its virtual team and other structures to ensure they were as efficient and effective as possible. This included having the right administrative levels, and the right support structure for prevention and case management. Further to this, work had taken place with external consultants to understand the broader picture of why certain people became homeless, such as veterans, people released early from prisons and other groups. By assessing and analysing the reasons behind homelessness, it was the intention of the Council to develop plans to mitigate homelessness moving forward. All this had been underway for a significant period, and it was acknowledged there would be ongoing challenges in this area for future years.

 

Councillor Keenan then enquired if this issue would be reviewed by OSMB at a future meeting. The Strategic Director for Finance and Customer Service explained that members could choose to nominate an area for further scrutiny through the usual mechanisms. The overview provided by officers at the meeting, focused on the operational business approach, where the service had worked to learn, understand, and try different models to deliver improved outcomes and reduce costs, while ensuring the Council delivered quality services for people with needs.

 

Councillor Bacon then posed several questions regarding the reprofiling of the Capital Programme, particularly concerning the significant slippages reported in capital projects related to the Mainline Station (£4.357 million slippage), Riverside infrastructure (£1.057 million slippage), and Riverside Gardens (£1.585 million slippage). He inquired at what point the slippage would be considered ‘out of control’ and whether this would be discussed further with the Cabinet Member for Finance and Safe and Clean Communities. He also wanted to know the current stage of the Mainline Station project and how much more slippage was expected, as he felt the project was in its initial stages and had already incurred a £4.357 million slippage. Finally, Councillor Bacon sought information on the current situation regarding the caravan site mentioned in the report.

 

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Safe and Clean Communities informed Councillor Bacon that the Council had a Capital Project Board which monitored all of the capital projects. He noted that it was an expected part of capital work projects to experience slippages and in relation to larger projects delays were always anticipated. However, the role of the Capital Project Board was to monitor the progress of these projects and they would reschedule wherever possible but in certain case, some delays were out of the Councils control.

 

The Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment informed Members that the Main Line Station was considered a long-term project with no expected end date. The expectation was that it would take at least 10 years to be fully built and opened. However, Members were told that the timeline for this project was not within the Council’s or the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority’s (SYMCA) control but was ultimately managed by Network Rail and Central Government.

 

It was noted that within the context of a 10-year project, some slippages in site acquisitions were not critical. Regarding the predicted slippage, it was important to gather the right level of information about the site being acquired to ensure the Council did not acquire an asset that could become a liability due to issues below ground. Detailed site investigations were expected to conclude next year before finalising negotiations with the landowners. The overall project, along with the outlined business case, would be presented to the SYMCA before the end of the year. The Council was also awaiting technical information from Network Rail and cost estimates for the network’s likely expenditure and the overall project. It was felt that, despite this being a long-term project, it remained on the programme with the potential to proceed, unlike some other medium-term projects that had been withdrawn.

 

Regarding the Riverside projects that had been itemised, the riverside infrastructure work was already underway, with visible construction and piling work to stabilise the river wall before introducing the walkways. The Riverside Gardens project was expected to be on site before the end of the month. This followed some work with Yorkshire Water, which had identified a sewer not included in the original plans. Such complications often arise when breaking ground on projects like this.

 

Councillor Bacon requested further clarification regarding the slippage for the project and whether this was expected. He also sought clarification on the role of the SYMCA and the support it could provide. Additionally, Councillor Bacon resubmitted his question about the caravan park mentioned in the report. The Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment reiterated that the Mainline Station project was a long-term strategic project of national significance, and he had no concerns regarding the slippage. He acknowledged that SYMCA had played a vital role with the Council in discussions with the Department for Transport and had also funding some of the initial development phase on this site, making a close working relationship with SYMCA essential.

 

Regarding the caravan park, it was acknowledged that there had been ongoing issues combined with potentially over-optimistic income forecasts, which had an impact. The Council planned to undertake a review to establish a sensible income projection for the caravan park for 2025 onwards. The Council had explored mechanisms to share some of the costs between the country park staff team and the caravan park, which would reduce some costs, and aimed to identify a realistic income forecast for the next year.

 

Councillor Bacon welcomed the update on the projects. He then asked about maintained schools, noting from the report that they were costing the authority money. He inquired whether there was an opportunity to convert these schools into academies, which could potentially save costs for the Council.

 

The Chair noted that it was up to individual schools if they wanted to become academies. This was confirmed by the Joint Assistant Director for Commissioning & Performance, who explained that the Council did not have the option to force a school to become an academy. In the current system, schools could not initiate this process themselves. If a school received a ‘requires improvement’ rating and inspection grades were inadequate, they would be asked to become academies. However, the Department for Education (DFE) had recently announced additional information suggesting that this process could change, although full details had not yet been disclosed. The indications were that alongside Ofsted one-word judgements, there might be changes to the policy on academisation, but the local authority still could not insist that a school become an academy.

 

Councillor Yasseen noted that in the report, Central Services was shown to have a £10.9 million underspend and wanted to know how it could generate such a significant savings underspend and whether this would be just a one-time occurrence or if this could be repeatable. In addition, Councillor Yasseen also queried whether the savings suggested that some services had not fully delivered or if it meant that services would be delivered at a reduced level.

 

The Strategic Director for Finance and Customer Services confirmed that no services had been lost or reduced to achieve the financial savings for Central Services. The primary reason for the savings was effective treasury management. Treasury Management focused on optimising the use of funds received on a given day that were not needed until later. This involved managing cash flow and determining the best places to invest money to achieve the highest returns without taking undue risks. Members were informed that there were stringent rules within the Treasury Strategy regarding risk, particularly with council money, which had to be kept safe within these rules.

 

Regarding the capital programme, if capital funds were not spent as quickly as expected for various reasons, the Council could avoid borrowing money. Instead, cash flow was managed through the Treasury budget, optimising benefits, and minimising risks, especially when interest rates were favourable for the Council. The biggest benefit here was effective treasury management, which was partly due to the skills and activities of the team handling this function and partly due to favourable interest rates.

 

The Assistant Director of Financial Services explained that the Central Services budget included provisions for various levies, such as the Integrated Transport Levy, which was repaid to SYPT or SYMCA as it was now known, and Public Finance Initiative (PFI) financing. The Council had several PFI arrangements for waste, leisure, and schools with all financial transactions for PFIs managed through Central Services. Additionally, the budget included contingencies for items such as the pay award. Although the Council did not control the pay award, it did prepare funds to cover the full impact of any award.

 

Regarding the main savings in the Central Services budget, it was anticipated that contingencies would be utilised, including those for social care and home-school transport. Members were also informed that another significant area of savings had come from treasury management. In recent years, the Council had benefited from its treasury management strategy by holding cash from long-term borrowing in a high-interest-rate market, resulting in savings above the planned amounts. However, as the new financial year progressed, cash balances had significantly reduced, and the Council would only borrow when absolutely necessary. This approach involved some risk, but the Council made informed decisions based on internal expertise, technical guidance, and advice from external consultants and treasury specialists. This strategy would help manage the 2024/25 financial position and achieve the projected savings.

 

The projected savings for the rest of the year would be as a result of the Council minimising its borrowing costs. Members were informed that the longevity of these savings would be discussed at the Budget and Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) setting period. It was acknowledged that the treasury management savings would be a challenging task beyond 2024/25 due to a number of economic factors. In recent years, this included significant fluctuations in the Bank of England Base Rate, rising interest rates, and borrowing costs. These changes made future predictions challenging, but the Council would continue to monitor this position and would be responsive to market conditions from a treasury management perspective.

 

Councillor Jamie Baggaley asked about the £6.3 million shortfall in the agreed savings, as mentioned on page 26 of the report. He sought clarification on how these savings were distributed throughout the year and whether they could be achieved. Additionally, he wanted to know if the savings gap was already included within the forecast to ensure a more balanced financial position for the Council.

 

The Assistant Director for Financial Services clarified that the savings position shown on page 26 of the report had been accounted for within the budget. All the savings outlined in the report, except those related to children’s services, were expected to be achieved within the financial year. Additionally, there would be regulated internal monitoring to track the progress of these savings, with the majority expected to be achieved this year. However, there would still be ongoing pressures on services to achieve these savings.

 

The residual balance for Children’s and Young People’s Services (CYPS) had constituted the majority of the Council’s savings. These savings stemmed from historical agreements made several years ago, specifically from the 2018/19 budget, to be delivered over time. As previously discussed, significant challenges around children’s placements had delayed these savings, and it was now expected that some of these savings would extend into 2025/26. However, continuous efforts were being made to reduce the remaining savings that needed to be delivered. Over the past two to three years, CYPS had broadly seen a £5 million overspend on a reducing budget position with more savings to be implemented each year. Therefore, CYPS spending had reduced, showing a positive trend towards achieving the savings, even though some of these savings still needed to be delivered.

Councillor Marshall enquired about section 2.27 of the report, noting that waste management was currently forecasting a £1.5 million overspend, primarily due to pressures around vehicle costs. She also identified increased staff costs and sought clarification on whether those additional staffing costs were due to the use of agency staff.

 

The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene confirmed that agency staff costs were a pressure within the service as mentioned in the report. He confirmed that there were challenges related to vehicle costs and staffing, particularly with recent sickness figures in that area. However, the service had started to manage these issues, which had resulted in modest reductions in sickness levels. Efforts to address those challenges would continue, and additional agency costs were being closely monitored.

 

In addition, Members were told that the service was exploring options to optimise routes to ensure efficient use of vehicles, fuel, and staff costs. Other factors contributing to the budget pressures included increased costs for waste disposal and fluctuations in commodity prices, which affected recycling income. The service was also working closely with financial services to identify further options to align the budget.

 

Councillor Marshall queried whether the savings in community safety and regulation services were due to difficulties in recruiting to the vacancies that the service had or if the vacancies were being maintained to save money.

 

The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene explained that community safety and street scenes services, encompassed a wide range of services, which employed around 600 staff who covered various functions. Those vacancies were not related to waste management but were in other areas of the service and were vacancies which required specialist skills or qualifications. Members were informed, this included vacancies such as environmental health officers where the availability of qualified people had been limited and not quite as good as in previous years. To address this issue, strategies had been put in place to help grow and develop internal talent to be able to take up those roles to ensure the service had qualified staff.

 

However, it was acknowledged that as the budget challenges remained, ongoing discussions would take place with the service, the directorate, and finance about the need and necessity for those particular posts. There could also be opportunities considered which would allow the service to carry some vacancies for a period, to support the budget position (if required) without compromising members’ priorities.

 

The Chair asked the Strategic Director for Finance and Customer Service if assurance could be given that the budget would be kept under control until the end of the financial year with the predicted, £6.1 million overspend.

 

The Strategic Director for Finance and Customer Service responded stating that they had been working diligently with all the directorates and senior officers. They regularly reviewed their activities and maintained pressure by holding everyone accountable for their spending, regardless of the issues causing the overspend.

 

The Strategic Director further emphasised, that while efforts to reduce the overspend would continue, significant more time was being dedicated compared to previous years due to future economic and demographic uncertainties. They assured Members that their focus remained on the long-term sustainability of the budget and acknowledged that the current position could not be maintained indefinitely. The activities they would undertake included ongoing discussions and in-depth work with directorates to determine what decisions could be made and if there were actions that could save money for the rest of the year. Members were told that some of those decisions would be operational, whilst others would require input from members. If member decisions were required on budgets or overspend, then they would bring these matters forward. The Strategic Director assured the Chair that they maintained ongoing pressure to achieve the best possible financial outcomes for the Council and the people of Rotherham.

 

The Chair then asked the Cabinet Member for Finance and Safe and Clean Communities if he were also assured that officers would be able to manage the situation, and to make sure that everything would be done by finance to manage the overspend.

 

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Safe and Clean Communities assured OSMB that every Cabinet Member investigated any overspend within their own portfolios and would work to understand the mitigating factors had caused the overspend and worked with senior officers to reduce it. He acknowledged that his central aim was to work within the revenue budget and to hold officers to account. However, as previously highlighted some costs for statutory services, such as homeless services had skyrocketed over the past year. Furthermore, the Council had statutory responsibility to deliver a number of services by law, even if it resulted in overspends on budgets. OSMB was assured that Cabinet Members were also held to accountable to ensure budgets were delivered within allocated spend. Work was also undertaken to review any mitigating factors for overspends and identify what more could be done to reduce those budgets.

 

The Chair acknowledged that the Council faced many challenges moving forward and noted that OSMB had asked for reports, as part of their work programme, on the transported children's services and overspend.

 

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member for Finance and Safe and Clean Communities, the Strategic Director for Finance and Customer Services and the Assistant Director for Finance for their participation at the meeting.

 

Resolved: – That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board supported the recommendation that Cabinet:

1.    Note the current General Fund Revenue Budget forecast overspend of £6.1 million.

 

2.    Note that actions will continue to be taken to reduce the overspend position but that it is possible that the Council will need to draw on its reserves to balance the 2024/25 position.

 

3.    Note the updated position of the Capital Programme, including proposed capital programme variations to expenditure profiles and funding.