Agenda item

To consider a report of the Deputy Chief Executive (Section 151 Officer) and Cabinet Member for Finance & Resources.

The report provides an update on the revenue budget forecast outturn for the period to the end of November 2023 (Quarter 2+). The report also provides an update on the council’s Medium Term Financial Position, Dedicated Schools Grant, Housing Revenue Account (HRA), Collection Fund and Capital Programme.

The Scrutiny Committee is recommended to note and comment on the content of the report including the recommendation to Cabinet.

Officer contact: Jonathan Davies on 0161 218 1025 or email jonathan.davies@stockport.gov.uk

The Deputy Chief Executive (Section 151 Officer) and Cabinet Member for Finance & Resources submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) providing an update on the revenue budget forecast outturn for the period to the end of November 2023 (Quarter 2+). The report also provided an update on the council’s Medium Term Financial Position, Dedicated Schools Grant, Housing Revenue Account (HRA), Collection Fund and Capital Programme.

The Cabinet Member for Finance & Resource (Councillor Jilly Julian) attended the meeting to respond to councillors’ questions.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·         Members commented on the rising costs of looked after children and commented that it was one of the most important responsibilities of the Council. In terms of the forecast spending deficit for looked after children, Members requested information on what work the Council was doing to address that challenge.

·         In response it was stated that increasing costs associated with looked after children was a challenge facing councils across the country due to the level and complexity of needs of those children. Furthermore, substantial price rises, in some cases above national inflation, added to financial pressures. In Stockport, an innovative approach was being taken by releasing capital to acquire up to three new children’s homes. Allowing looked after children to remain in their home borough led to better outcomes for the children, along with financial benefits.

·         It was also reported that the council had received positive publicity in relation to its approach to fostering, in particular the residential placements provided and operated by the council.

·         Members commented on the quality of social workers and others employed by the council who were involved in working with looked after children and fostering. Members also noted that central government funding had not kept pace with increasing service costs and demands for services from vulnerable residents.

·         Members requested clarification on the inclusion of ‘parental preference’ in relation to the council’s attempts to reduce transportation costs for Special Educational Needs (SEN) children. In response it was stated that the wording in relation to SEN transport services would be looked at, but the report was not intended in any way to place blame on the parents of SEN children in relation to transport costs.

·         Members commented that the comparative statistics on reserve levels in comparison to other Greater Manchester Local Authorities was useful. Members requested information on whether Stockport’s current reserve level was considered appropriate and how that level might change over time.

·         In response it was stated that Stockport Council uses the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) benchmark to assess its reserve level. That benchmark suggested that the council would be in a more comfortable position with slightly greater reserves than it currently had. Members were reminded that reserves could only be spent once and that their purpose was to smooth economic impacts and enable the council to weather financial troughs. Whilst the council would prefer to have a slightly greater reserves position, it ensured that the reserves were used in a prudent way.

·         It was further reported that the council would receive a statement of the adequacy of its reserves. Stockport was not an outlier in terms of its reserve levels and, in accordance with the CIPFA resiliency index, Stockport was below the median. The council’s reserve levels were reported to be appropriate for the size of the Local Authority and its ambitions for people and place. The council felt that it could innovate whilst retaining the stability and foundation to meet medium-term challenges.

·         Members queried whether falling interest rates might impact upon the budget deficit.

·         In response it was stated that the budget was robust and that it took account of changes to interest rates. Whilst base interest rates were thought to have peaked, no reduction to interests rates were expected until the second half of 2024. Furthermore, the shortage of liquidity within the market pushed up the cost of short-term borrowing.

·         Members queried the challenges cited within the report related to taxi licences, planning and building control.

·         The Deputy Chief Executive undertook to provide a written response to that question. It was additionally reported that, in relation to costs associated with taxis, drivers could be licenced outside of the borough which could cause pressures. In relation to planning and building control, it was reported that phasing requests for those services, along with their cyclical nature, caused budgeting challenges.

·         Members queried the reported significant pressures on the car parking revenue. It was reported that this related to the usage levels of car parks and charges. A review of the structure of car parking charges was underway in order to ensure that charging was introduced at car parks with higher usage levels. Modelling of car parking charges had been undertaken on a rebased budget to ensure that the proposals had a net benefit to the overall budget position.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.