Agenda item

Dan Kennedy - Corporate Director of Residents’ Services, Matt Davis – Director, Strategic & Operational Finance, Ceri Lamoureux – Head of Finance, Bernard Ofori-Atta – Head of Finance, Julia Johnson – Director of Planning & Sustainable Growth and Gary Penticost – Director of Operational Assets were in attendance to present the report and answer Members’ questions.

Members sought clarification regarding the £1 million shortfall in garden waste charging and enquired whether it was due to low uptake, operational delays, or pricing strategy. In reply, officers explained that the scheme had only been running for two months following a July consultation. The shortfall was due to the delayed start. Uptake was expected to increase in autumn. It was noted that the scheme offered better value than other boroughs, with lower subscription costs and weekly collections for most of the year.

Councillors requested a breakdown of the £1.4 million savings carried forward into 2025/26. Officers directed attention to Table 7, which included a “brought forward” column detailing items such as the £260K for developing the commercial trade waste service. They apologised for the lack of clarity in the report text.

Members sought further clarification as to how Heathrow contributed to the £6.1 million pressure from temporary accommodation and homelessness. It was explained that national housing pressures were compounded locally by Heathrow-related demand. The Home Office placed asylum seekers in hotels near Heathrow, leading to disproportionate homeless presentations. Additional unfunded responsibilities included housing UK nationals returning to the country, who were ineligible for welfare benefits during their residency qualification period.

The Committee asked whether asylum seekers were treated differently under the homelessness policy. In reply, officers confirmed that all policies were applied consistently. However, the Council had to intervene where vulnerabilities existed, regardless of status.

Councillors raised concerns about the clarity of the budget presentation and the use of outdated data (Month 2). Officers explained the structure of Table 2, including definitions of approved budget, underlying forecast, earmarked reserves, provisions, and transformation capitalisation. They clarified that Month 2 data was the latest validated set approved by Cabinet, with Period 4 data pending sign-off.

Members enquired what proportion of the £1.4 million savings were structural versus one-off, and how confident the Council was in achieving them. In response, officers committed to providing a breakdown in the future. They gave an example of the commercial trade waste service, which had struggled to meet targets due to competitor pricing. It was confirmed that a new approach was being developed to improve uptake.

Members sought further clarity regarding contingency plans for red-rated items. Officers explained that budget leads were accountable and did not have permission to overspend. Mitigations included cost controls, recruitment reviews, and alternative delivery methods. Colleagues provided examples of income uplifts, fast-track planning services, and asset utilisation (e.g., NHS tenancy in the Civic Centre).

The Committee sought confirmation of the number of people housed in temporary accommodation and the cost per day. It was reported that approximately 1,500 households were currently in temporary accommodation, with around 750–800 requiring subsidy. The average net cost was £50K per night, which was lower than other London boroughs. It was estimated that, of the 1,500 households, approximately 10-15% were refugees. Officers committed to provide more precise figures in the future. In response to further questions from Members, officers estimated a shortfall of £5 million annually for asylum seeker-related costs, with additional unfunded costs for UK nationals.

Councillors enquired why fees and charges appeared in the red column of Table 7. It was explained that some income targets were unachievable due to consultation requirements or market realities. A full review of the parking revenue account was underway to reset targets.

In response to Members’ questions regarding the £50K income target from filming and efforts to grow the industry, officers confirmed that the target had been achieved. It was noted that the communications team was actively promoting the Borough to filming companies through industry connections.

The Committee asked about the timeline and scope of the parking income review. In response, officers stated that the review would conclude in time for December Cabinet proposals. It would be analytical and market-informed, with options to adjust or phase targets.

Members enquired whether there were early signs explaining income shortfalls. Officers responded that a root-and-branch analysis was needed. A parking strategy was being developed to align with the Council’s corporate plan.

In response to further questioning from the Committee regarding refugees and asylum seekers, it was clarified that asylum seekers were housed by the Home Office. Once their claim had been determined, responsibility transferred to the Council.

At the request of Members, it was agreed that clearer language would be used in future reports to avoid ambiguity. Officers committed to improving clarity in future updates.

Councillors asked how transformation resources had been applied to waste services. It was explained that the funding supported the garden waste scheme, including tags and caps for identifying paid subscriptions.

RESOLVED: That the Select Committee:

1.    Noted the 2024/25 outturn position; and

2.    Noted the 2025/26 Month 2 budget monitoring position