Budget Scrutiny Inquiry Task and Finish Group - Thursday 15 January 2026, 10:00am - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting

Budget Scrutiny Inquiry Task and Finish Group
Thursday, 15th January 2026 at 10:00am 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr John Chilver
Share this agenda point
  1. Katie Dover - Senior Scrutiny Officer
  2. Cllr John Chilver
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr John Chilver
  2. Cllr Adekunle Osibogun
  3. Cllr John Chilver
  4. Cllr Christine Adali
  5. Cllr Adekunle Osibogun
  6. Cllr Christine Adali
  7. Cllr Adekunle Osibogun
  8. Cllr Christine Adali
  9. Cllr John Chilver
  10. Cllr Adekunle Osibogun
  11. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  12. Cllr Christine Adali
  13. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  14. Cllr Christine Adali
  15. Fiorella Mugari - Head of Finance for Communities
  16. Cllr Christine Adali
  17. Cllr John Chilver
  18. Cllr Dev Dhillon
  19. Cllr Adekunle Osibogun
  20. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  21. Cllr Adekunle Osibogun
  22. Cllr John Chilver
  23. Cllr Martin Tett
  24. Cllr Adekunle Osibogun
  25. Cllr Martin Tett
  26. Cllr Adekunle Osibogun
  27. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  28. Cllr John Chilver
  29. Cllr Martin Tett
  30. Cllr Adekunle Osibogun
  31. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  32. Cllr John Chilver
  33. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  34. Cllr Adekunle Osibogun
  35. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  36. Cllr John Chilver
  37. Cllr Trevor Snaith
  38. Cllr Adekunle Osibogun
  39. Cllr Trevor Snaith
  40. Cllr Adekunle Osibogun
  41. Cllr John Chilver
  42. Cllr Chris Poll
  43. Cllr Adekunle Osibogun
  44. Cllr Jaspal Chhokar
  45. Cllr John Chilver
  46. Cllr Andy Huxley
  47. Cllr Adekunle Osibogun
  48. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  49. Cllr Andy Huxley
  50. Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities
  51. Cllr John Chilver
  52. Cllr Nidhi Mehta
  53. Cllr Adekunle Osibogun
  54. Cllr John Chilver
  55. Cllr Anna Crabtree
  56. Cllr Adekunle Osibogun
  57. Cllr John Chilver
  58. Cllr Penny Drayton
  59. Cllr Adekunle Osibogun
  60. Cllr John Chilver
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr John Chilver
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Carl Jackson
  2. Cllr John Chilver
  3. Cllr Christine Adali
  4. Cllr Carl Jackson
  5. Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services
  6. Cllr Christine Adali
  7. Cllr Carl Jackson
  8. Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services
  9. Cllr Christine Adali
  10. Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services
  11. Cllr John Chilver
  12. Cllr Christine Adali
  13. Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services
  14. Cllr Christine Adali
  15. Cllr Carl Jackson
  16. Cllr Christine Adali
  17. Cllr John Chilver
  18. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  19. Cllr John Chilver
  20. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  21. Cllr Carl Jackson
  22. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  23. Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services
  24. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  25. Cllr Carl Jackson
  26. Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services
  27. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  28. Cllr John Chilver
  29. Cllr Susan Morgan
  30. Cllr Carl Jackson
  31. David Skinner - Director of Finance & S151 Officer
  32. Cllr Susan Morgan
  33. Cllr Carl Jackson
  34. Cllr Susan Morgan
  35. Cllr Carl Jackson
  36. Cllr Susan Morgan
  37. Cllr Carl Jackson
  38. Cllr Susan Morgan
  39. David Skinner - Director of Finance & S151 Officer
  40. Cllr John Chilver
  41. Cllr Martin Tett
  42. Cllr Carl Jackson
  43. Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services
  44. Cllr Carl Jackson
  45. Cllr Martin Tett
  46. Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services
  47. Cllr Martin Tett
  48. Cllr Carl Jackson
  49. Cllr Martin Tett
  50. Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive
  51. Cllr Martin Tett
  52. Cllr Carl Jackson
  53. Cllr Martin Tett
  54. Cllr Carl Jackson
  55. Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services
  56. Cllr John Chilver
  57. David Skinner - Director of Finance & S151 Officer
  58. Cllr Martin Tett
  59. Cllr John Chilver
  60. Cllr Dev Dhillon
  61. Cllr Carl Jackson
  62. Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services
  63. Cllr John Chilver
  64. Cllr Chris Poll
  65. Cllr Carl Jackson
  66. Cllr Chris Poll
  67. Cllr Carl Jackson
  68. Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive
  69. Cllr John Chilver
  70. Cllr Carl Jackson
  71. Cllr Chris Poll
  72. Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive
  73. Cllr Chris Poll
  74. Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive
  75. Cllr John Chilver
  76. Cllr Anna Crabtree
  77. Cllr Carl Jackson
  78. Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services
  79. Cllr Carl Jackson
  80. Cllr John Chilver
  81. Cllr Andy Huxley
  82. Cllr Carl Jackson
  83. Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive
  84. Cllr John Chilver
  85. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  86. Cllr Carl Jackson
  87. Elspeth O'Neill - Head of Finance
  88. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  89. Elspeth O'Neill - Head of Finance
  90. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  91. Cllr John Chilver
  92. Cllr Nidhi Mehta
  93. Cllr Carl Jackson
  94. Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive
  95. Cllr John Chilver
  96. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  97. Cllr Carl Jackson
  98. Cllr Jilly Jordan
  99. Cllr Carl Jackson
  100. Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services
  101. Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive
  102. Cllr John Chilver
  103. David Skinner - Director of Finance & S151 Officer
  104. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  105. Cllr John Chilver
  106. Cllr Christine Adali
  107. Cllr Carl Jackson
  108. Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services
  109. Cllr Carl Jackson
  110. Cllr Christine Adali
  111. Cllr Carl Jackson
  112. Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services
  113. Cllr Christine Adali
  114. Cllr John Chilver
  115. Cllr Susan Morgan
  116. Cllr Carl Jackson
  117. Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services
  118. Cllr Susan Morgan
  119. Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services
  120. Cllr John Chilver
  121. Cllr Martin Tett
  122. Cllr Carl Jackson
  123. Cllr Martin Tett
  124. Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive
  125. Cllr Carl Jackson
  126. Cllr Martin Tett
  127. Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive
  128. Cllr Carl Jackson
  129. Cllr Martin Tett
  130. Cllr Carl Jackson
  131. Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services
  132. Cllr John Chilver
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr John Chilver
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Steven Broadbent
  2. Cllr John Chilver
  3. Cllr Martin Tett
  4. Cllr Steven Broadbent
  5. Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive
  6. Cllr Martin Tett
  7. Cllr Steven Broadbent
  8. Cllr John Chilver
  9. Cllr Christine Adali
  10. Cllr Steven Broadbent
  11. Cllr Christine Adali
  12. Cllr Steven Broadbent
  13. Cllr Christine Adali
  14. Cllr John Chilver
  15. Cllr Anna Crabtree
  16. Cllr Steven Broadbent
  17. Cllr John Chilver
  18. David Skinner - Director of Finance & S151 Officer
  19. Cllr John Chilver
  20. Cllr Trevor Snaith
  21. Cllr Steven Broadbent
  22. Cllr John Chilver
  23. Cllr Chris Poll
  24. Cllr Steven Broadbent
  25. Cllr John Chilver
  26. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  27. Cllr Steven Broadbent
  28. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  29. Cllr Steven Broadbent
  30. David Skinner - Director of Finance & S151 Officer
  31. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  32. Cllr Steven Broadbent
  33. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  34. Cllr John Chilver
  35. Cllr Susan Morgan
  36. Cllr Steven Broadbent
  37. Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive
  38. Cllr Steven Broadbent
  39. Cllr Susan Morgan
  40. Cllr Steven Broadbent
  41. Cllr John Chilver
  42. Cllr Martin Tett
  43. Cllr Steven Broadbent
  44. Cllr John Chilver
  45. Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive
  46. Cllr John Chilver
  47. Cllr Martin Tett
  48. David Skinner - Director of Finance & S151 Officer
  49. Cllr Steven Broadbent
  50. Cllr John Chilver
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  2. Cllr John Chilver
  3. Webcast Finished

Cllr John Chilver - 0:00:00
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to this, the third and final day of the Budget Scrutiny
Inquiry Task and Finish Group. I'd like to welcome all members and officers in attendance
and also members of the public watching the webcast online. I'd just like to remind members
and officers to use microphones every time they speak, and kindly introduce yourself
when you speak for the first time.
The format of our remaining sessions will be the same as the previous two days.
Cabinet members will introduce their budget proposals, highlighting key areas and risks,
followed by inquiry group questioning and ending with any questions submitted from the
public.
So I'd like to start with the first item on the agenda. Do we have any apologies for absence?

1 Apologies for absence / Changes in membership

Katie Dover - Senior Scrutiny Officer - 0:01:01
Yes, Chair. We have apologies from Councillor Ayub.
Cllr John Chilver - 0:01:05
Thank you. Do any members have an interest to declare? There are none. Thank you.

2 Declarations of interest

3 Background Papers

Item 3, the background papers are available online and should have been circulated prior
to this meeting.

4 Environment, Climate Change and Waste (Councillor Ade Osibogun)

So we'll move on to the first substantive item on the agenda, which is the portfolio
which covers environment, climate change and waste.
And I'm delighted to welcome the cabinet member, Councillor Ade Osibogan, and the deputy
cabinet member, Councillor Jasper Chokar, for this session.
And together with supporting officers, Service Directors Steve Bambrick and Richard Barker,
Fiorella Mugari, who is the finance officer for this service, and as ever supported by
Dave Skinner, our head of finance, and his deputy Fiona Jump.
So welcome to you all.
In attendance we also have the Chair of the Transport, Environment and Climate Change
and Communities Select Committee, Councillor Penny Drayton.
So welcome as well.
So I'd like to start by inviting the cabinet member to introduce their budget proposals
highlighting key areas and risks.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Chair.
Cllr John Chilver - 0:02:29
Cllr Adekunle Osibogun - 0:02:33
In presenting the budget for the environment climate change and waste
portfolio I would like to start by first emphasising the significant pressures
from demand growth. We also have the loss of funding from the unfair funding
review which we've seen or which would see about 44 .4 million taken out from
our revenue. This portfolio would be contributing towards that from savings
which we have done and which would still have to do with regards to not only
demand and inflation pressures. There are also challenges from new government
policies. We recently had the HRLC closure in Buckingham and we also have
to now implement a simpler recycling project
which also has its cost implications.
Despite these pressures, our budget has focused
on prioritising our residents' priorities,
particularly around maintaining high level of service quality
and reducing the council's running costs.
The portfolio contributes to the delivery of our corporate priorities, particularly around improving the environment and strengthening our communities.
And to achieve what we have today, which will be questioned on the balanced budget, we have had to make some difficult decisions.
But, we've ensured we also protected our residents' priorities whilst doing that.
Now in outlining the priorities of this portfolio, I would emphasise that we have focused on maintaining a consistently high level of service quality.
I would probably refer to one, our waste collection.
We collect about 627 ,000 bins weekly.
We have a successful rate of 99 .97%.
With regards to our HRCs,
we have about 1 .25 million visitors annually.
And we are happy to report that we get about 98 %
satisfactory comments from our residents
who visit those sites.
We also have our recyclable rates,
which currently sits just below 50%.
And with regards to air quality, which I know a lot of people are interested in, we are currently at 73 .7 % reduction from our 1990 baseline.
So in addition to other priorities, which you'll see in our budget, we have our drive to continue the campaign against fly -tipping and littering.
I know there has been quite a lot of discussions around penalty fees and how high they are.
But if I'm doing the question, I'm happy to explain better the steps that it takes towards removing these waste items and the cost implications on the council.
Hence why we have those penalties.
We also have our aspiration to address flood.
And we have got flood prevention schemes in the budget, which is before you.
And also our tree planting strategy.
We are happy to report that of the 500 ,000 trees we planted before 2031, we have currently planted over 216 ,000 of those.
Now, despite these things we have protected, I think it's also important to emphasise things that you won't see in this budget, which our comparable councils are currently doing.
You will see councils currently adjusting their waste collections to three weekly collections.
I'm proud to say we have maintained our standard of our weekly collections.
You would also hear in other councils that residents are currently paying for their replacement bins.
We have kept that out of our budget today.
And there are plans by other councils to close their HRC sites.
We are protecting all our HRC sites because we believe that is part of our residents' priorities.
Now despite these items of priority, there are challenges which we've also identified in the budget.
We've got inflation, which is a big challenge and impacts on a lot of our contracts.
There's also the fluctuation in the market price for dry mixed recycling.
That's something we can't control, but we have tried to manage.
We have difficulty around prosecution for flight tipping.
And I would also say the changes in legislation, which we currently have,
the simpler recycling and other legislations which will be coming in the pipeline,
which we would have to implement at the council.
But despite these challenges,
there are opportunities also identified in there.
You will see in the document before you our drive
to grow our commercial waste service across the county.
There is a lot of potential to still grow in the south,
which we hope would increase our revenue.
There's also our drive to expand the Block Street Mission.
We currently have passed as a council the,
I recommend of the amendments to enable private land owners and other councils of parish and town councils to contribute to this scheme.
And I'm happy to say that we are getting a positive response from our partner councils and interest from other parties too.
I will now talk about cross -portfolio working because I know that's something that's also quite key.
and as the environment, climate change and waste team,
it's important that not only do we work with our colleagues,
but also we carry that along in everything they do.
I'm happy to say that with Peter Strachan and Mark Wen,
who've already been before you,
we have been working on the air quality management.
I'm also happy to report that in the last two years,
Four sites have, we've seen a vocation of four sites which had AQMAs on them.
That's due to the good work that they have been doing alongside us.
You would also see in Tom Broom's transport budget, there has been money that's been put in there for drains.
I think it's about 9 .4 million.
That money would also help in alleviating flood risk in our communities, which would surely work in conjunction with the transport team to deliver that.
Then I would also refer to my colleague as well, Robert Carrington, who heads the resource.
We collaborate in ensuring that we drive energy efficiency within our property and assets in the council.
Now going into the details of the budget, you'll see in the budget paper for 26 -27,
we have a net budget of 27 .9 million. Of this, we expect 8 .6 million income from government
grants and 13 .8 million from customer clients receipts. On the expense side of
it there's a total of 51 .2 million which comprises not only our third -party
contracts which comes up to about 20 .6 million, but we also have a staff costs of
16 million and our service costs which is roughly about 12 .6 million.
I know reserves is an item that is of importance to this committee.
I'm happy to report that we have 2 .1 billion expenses for the use of reserves.
Of this amount, 1 .5 has been a portion for the FCC litigation dispute,
which we are happy and proud that steps have been taken to see how we can resolve this.
Now if we are successful in resolving this, then we will need to draw on those reserves as well.
But when it comes to savings, I'm happy to say that one of the things we have tried to do in accordance with our residents' priorities
is how we can drive efficiencies within our teams.
Within the waste team,
and as continued the budget before you,
there has been attempts to improve efficiency
and productivity,
particularly within the North waste collection
and street scene.
Now this has been achieved
throughout Bartech automation projects,
which is seen not only the optimization
of routine and workflow, works that our staff are doing,
but also the automation and digitalization
of the entire area.
In the climate change and environment team,
we're also trying to improve efficiency
by embedding climate change responsibilities
within different departments and teams within the council.
And this has been overseen by a team leader
who I'm sure during the question times
we were able to expunge it a little more on.
Now finally I'd like to talk on the capital projects.
On this we put together 46 .8 million.
This is to be invested in waste and also getting a new HRC in Buckingham.
The current HRC has been deemed to be insufficient to the capacity we have.
So we have had this aspiration and we tend to progress along this line.
There's also, we would also cover vehicle replacement for waste collection.
There's a 7 million investment for flood defences and management.
And a 4 million investment for climate change and tree planting.
And I would also tap into my colleague in transport's 9 .4 million for
drainage improvements.
Now I'd like to invite both Richard and Steve if they have any additions to make to the intro.
Thank you. We're happy to take questions now. Thank you.
Cllr John Chilver - 0:13:38
Thank you very much indeed, Councillor Aussie -Bogan.
Just to invite the Deputy Cabinet Member or the Head of Finance if they have anything else to add.
Otherwise we can go straight to questions. Start with Chris, Councillor Adali.
Good morning.
Christina Darley representing Beckonsfield Ward.
My question, I've got two questions.
Cllr Christine Adali - 0:13:59
One is on energy from waste and the other one will be on reserves.
What is the current income from energy from waste versus the cost of the scheme?
What are the expected charges from ETS, so the emission trading scheme, scheduled to
come into force in 27 -28?
Has the ETS and its impact already been included in the budget?
If not, what will the impact be?
I do apologise.
Can you just, the second question, I heard the first one, but the second, can you just
Cllr Adekunle Osibogun - 0:14:30
repeat that, please?
Cllr Christine Adali - 0:14:32
What are the expected charges for the ETS, so the emissions trading scheme, should it
come into force in 2728?
and I assume it's already been budgeted for to what degree and what other mitigations that you have in place to...
Yeah, well, that's it.
Cllr Adekunle Osibogun - 0:14:54
Thank you very much for that question. I must say that we had seen a spike in our revenue from the energy waste project,
of which there was a boom in preceding years.
But if you look into the budget paper, I'm just careful to not say the number of the page
because I know there's been quite a lot of confusion on page numbers.
But if you look at the page which deals with, it's titled, I think it should be,
it's the revenue budget changes.
The closest I can get to, if I will dare, would be page 60.
If I dare, it might be 60 or 59.
Mr. Chairman, it would be quite handy if we just had a standard methodology for page numbers.
I understand it's confusing, a complete get -go.
I don't mind whether it's horizontal or vertical, but if we just have that, then we can see
exactly what page people are on.
I think at the beginning we agreed that we would use the portrait page numbers, which
the larger page numbers on the shorter side of the page.
If you only have the horizontals, the difference is 8.
Cllr Christine Adali - 0:16:02
So if it's 54, it will be 62 in the other numbering
or the other way round.
Cllr John Chilver - 0:16:09
So if we could stick with the larger portrait numbers,
please.
That would be helpful.
Cllr Adekunle Osibogun - 0:16:13
Here, it's the one that has to do with the change in income.
And the reason why I draw your attention to that
is we have made adjustments to reflect the realistic incomes
on our initial targets for the energy to waste scheme.
With the ETS, the detailed implications
are currently not known, and it yet seems
that local authorities will have a large proportion
of costs covered by the EPR funding,
but we have no further details yet.
But I'm happy to invite Richard
to give us some additional information on the operations.
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:16:53
If that's okay, Chairman, yeah.
So I'm Richard Barkham, the corporate director
for communities.
So just in terms of the EFW, so as the cabinet member
mentioned, we'd seen in previous years
a huge spike in net income to the council through the EFW
as a result of the surge in energy prices.
That has since obviously come down,
which you'll be well aware of.
We're seeing that return to a business as usual position.
The net income to the council for the EFW going forward
as part of the MTFP is just over 2 million pounds
net income each year for the EFW, which as I say,
returns it to pretty much a BAU position
from what we'd seen before.
In terms of the emissions trading scheme,
we've explicitly identified that as a risk within the PAC, which
you'll have seen.
There's still a lack of clarity from government
in terms of the potential impact for facilities like our EFW
on local authorities.
So at present, we haven't built anything
into the budget position in terms of a financial provision for that because of
that lack of clarity. Government were due to respond to the consultation feedback
that we and others have provided and we haven't had that as yet so we await to
see what that feedback is before before responding. We've been really clear in
terms of the potential impact on local government actually in terms of the ETS
proposals that were initially presented and we've been really robust as part of
that consultation response so we'll await that feedback but at present it's
identified as a risk we haven't built anything in to the financial budget.
Cllr Christine Adali - 0:18:35
Will you comfortably be able to cover the worst -case scenario if we are
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:18:40
lumped with it? Well it depends on the definition of worst -case scenario
doesn't it?
But as I say, there isn't a financial provision
to respond to ETS.
We would need to reconsider that once that position
from government's clear.
As I say, we've been very robust in our response
and very explicit in terms of the potential impact of it.
But as I say, we haven't had a response from government
and we await that in due course.
OK.
Cllr Christine Adali - 0:19:12
My second question, it has more to do with the tables to understand.
It's on reserves on page 55 horizontally and 53 portrait and then 59 stroke 67.
There is a reserve, use of reserve to fund existing expenditure of 276 ,000 pounds, which
which seems to be drawing down more reserves than,
in quotation marks, needed.
Could you please elaborate why that is there
and what it is for?
So what's the page number?
Horizontal numbering, it's listed on page 55 and 59.
On the portrait numbering, it's on 63 and 67.
I fear I can comment on that.
Fiorella Mugari - Head of Finance for Communities - 0:20:10
That amount is to cover unachievable income in the next financial year linked to the EFW.
It is linked to unachievable income linked to the EFW in the next financial year.
Related to what?
It is related to other income.
And non -electricity income.
Cllr Christine Adali - 0:20:30
Yes, but waste or flood or...
No, waste related.
Okay, thank you.
Cllr John Chilver - 0:20:39
Thank you.
Councillor Dhillon.
Cllr Dev Dhillon - 0:20:44
Thank you, Chairman.
Dave Dhillon, representing Stoke Porges and Farnham Common.
Part of my question has already been asked by Councillor Adali, but what I want to know
that when we set up EFW, we used 50 million of reserve money
and about 120 million on the borrowing.
We have seen the spike of the income,
we have seen the income going low.
If there is any contingency come into the inflation
of electricity in future or whatever happens,
is there any plan for us to get any money back into reserve
because at some point, I know there's quite a few years left
for the plant to do any modification to that or to do anything to our portfolio to make
it sustainable.
And my second question is, which if I can ask on the saving which is page number 66
or page number 58, on every column you have shown a quite substantial saving.
Is that assumption or is that achievable?
That's like Northwest collections, through the same saving from improved service efficiency,
Northwest collection from delivery review.
Every single, apart from Southwest paper short, which is 60,
there's a quite substantial saving.
Can you explain a bit more on that as well?
I think you very much, Councillor.
Cllr Adekunle Osibogun - 0:22:22
I'll start by first addressing the EFW plans in future.
What you find in this budget is,
whilst in prior budgets we had forecasted a higher amount,
we've made the adjustment accordingly
to bring it further down, which is reflected in tables.
As we progress, if we have another spike,
then it's something we can look into when that happens
without making any commitments at this meeting today.
But it's something that we can always look into.
On the savings which you have in our table here,
it is what we forecast as achievable.
There are steps currently in place to deliver these savings and I'll take some of them.
We have the improved service efficiency and productivity which have about 350 for next
year.
I'm happy to say that using the Bartek automation projects, the waste team have been able to
progress with the automation and digitalization of their service.
that would also be implementing going forward the route
and workflow optimization, which is also going to help deliver
on the savings we've captured in here.
The other item, which I'm going to just pick
up is the waste prevention food -based
and residual waste.
That's something that comes from my implementation
of our simply recycling scheme,
which we're currently rolling out in all the,
I think we've completed, I know we've completed the north,
and we will be starting the south shortly,
and we have to say that, you know,
at the end of our implementation,
with the removal of food waste from the mixed general waste,
it will improve the viability of that resource,
which is what this savings here is tied to.
Well I'm happy for Richard to add to that.
If you wouldn't mind, Chairman.
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:24:29
Yes, so just turning to the EFW and the business case, Councillor Dillon.
So I would say that the income as reflected in this budget aligns very clearly and firmly with the original business case for the EFW project that the previous County Council initiated.
So we're very confident that the income levels that are being achieved align with that original
business case.
The original business case is very positive and credible.
Our costs of disposal for waste are significantly lower than other authorities as a result of
the EFW projects.
That's something that we are pleased to have and as I said, it performs operationally very
well and financially as I say, that business case is very credible.
In terms of the future state, I think you're sort of thinking ahead for, you know, what that facility might look like.
So just for clarity for the committee, we've got a further 19 years of the EFW contract to run,
and there's a potential further five -year extension beyond that.
So potentially a further 24 years of the EFW being operational in its current arrangement with our current contractor.
It's highly likely that during the course of that time,
there'll be significant government policy change.
There'll be significant changes in recycling rates and habits.
And there'll be significant changes in technology and innovation.
So it feels, I would say, too early to be thinking in detail as to what that
future facility or what that future provision could look like,
because those things will change significantly.
The original project for the EFW took around 10 years to deliver from original
inception of the idea to the delivery. So I think the County Council
started that work around 2006 and the project opened its doors in 2016. So
that's the kind of window for a facility like that. But as I say we've got
potentially 24 years of
EFW to run that just to reiterate in terms of the savings we feel confident that they are
deliverable and achievable savings across the waste portfolio the one area that I would highlight is around some of the government
policy changes and the income associated with that and particularly for the extended producer responsibility income
We've got certainty on that from government for next financial year, but not beyond that so the present government
are giving us a kind of an annual position
for a year ahead in terms of that income.
The confirmed position from government on the EPR
for next year aligns with our MTFP assumptions for savings,
but as I said, we don't have certainty beyond 26, 27.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Can I just add to that,
Cllr Adekunle Osibogun - 0:27:26
that income was actually not also taken into account
when we presented the prison case for the EFWs,
and from my understanding currently our gate fees at our sites are probably one of the lowest in the country.
So I think that would also help in more of you there.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Tett.
Cllr John Chilver - 0:27:45
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:27:53
Thank you, Chairman. I would just observe, I think the original business case from the old County Council on EFW was an excellent project and incredibly well managed.
So credit to all who were involved at that time.
Just on that though, I do think we probably need a little bit more
elucidation about what unachievable income is on the EFW.
It's a bit vague, if you don't mind me saying so.
We'd like to know what that is.
Is that to do with electricity and the generation from it,
or is it to do with waste volumes from third parties?
So I think as a committee we want some reassurance financially,
not in policy terms, about what that is.
And if I can just zone in on one of the things
that residents really care about, which are the basics that we do.
And they're not terribly aware of all the big high -faluting strategic stuff.
They really care about the basics.
One of the big basics I always get is flight -tipping and littering.
It's very difficult to tell from this how much that service is costing or spending
and what income it gets from it, because obviously there will be income from fines and so on.
So can you tell us how much is spent on flight tipping
enforcement?
Can you confirm that it will not go down in future years
and it will rise by inflation?
I'm just aware that there are people
who have left that service.
I'd just like to know they're being replaced,
because this is a service that residents really care about
and I get a lot of correspondence about.
I have one other question if we do have time as well.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Professor Tett.
Cllr Adekunle Osibogun - 0:29:22
I would reserve the question on the unachievable incomes
on the EFW's to answer.
But on the flight tip in, we do and we
have seen not a spike but an increase in cost
flight tip removals.
We have spent about roughly about $2 million in this area.
That's not only on enforcement but also on the remover.
and we are hoping and if you look into the budget you see that we have about
40 exact number have about 43 plus million set aside for waste that's
embedded in that with regards to the fly tipping and removals. With respect how much just
I can just repeat my question what I'd like to do on this side of the committee
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:30:11
we're looking the finances how much is the how much is set aside for fly
and littering enforcement.
I understand there's a much bigger waste budget.
I understand that entirely.
What I'm just looking for is reassurance
that the basics that residents really care
about are not being cut back.
Or if they are, the rationale for doing so
and how you can, you know, comfort us on that.
Yeah, I can reassure residents
Cllr Adekunle Osibogun - 0:30:36
that there has been no cut back on fly tipping and littering
because if you look into our priorities listed on there,
it's one of our key priorities.
The reason why at this point in time it's difficult
to say how much it is is because one the staff are also part of council staff
which is also embedded in that sum but what I gave you earlier with the
approximately two million was around the enforcement and the removals costs but
we have provided within this 43 plus million for addressing fly tipping and
also the enforcement around that.
Richard?
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:31:15
If I may, just in terms of EFW, so the $276 ,000, which I think was referred to in an earlier
question, refers to income associated with third -party waste.
So just for the committee's benefit and anyone else listening, the plant accommodates waste
from Buckinghamshire's waste, and it's about a third of the capacity of the plant.
The other two -thirds is used from waste from other areas, so it's a downturn in some of that income.
The rest of the downturn on the EFW, as we've reflected in the budget, refers to electricity prices, but the 276 is third -party waste.
Just in terms of enforcement, just for absolute clarity, there are no proposals in this budget to reduce enforcement resources around waste.
It's obviously a big political priority for the Council.
We have a philosophy and approach of zero tolerance in terms of waste enforcement for
fly tipping and littering, and there are no proposals in this budget to reduce that resource.
Dr. Richard, you want to have a second question?
Cllr John Chilver - 0:32:20
Cllr Martin Tett - 0:32:22
Yes, if I can just add one further question, and thank you for your responses on that.
The extended producer responsibility, which I suspect public online will have no idea
what it's about, but it's basically making producers pay for the disposal of their packaging
effectively in very simple terms. It's very obvious that producers are going to
try and minimise that because it's a big cost charge to them so they're going to
be looking to strip out packaging. Are you confident because although you've
already been given one year's guarantee and it's in here as I understand it it's a
million pounds, stop me if I'm wrong on that, you've also then included another
million in 27 -28 and 880 ,000 in 28 -29. These are big numbers, these are very big
numbers in this budget. Are you confident that given the pressure on producers to
reduce their packaging and thus the costs they're challenged by the
government and pass through to us, are you confident those numbers can be
achieved? Because if they're not, they're a big risk in the budget. Thank you very
Cllr Adekunle Osibogun - 0:33:26
much, Councillor Tepe. I think our confidence would be as far as any other
the cabinet member when it comes to the government's U -turns at UC.
So as we stand today, and based on what the government has put forward around
this particular policy and grant, we are confident we'll receive the grant payment.
And that's all we've factored in.
I'm happy for Richard to expand on that.
Yeah, thanks, Ade.
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:33:54
So the EPR, Extended Producer Responsibility,
arrangements were implemented this financial year.
So we had a grant payment in 25 -26.
The 26 -27 confirmed payment actually increases
on this year rather than reduces.
So we're seeing more income come in for next financial year.
The overall long -term intention for this intervention
by government is exactly as you described.
It's about, it's trying to bear down on the producers
of packaging material to get producers to produce less packaging material to do things
that are more environmentally efficient.
So I think the very long -term impact should be a reduction in packaging material and as
a consequence of that, that will be a reduction in income to disposal authorities because
we'd have less to deal with.
I think it's highly likely that the medium -term situation is going to be what we've seen in
last couple of years which is a steady state and the numbers reflected in our
budgets are reasonably prudent so we're confident that we can deliver within the
medium term aligned with the income that was seen from from government but as I
say I think the long -term direction of travel should be a reduction and we'd
need to reflect that in subsequent budgets over coming years.
Cllr John Chilver - 0:35:20
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:35:22
Councillor Wilson. Thank you Chairman, good morning everybody.
I do hope that whoever is responsible for the project management of EFW has been recognised
with some form of honour subsequently. They've probably just forgotten somewhere
in the background. I'm sure they have.
I'd like to ask questions about street cleaning on waste, if I may.
So I'm looking firstly at slide page 62 and page 54.
So on street cleaning, if I'm reading the table correctly,
it looks like the net budget is decreasing from 25,
26 to 26, 27, and then subsequently further
in the next two years.
And like my colleague said, one of the things that's really,
really important to residents is understanding that our
pavements and gutters and whatever else is being cleared.
So firstly, yes or no, are we reducing street cleaning
services over the duration of the budget and MTFP?
And then my second question relates to pages 65 or 57.
And likewise, I would like to understand,
there's a line in changing income.
So Southern Waste Contract,
and it talks about a number of items,
and I appreciate this portfolio has very broad
areas of cover, but it talks about increases in income,
but under the contract, and I wasn't clear whether those
were income increases that would impact residents
through fees.
I've looked at the fees charges in this portfolio,
and there are some increases, but I'd like to understand
whether that Southern Waste contract,
Are those additional fees or new services that will increase income and therefore impact residents?
And likewise, at the bottom on the growth, it says waste collection services, housing and contract growth.
Is that an expansion of services or is it a contractual obligation?
In which case it's kind of a cost rather than growth.
So I'd like to understand those because what I'm, you know, is what's going to
impact residents here on street cleaning and then in terms of fees and charges
and are we getting new services or are these impacts on existing services?
Cllr Adekunle Osibogun - 0:38:19
Thank you. Thank you very much for those questions. I think I'm happy to give our
residents reassurance that there is no plan to reduce services within this
portfolio particularly in street cleaning. The reduction you see there is
based on expected deliveries from the automation and utilisation of service
and the optimization of our workflow. It's our belief that as AI and the
Results of the optimization comes to fusion. We will see a decrease in the amounts required to deliver that this service
with regards to your the questions around
I think is of the southern waste contract
And if that's an additional a new contract or or if it's something that would impact on service as well
I can assure you that that's not the case
the southern waste contract has been delivered by a third -party contractor
and viola and this is an expansion on service deliveries
within that area and how we can generate more revenue from that but I'm happy to
give Richard the budget to expunge on an operational perspective on it.
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:39:34
Yeah thanks for the question Councillor Wilson. So just to echo that
that there is no intention in this budget to reduce street cleaning
services we see and have been able to deliver operational efficiencies through things like
reduced overtime and improved sickness absence and so on.
So it's about driving some more efficiency through that service to realise the saving
rather than any kind of policy reduction in street cleaning.
And as you'll have seen in the budget pack, we invest heavily actually in terms of street
cleaning expenditure is around about two and a half million pounds each year for that particular
service.
In terms of the savings linked to income, so we have a number of income streams for this portfolio from things like garden waste,
subscriptions, income achieved through the HRCs, bulky waste collection and so on.
And the projections that we've got within the MTFP are aligned to seeing continued income growth in those areas,
which is something that we've experienced
over the previous MTFP, and we feel confident
in achieving and delivering.
In terms of the growth line, so there's a mix there,
there's a blend actually in terms of growth pressure.
Parts of the housing growth is more houses being built
equals more waste to collect, so we've got an alignment
there in terms of the planning assumptions
around housing growth, as well as some contractual
inflation growth built into those numbers as well. Thank You Councillor
Cllr John Chilver - 0:41:08
Cllr Trevor Snaith - 0:41:10
Snave. Thank you, thank you. Good morning. I'm the third Councillor to come in
again on the subject of litter and waste and the reason I bring this up is having
sat through the community board for High Wycombe yesterday and I'm the
30 % of the time was the growth in people power
when it comes to litter picking.
So it does raise a concern that perhaps the scale
of litter picking is being masked by the community groups
who are picking up and doing that job.
So I do ponder and wonder if the resources
are actually enough in that to actually deliver
what we need.
That's the first question, thank you.
Cllr Adekunle Osibogun - 0:42:02
I can reassure you that one, we're confident with the amounts we've put towards our litter
picking based on the resources we require over the previous years.
But I would also encourage our residents, because I also do litter picking, I would
always encourage residents who have the time to please also volunteer, either with any
of the charities or individually or groups, to assist with litter picking, because we
not have too much to begin. So I'm not opposed to that, but we encourage that too.
Cllr Trevor Snaith - 0:42:35
My second question is around the use of solar or wind or other activities within our own
buildings. So I'm seeing a budget here, climate change strategy capital projects, and that's
page 6759 slash take your pick and I'm wondering if that's addressing solar onto
our own buildings and onto our own land and doing the right things. Thank you.
Cllr Adekunle Osibogun - 0:43:11
I haven't picked up the page you're referring to but what I can reassure you is I'm
Working with my colleague, Councillor Robert Carrington,
solar and renewable energies is something
we're quite keen on.
You'd also see in our budget, we also put forward
some monies towards procuring EV vehicles
in line with the climate change agenda
of the central government.
So I can reassure you that one, we're taking steps
to not only ensure that we meet up with our responsibility
when it comes to climate change,
but also encouraging others to do the same.
Thank you.
Councillor Pohl.
Cllr John Chilver - 0:43:55
Cllr Chris Poll - 0:43:57
Thank you, Chairman.
Yes, I'm Councillor Chris Pohl
and I represent the Ivinghoe Ward.
Thank you, cabinet member.
I see in the portfolio priorities,
is the third point down as 51
if you're looking at your pack.
Continue as zero tolerance policy towards fly tipping.
Now, it kind of mentions the lowest hanging fruit
on fly tipping.
This is about educating residents about responsible waste,
removal through approved contractors
viewing their licence and what have you.
So that's the lowest hanging fruit.
But I would suggest to you that there are two others
that I'm very keen to ensure
are protected parts of the service.
The next one would be the irresponsible trade waste
disposal, which has resulted,
I see there's 92 convictions in the last 12 months
or the period stated here, which is two a week,
which is quite substantial.
That, as we all hear in this council chamber,
is a very profitable business
for those irresponsible waste disposers.
But the third one is asbestos.
There's a particular problem in my ward,
and I suspect in the Deptu Cabinet members ward as well
because I travel down there regularly
and the amount of flytip, heavily commercial waste
is quite staggering.
But when it comes to our removal of that,
we send somebody out to inspect,
then decide that it contains asbestos.
Then we have to get a contractor to remove that asbestos.
Then we have to get a contractor
to remove the rest of the waste.
and it's my understanding that we don't have a secure contractor.
I think we go out to tender each time, which is kind of wasteful in my view.
So my question is, do we have or are we progressing with approved contractors that can be secured in a timely manner?
And just as a supplement to that,
the budget enforcement budget,
Mr. Barker has said that that's protected.
Is that protected for inflation?
Or are there efficiencies that are
meaning that that budget can stay the same, yet improve?
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Councillor Paul, for your questions.
Cllr Adekunle Osibogun - 0:46:48
I think it's important for residents who are watching to understand, because I do get those emails too when it comes to fly tipping,
to understand the steps which you have outlined in your question.
Once we see, for example, a caravan filled up with waste, we need to first send in inspectors to go in there and have a look at what's in, you know, is there potential hazardous waste in there?
And the reason why we need to do this to ensure we not only protect our staff, but also ensure that if there is, this waste is disposed of responsibly.
Then we have to then get in the specialised waste retrieval team to go and then retrieve that hazardous waste before we can then process the ordinal residual waste.
This comes at a very large cost to the council and hence why we are doubling down on our enforcement campaign around fly tipping with a new autonomous policy when it comes to fly tipping.
Now with regards to asbestos waste, which you did refer to, I think that is one of the hazardous wastes which we have to deal with.
With regards to secured contractors,
I'm not going to tend, I'm happy to provide this committee
a written response as to our layout
when it comes out to the third party contractors we use
when it comes to these details of who actually does
get rid of the hazardous waste.
With regard, I know your final question
as to the efficiencies.
These efficiencies are driven by our drive
to ensure our team's workflow is optimised and also that digitization with use of AI
can help us reduce the amount of time and also the route, for example, that our waste
teams use when it comes to waste collection and retrieval.
But I'm happy for my deputy cabinet member to expansionally be on the fly, if there's
more.
Cllr Jaspal Chhokar - 0:48:52
Yeah, as Councillor Osiboggan said, it is a complex process.
I know there's been a big case in my ward and if you see the announcements, a lot of
happened in my ward because of its location near the motorways and the nearby London boroughs.
It does take time, but the team, they try to move things along as quickly as they can
after making sure things are safe to be removed.
And the enforcement team has put in place surveillance in the known hotspots and there
have been a lot of successful fines issued.
So we'll carry on driving that forward.
as Councillor Osberg said, that's one of our number one priorities in our portfolio.
Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr John Chilver - 0:49:35
Thank you. Councillor Huxley.
Cllr Andy Huxley - 0:49:38
Thank you, Chairman. Good morning. Councillor Andy Huxley, Aylesbury East.
One of my concerns is over recycling. And here in Aylesbury, we have a recycling centre at
Raven's Lane, which used to boast a recycling rate of over 70%.
The last town I attended, it's, I think, over 60%.
But in the figures, we're showing in Buckinghamshire
a rate of 49 .5%.
I don't know what the KPI is, but the figure of 49 and 1
seems a little low.
I just wondered what we are doing to try and improve on that figure.
Thank you very much for your question.
Cllr Adekunle Osibogun - 0:50:36
And I think we are also quite proud of our Illsbury Recycling Centre for
their keeping up with their rates and targets.
The 49 UC is the global figure across the entire county.
And from my understanding that's also comparable with some of our neighbouring counties.
With regards to how we're gonna drive forward to ensure that increases,
our simply recycling scheme is one of the key components of that.
We believe that once we can take out food waste from mixed waste,
then it would not only improve the marketability of that waste,
but also improve our recycling rates in total.
But with regards to the operation of that site,
I'm happy to pass on to Richard
to just explain a little bit more on that.
Yeah.
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:51:28
Thanks for the question, Councillor Huxley.
So just to reiterate, the figure you referred to in the PAC
is the global figure for recycling rates,
including domestic waste.
That's remained at quite a steady level.
We'd seen some reduction nationally
as a result of some kind of resident behaviour post -COVID,
lots more deliveries, lots more packaging materials,
and so on, that's been a bit of a challenge
to deal with nationally.
Our recycling rates within Buckinghamshire
are generally speaking quite favourable
compared to other authorities.
The recycling rates for the HRCs,
which I think was the figure you referred to at the start,
are higher, and they vary between 60 and 70 %
depending on the site,
But the figure in the pack is the global figure including
including domestic waste
Do we have a KPI for that?
Cllr Andy Huxley - 0:52:21
Richard Barker - Corporate Director for Communities - 0:52:25
For that for the HRCs yeah, I would need to probably provide that to the committee offline
But we do we do we have a contractual KPI for it, which we can provide
Which we can provide separately?
Cllr John Chilver - 0:52:35
Thank you very much councillor Mater
Cllr Nidhi Mehta - 0:52:38
Good morning. I'm council and I represent is Ru West
So basically my question is about flooding because one of my areas in the ward, Willows,
is quite prone to flooding.
I would like to refer to a news that came in on 29th of December, 2025, in Bucks Herald.
And it said, dozens of flood defences in Bucks not fit for purpose, 48 of 334, which is 14
percent falls below the required condition.
And it also mentions that 265 ,000 of funding was received.
Now, if we refer to page number 61, Portrait or 53, Landscape,
it mentions that 10 .5 million has been allocated
to the council's flood capital programme over 2025 -27.
I mean, we all know for the last few years we are having better
winters and there will be more areas
that will be prone to flooding.
Do you think is this sufficient to deliver the food resilience,
the flood resilience and alleviation measures needed?
Or do you think it should be a priority
and you should increase some more amount?
Cllr Adekunle Osibogun - 0:54:10
Thank you very much for that question because flooding is a very, very key priority for
me as well.
And I can reassure you that the Willow flood defence is contained in this capital project,
so that's specific to your ward.
But generally, as to if this is sufficient in the entire county, we would love to do
more.
You know, our aspiration would be to do more.
But right now we're faced with an unfair funding review, which is taking up about 44 .4 million from our reserves or from our revenue.
If we had those funds, these are things that we could do. But unfortunately we can't.
And we have to ensure that we're not putting too much pressure on our residents as well, because we have a legal obligation to provide a balanced budget.
So what we've done is look at all the priorities. We've prioritised what we believe our residents would like to see.
And I can assure you that like I said before that scheme is contained in this budget and we look forward to delivering it
Thank you very much
Cllr John Chilver - 0:55:10
Cllr Anna Crabtree - 0:55:14
Thank You councillor Anna Crabtree from the Marlowe ward
I can see from the budget papers that the total environment
Expenses allocated in this budget are two and a half million pounds
which represent a mere 0 .2 % of the total Council budgeted income for the 26 -27 financial year.
So I just wondered, given the importance of the climate change issue to our residents
and the commitments that the Council have made to be carbon neutral by 2050,
is there enough money in here to deliver that?
and specifically could you give us a bit more information
about the council's recent commitment
on chalk stream protection
and how this budget supports the delivery of that?
Thank you.
Thank you very much for that question.
Cllr Adekunle Osibogun - 0:56:03
I can, and I think I need to try and,
I need to explain further steps we've taken
to ensure we drive efficiencies in this area.
So whilst we have a climate change team,
the responsibility and obligations
cut across our different departments.
So what we're doing is we're ensuring that all the different,
for example, using talk streams,
we're working with the planning team,
or planning portfolio, to see how that's embedded in there.
And also the enforcement of that would go alongside
that department as well.
So once you see the sum of 2 .5 million
in expense here, the amount we'll be using
towards environment climate change surpasses that because it's also
contained in other portfolios too so that's just a reassure you on that that
we do take that seriously and with regards to the short stream we have
recently released a statement and we've also written to the Secretary of State
on it and we're taking steps to ensure that in our local plan which is
currently being developed that this will be embedded in there as well.
Thank you very much indeed.
Cllr John Chilver - 0:57:11
Councillor Drayton.
Thank you.
Good morning everyone.
Cllr Penny Drayton - 0:57:16
Councillor Penny Drayton, chair of the tech committee.
My question main has been answered is actually about flooding as well.
I also have concerns on the forward budget not having any reserves in there or any contingency.
So obviously there is money in there at the moment for the plans ahead and there's the
Marlowe scheme and others, but the priorities actually states continue to take action on
flood prevention and continue to address the causes of water, of surface water flooding.
With the amount of building that we see coming up along with environmental changes and other
factors, it's fine to have money in the budget right now for the schemes which are underway
or already been assessed, but where do we go
when the next one comes up if we have nothing
brought in budget appreciating you have answered this
in part that decisions need to be made.
But I think flooding is something which can be
absolutely devastating for people at times
and should potentially be given a priority as well
on future projects being able to be done.
Cllr Adekunle Osibogun - 0:58:34
I do agree with you 100 % and without repeating my earlier summation around the revenues that
we have been deprived of, I can also tell you that for example, surface water flooding,
we've got funds in the transfer budget to improve our drains.
We believe that would assist in evading surface water flooding in some areas.
When it comes to future developments,
our aspiration is to ensure that through our planning
process, and just working with the planning team,
that we can prevent or avoid properties being built
either on flood plains or in flood risk areas,
or minimise that.
That way we won't have to then think about flood schemes
and whatnot, because we would have planned to avoid it
in the first place.
So these are steps, and this is how,
what I would call the cross portfolio work,
How we're working together as a team to ensure we we deliver on residents priorities, particularly around flooding.
Cllr John Chilver - 0:59:34
Thank you very much. I'm afraid we've run out of time for this session so apologies to any members who wanted to ask questions
but didn't weren't able to but if you send your questions in by email, I'm sure they will be answered.
So I just like to thank the members and the officers for their attendance and
and participation in the debate and discussion.
And we start again at 11 .15 to look at education
and children's services.
Thank you.

4 Environment, Climate Change and Waste (Councillor Ade Osibogun)

Cllr John Chilver - 1:00:05
Thank you very much and welcome to the next session.
So I'd like to welcome members and officers.

5 Education and Children's Services (Councillor Carl Jackson)

We have Councillor Carl Jackson, the cabinet member, Deputy Cabinet Member Councillor Julie
Jordan, officers in support, Sarah Ashmead, Errol Albert and Sarah Fogden.
No. Sorry, you must remind me.
Elspeth O 'Neill.
Elspeth, thank you, yes.
Who is the finance officer for this service.
And again, we have our head of finance, Dave Skinner, supported by the deputy head, Fiona Jump.
And I'd also like to welcome Councillor Susan Morgan who is the chairman of the Children's and Education Select Committee.
So as usual I will ask the cabinet member to introduce their budget proposals and highlight key areas and risks.
And then we'll move on to committee questions. Thank you.
So over to you Councillor Jackson.
Thank you Chairman and good morning committee members.
Cllr Carl Jackson - 1:01:42
Education and Children's Services is a broad, highly regulated portfolio, providing a range
of services and functions, most of which are statutory functions the council is required
to fulfil by law.
The portfolio, as you will have read, includes children's social care, fostering adoption
and kinship, in -house residential care for our looked after children, special educational
needs and disability services, early support for families, support for schools, an early
years provision, people place planning, skills and adult learning and youth justice and support.
As well as being highly regulated, the functions and services in this portfolio are also the
focus of much of the government's reform agenda, the Children's Well -being and Schools Bill,
what we are told are imminent SEND reforms, the Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life
strategy and the Families First programme, some of these quite hot off the press.
The delivery of these services is hugely important,
as most of them are focused
on providing the best possible outcomes for children
and young people who are at risk, who are in care,
who have disabilities, or who have special educational needs,
or a combination of those.
They are services which are essential to ensure children
and young people in Buckinghamshire can be safe,
cared for, valued, and supported to fulfil their potential.
In the context of Buckinghamshire's population,
Many of these services are used by a relatively small number of people, but at a very significant
cost as you'll have seen from the numbers.
Number of children in care has risen, as has the overall complexity of their needs, which
is another key factor in the cost.
A shortage of residential care placement drives up costs.
That's a national issue as well as a local one.
Challenges in recruiting social workers and educational psychologists threatens the effective delivery of services and means agency staff are still required.
And as in many other local authorities, the dedicated schools grant continues to fall short of meeting the growing cost of providing for children and young people with special educational needs, leading to a growing deficit as you have seen.
There are, however, significant opportunities which we've identified to mitigate many of
these cost increases and, crucially, to provide better outcomes for our children and young
people as we deliver those savings.
By increasing the number of foster carers, which is a key part of the budget proposals,
we can avoid the cost of placements in external residential accommodation for children in
care.
With our residential children's home programme, we can provide more in -house placements for
children looking after them closer to their communities while avoiding much of
the cost of external residential accommodation which is hugely expensive
and often outside of the county. Through effective edge of care work we can keep
more families together where it's safe to do so. With our three million pound
EHCP recovery plan we will issue EHCPs more quickly and cut the backlog
helping children and young people with special educational needs get the
support they need at an earlier stage. By investing in new specialist school
places we will provide support to children and young people with the most
complex needs while creating more send units in mainstream schools to help
children with less complex special educational needs to remain engaged with
mainstream education. With effective people place planning we will support
expansion of school places to meet housing growth through our
skills agenda we will support adults who face barriers to entering the workforce
to learn new skills find employment improve their lives and boost our local
economy. This is a portfolio with significant financial pressures and
risks and some figures that will change between this draught budget and the final
budget depending on our analysis of finance settlement announcements. But
there are also real significant opportunities to avoid costs and improve
services. It is important, essential for the council's finances but also for our
children and young people that we take those opportunities and deliver those
improvements. Chairman thank you I'm happy to take questions. Thank you very
Cllr John Chilver - 1:05:45
much indeed. Is there anything that the service director or deputy cabinet
member or head of finance wish to add before we move on to questions? Right so
I'll start taking questions from the floor and we have Councillor Dali.
Cllr Christine Adali - 1:06:02
Good morning, Christina Dali from Beckinsfield. I've got two lines of
One is about the unaccompanied asylum seeking children and the other one will be on children's
homes.
So firstly, how many children are we currently supporting as in unaccompanied asylum seeking
children?
What is the maximum number that we can be asked to take?
And how, what is the funding shortfall and how is the council mitigating for those expected
annual pressures
Should I take the first one then you'll come to the second one
Okay
Cllr Carl Jackson - 1:06:45
Right. So I'm not coming to silence eating children. So there is a
National transfer scheme which used to be voluntary and is now compulsory and the way it works is
if as a local authority you have
aside of unaccompanied asylum -seeking children population, which is
0.1 % or greater of your general child population,
you can refer children into that transfer scheme
to be transferred to other local authorities.
If you have a UASC population,
which is less than 0 .1 % of your general child population,
then you can be directed to receive those children.
So we would expect on that basis to receive
more unaccompanied asylum seeking children.
In the terms of the MTFP, it's not one of the more consequential developments because
for the unaccompanied and unscientific children who are under 18, and you can't always say
this, the government grant funding that comes with the obligations with the children and
after actually pretty much covers the costs and allows us even to make some contribution
to management costs as well.
Where things change slightly is where the unaccompanied
asylum -seeking children cease to be children
and become asylum seekers, I suppose,
when they turn 18.
Because at that point, the grant drops off quite significantly.
Although we can mitigate that, and I understand that the grant
will continue for those individuals if they are in
full -time education between 18 and 21,
even if they don't require a placement.
So that can slightly offset things and we are expecting the number of
unaccompanied assignments eating children to be in that position to increase
in terms of the exact balances between
under 18 and
Over 18 so Errol I might look to you on that for the up -to -date figure. Certainly. Thank you councillor
Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services - 1:08:46
so currently the under 18 number is 70 and
Number of over 18 is 155
Just in relation to that number as well Buckinghamshire is a local authority where we have a duty to
take in
spontaneous arrivals into the county as well so that figure could change in a moment as you'll appreciate in terms of that
responsibility that we have also.
Thank you and
Cllr Christine Adali - 1:09:16
my second question is
on
Children's homes a very big savings rights on the opening of the children's homes
How confident are you that they can be delivered on time?
I know a lot of the mitigating factors are not in your hand like offset approval
so I think one's already open to are waiting for state approval or what are the numbers there? I'm not hundred percent sure and
What are the biggest risk factors of getting the others to offset approval state
Thank you.
Cllr Carl Jackson - 1:09:53
Most of the properties are purchased in our hands, so that's I think probably one of the
biggest hurdles to overcome.
I think actually you've probably identified the biggest risk.
At the moment we're sort of happy that we'll be able to, relatively comfortable to be able
to deliver on time as planned and it is crucial to savings.
The biggest risk probably at the moment is the Ofsted registration time because I got a
sort of informally before Christmas I was told that Ofsted are now saying that this is likely
to shift from six months to nine months and of course this has consequences in two different
ways. First of all if it delays the opening then that's obviously delaying our savings because that
that's gonna mean more of our children and young people
in external residential placements for longer.
So we need to hit this timetable.
But also, you have to have your team in place at the home
from the day you request registration,
not from the day it opens.
You can't get your Ofsted permission
to open your children's home and then say,
right, let's put out an advert for a manager.
You have to have them in place from the start,
which means you've got a team not quite sitting there
because there are ways of deploying them elsewhere
within a sort of limited distance.
But to some extent, the team sitting there waiting to go,
and obviously we don't really want to see that time increase.
I have discussed with Eireb already, we're going to write
to the Children and Families Minister to say,
can you give us some official position on this,
because we've heard it informally.
And you know, what are you going to do about it?
Because as we're trying to do the right thing,
I think in the circumstances
of having more in -house residential provision,
It is a shame if we have got the property got the team
We're ready to go and we can't do it because we have a lot of registration. I have asked the officers as well
What if we cannot find a placement for a child
Can we use them can we use the homes?
Anyway, free officer because there have been times where we used on regulated placements in the past outside the county for external providers
Where you haven't absolutely no choice but to but I'm told you know that that would count as an unregulated placement
even though we have a home and a vetted team.
So it's a significant reputational risk and legal risk.
So the offset delay is a factor
that is coming up higher on my radar.
I don't know, Aaron, if you want to add anything.
Thank you, Councillor.
Just one final point, adding to the complexity
Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services - 1:12:20
in terms of how we utilise those spaces in those homes,
there's a very careful matching process
that has to be undertaken in relation to these children
with hugely complex needs.
So as part of that as well, in terms of the planning process,
it would be about ensuring that we're not placing
very vulnerable children and put them at risk
in terms of who they're matched with within those placements.
So that also has an impact in relation to the issues
that the council has mentioned.
So given that it's in Ofsted's hands,
Cllr Christine Adali - 1:12:56
what could be our financial exposure
due to the delays that the course of all state because it sounds a bit worrying
and not not good for the children most importantly certainly and the the
Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services - 1:13:12
figures before you take account that risk we have to factor that in because
obviously it's not just about the delay to that child moving into property but
as outlined by the Councillor it adds to the financial pressures in terms of that
delay and what we hope to bring a child into one of our premises as opposed to
an unregistered or an external placement.
Cllr John Chilver - 1:13:37
Did you want to come back on that? Still don't know the financial risk of a three
Cllr Christine Adali - 1:13:41
months delay. If I may I'll need to get back to you are you looking at specific
Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services - 1:13:47
number? Would be good to have a general idea it doesn't have to be right now but
Cllr Christine Adali - 1:13:52
inviting would be good. Thank you. If I just may come in Chairman, I think I would stress at this
point that the nine -month figure has come from a kind of informal
Cllr Carl Jackson - 1:14:00
conversation between a senior officer and someone within Ofsted who is
probably a fairly well placed to know. So it's not something that we've necessarily
experienced yet as a delay or something that's been formally put to us but you
know these these little bits of intelligence need picking up and I think
and think considering so I know I share it with the committee today it's
something that has been passed on to me.
I think at the moment it would be difficult
to sort of take it to the bank as something
we should model with, but we need to be aware of it
and we will be writing to the minister.
Thank you for being so upfront with us.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Cllr Christine Adali - 1:14:34
Councillor Wilson.
Cllr John Chilver - 1:14:36
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:14:39
Good morning still to everybody.
So just picking up that last point,
I wasn't gonna pick up on this one,
but so can you confirm that we now have no children
in placements in unregistered homes,
because I know we did a few years ago.
So that would just be useful to confirm that.
I wanted to pick up on the point around fostering.
And so this is on slide 97 or 89,
depending on which numbering convention you're using.
And I would say that we're trying to stick
to using the larger portrait page numbering,
Cllr John Chilver - 1:15:17
rather than the small horizontal ones.
So that would be 97 in the pack we have.
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:15:24
So there are two lines on the investor save,
which I think is an excellent initiative.
One for specialist foster care replacements
and one for foster carer scheme.
My question really is obviously we recognise
this as best outcome for children,
best outcome for the council.
Could you please give us an update in terms of where we are on that programme?
Because I know there's been a big push in the last 12 months or so.
And do we now believe that we have access to the potential within the county for that?
Or do you think there is still some further?
Because clearly, whilst, you know, there are a large number of people in the county,
there's a limited number of people who would be willing to consider fostering.
So I'd just like to get a sense of, is the investor -save cost that you've got in here
reflective of what we now think we have fulfilled the potential of the programme?
You know, these are therefore the ongoing costs.
Or do you see that there is still further potential in the programme?
Are there further incentives and other aspects of the fostering
programme that would allow us to go and develop this even further?
Thank you.
Thank you.
It's an important subject to raise because the increase in
Cllr Carl Jackson - 1:16:54
foster care is absolutely central to the savings or perhaps
cost avoidance that we're looking to achieve here.
You asked about the number of children currently as of today
in unregulated placements.
I'm told the answer is one.
This is something which is done sort of as a last resort.
It's the point which I didn't fully appreciate
when I was in this portfolio, which is I knew there was a
shortage of placements, available placements for
residential care for children, which would obviously
push prices up.
We all know what happens to the price of something when
there's a shortage of it.
What I hadn't realised until I was in this portfolio was
the extent to which it would be possible not to get an
offer of a place when you sort of say, you know, we
have a child here who needs this placement, and these are
the child's needs, and sometimes nothing comes back.
And so as an absolute last resort, it will be used.
I'm told the figure is one, which is almost as low
as it can get, and obviously we would like that figure
to be one lower than that.
In terms of the foster care, yes, so there's two
separate lines, as you say, so there's a foster care scheme
you'll be familiar with, especially as foster carer
placements is about taking, sort of asking some of our
more experienced foster carers.
I don't think these will be new foster carers,
more experienced foster carers say,
would you be able, willing to have some extra training
and with extra support, provide foster care
for children and young people with,
or a child or a young person with higher needs?
Obviously, there will be more support,
it will come with a higher allowance,
depending on the level of needs.
The potential savings are greater,
because of course when you're talking about
the cost of external residential care,
that cost will be, might be 1 ,200 pounds a night.
As a sort of fairly average figure,
it will be much higher where the
Charlie Office has complete needs,
so the potential for savings is bigger.
I think the main part of your question was,
are we confident we haven't maxed out
the foster carer, potential foster carer supply?
In the last 12 months, we had a target,
which we considered a stretch target, I think,
of 20 next new foster carers.
that we've achieved until 26.
So we've beaten the target fairly significantly there.
I will let Errol come in on this one in a minute,
but I think we are confident that with sort
of improved allowances, improved support, improved perks,
that we can keep growing that foster carer community.
It's also, of course, about not losing foster carers
out the other end.
So if you go back three, four years, you'd find figures
like in the sort of 27 foster carers de -registering,
33 foster carers de -registering.
I think in the last, I think in this financial year,
or last financial year, which we have figures, it was eight.
So I think that increased support, the increased perks
is also helping stop people leaving.
You do obviously get the odd retirement.
And sort of anecdotally, I've heard very good things
about the perks, they really seem to be appreciated.
I had a resident in my ward write to me saying,
they've made a real difference
in terms of helping provide the children in their care
with a good life and supporting them to be foster carers
and it certainly helped them carry on.
So I think that's gonna be a key part of it too.
Thank you.
And I'm sorry, I don't know if anyone wants to add
to any of that.
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:20:09
Just briefly, yeah, certainly we exceeded that target
Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services - 1:20:15
as the council set out and we'll continue with that programme
of recruitment and fostering using current carers
to provide information to those who are thinking about it
and we'll continue targeting the community
in relation to our recruitment number.
Thank you.
I mean, I think it's just the most amazing thing
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:20:32
that somebody can do to impact somebody's life.
And thank you for the numbers as well.
It's great to get answers with numbers in,
so appreciate that.
On the same slide, there are three lines
also under the growth section
in relation to residential placements.
and they are the similar numbers, or the same numbers,
across the three years.
So call me cynical, but I'm sometimes very suspicious
when we see the same number year over year over year.
Could you please provide some narrative
in terms of what is driving the similarity of the same numbers,
and how should we consider that in terms of our assessment of the budget.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Wilson. I think that comes from the prior MTFP base position on growth.
Cllr Carl Jackson - 1:21:28
I think the narrative around it is probably assisted by the line underneath, which is the extra three million that's being put in.
We looked at various, when we're trying to model this,
we looked at various sort of ways we could project growth,
so you know, a 1 % increase, a 2 % increase
in looked after children.
We've based most of our projections on sort
of 530 looked after children.
That figure is very dynamic.
At the moment, it's sort of nearer the 540 mark.
If you'd asked me a year ago today, it would have been 525.
If you'd ask me, it may be 512.
At the moment, I think it's about 537 or something like that.
Where it's, and obviously, these are small changes
in terms of numbers of people,
but as you'll have seen from the accompanying costs,
the impact of 10 more children in care,
depending on their needs, can be massive.
So I think it's the three million pound figure extra
that's gone in really is there to allow for some growth
in terms of demand, because we have seen an increase.
And it's not just an increase in numbers, it's an increase in overall complexity.
We're seeing more children with more complex needs, an increase in,
it's got 13 to 17 year olds, adolescents I guess, with more complex needs.
I think in some cases it's a case that they've had needs that their parents or
carer could cope with while they were younger and
now have stopped being able to cope with now they've got older,
maybe a bit physically bigger.
And so we are finding an increase in numbers and complexity.
The three million increase in client costs line, I think, is part of our answer to that.
But I don't know, Errol, if you want to add anything else.
Yeah, just to provide some further context, Councillor, so if you consider one of our highest cost young people currently,
Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services - 1:23:18
it's around three and a half thousand per week because ultimately higher complexity means higher cost
because this is a child who's on three to one care 24 -7
due to the concerns and risks around harming themselves
and harming others.
So that's pretty much the equation.
Higher complexity often means higher cost.
So, and I think also one of the things we had last year
was sibling groups was driving up
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:23:45
a significant part of the growth.
So what I'm hearing is yes, it's a step change
from this year's, or the MTFP, and it's inflation -proofed.
So that's just what I'm hearing. Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Morgan.
Cllr John Chilver - 1:24:03
Cllr Susan Morgan - 1:24:05
Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to talk about the SEND side of the service, if I may, and the
EHCP recovery plan. I'm slightly confused. Is the £3 million that's been allocated,
Is that just purely to cover the backlog of EHCPs,
or is there a different three million pounds
that you were just talking about
is gonna cover something else?
I will be prepared to stand corrected on this.
Now, my understanding is that this is three million pound
earmark reserve taken from a corporate underspend,
which is to deal with the backlog.
Cllr Carl Jackson - 1:24:37
I think there is a separate line in here,
which I'm going to flick through quickly,
additional staffing requirement to ensure
we manage the education health plans at a steady state,
which is on 91 in my pack.
I say I will let Errol or else correct me if I'm wrong.
Well, that's it.
Sorry, Dave, you want to come in.
Just to be clear, the 3 million pounds
that was referenced by Councillor Wilson
David Skinner - Director of Finance & S151 Officer - 1:25:03
is in children's social care
and is dealing with costs of residential placements.
The 3 million pounds that you're referring to
is on the education side and is on DSG
in terms of dealing with the backlog
and that was the money that was set aside by cabinet
and has been outlined by Councillor Jackson.
Thank you, Dave. So the answer is yes, there's two different three millions.
Cllr Susan Morgan - 1:25:22
Thank you. So in terms of the EHCP recovery plan for three million,
what is that recovery plan? What does that look like? Where did that three million pound figure come from and
are you a hundred percent that this will absolutely clear the backlog?
So we're at a stage where we're back to that 20 week timescale,
meeting that 20 week timescale and how long will that take do you anticipate?
Thank you.
Okay, yeah, so the three million comes from a, it's near my reserve from corporate underspend.
Cllr Carl Jackson - 1:25:52
The official target was that this would half the backlog in two years.
I suspect we might be able to move somewhat quicker than that, but we have to be a little
careful because of the knock -on effects.
Obviously, as you produce, as you issue more EHCPs, that creates a greater need for annual
reviews for the existing team.
There's also an impact which you might have brought up
with Councillor Broome on homes to school transport.
And there are probably also other impacts,
things like we'll probably find we have more tribunals.
You can appeal against the decision to an issue in HCP
or not, or the content of it as we put more through faster,
we might find we end up with a percentage increase in,
or an increase in the number of tribunals.
So we have to watch sort of how we put them through.
I think we also need to be sensible about which needs
assessments go to the external team we're sort of bringing in
to do it and which we can deal with in -house.
And that needs to be sort of carefully monitored as well.
So, I mean, officially, I think that I'm not saying the target
is half it in two years.
I'm hopeful that that is a very, very minimum we'll be able to do.
I mean, I'm hopeful that if we can clear some of the backlog,
Cllr Susan Morgan - 1:27:12
but actually reduced our legal costs,
you know, costs going to tribunal,
because the parents are doing it just out of pure frustration, understandably.
The leader said the other day that one of the SEND schools had been abolished
and that that was going to bring in an additional 8 million instead of the school.
It was the first I'd heard about it, so I'm not sure which SEND school he was referring to
and where can I see the 8 million pound being spent in the budget?
Thank you. So it isn't that an existing school has been abolished, it's that the, sorry?
Cllr Carl Jackson - 1:27:48
It's the new school which is now going to go ahead, yes.
Well, it was going to be a brand new school, so we were waiting for approval from the Department of Education
for an academy sponsor for a site, so there hadn't been a site confirmed or a name confirmed at this point.
we had simply been promised by the DFE
under the last government that there would be funding
for a new special school, brand new site.
We're looking at about 152 places,
so it's gonna be a significant part of our plan.
We've now been told we haven't got an academy sponsor,
which by the way, it was the Department for Education's job
to find us, not our job to find.
So therefore, they said, well it'd be much quicker
just to expand your existing places,
here's eight million quid to do it.
The problem with that is that the investment required
for the school probably would have been
about 20 million pounds.
So eight million pound falls rather short.
Even more damningly, based on the Department
for Education's own multipliers,
their own assessment, expanding existing special schools,
which is what they want us to do instead,
would cost 18 million.
So by their own figures,
they've left us 10 million pounds short.
There's also the question of space.
we've done quite a lot of expansion of existing places
already, 300 I think already in recent years.
We've got more planned, but there comes to a point
where there's no more room on site.
So this is, it's not really sort of a factor for the MTFP
because the school wouldn't have opened within this period.
But it's something that's gonna need to come
into our planning because effectively now,
unless we can overturn the decision,
and interestingly we have been given to the 27th of February
to make representations to the Minister.
So it suggests maybe there's a chance to argue it.
We will need to deal with what would
be, if the decision is confirmed, a 152 place
gap in our plans.
Thank you.
Just lastly, on the budget, am I right in saying
Cllr Susan Morgan - 1:29:45
that under the revenue budget for education and inclusion,
the special educational needs and disabilities line
is where I would see the EHCP costs?
I've got page 85.
I think that's the page the chairman was referring to.
On page 90...
On page 92, there's a reserve funded expenditure, in case you were to see it in there.
Cllr Carl Jackson - 1:30:07
Cllr Susan Morgan - 1:30:12
The only reason I'm asking is because in the pack it talks about a 6 % rise in SEND year
on year.
And I'm just not sure that this represents a 6 % rise year on year.
There certainly seems to be a much bigger jump into next year than subsequent years
thereafter.
And so it might just be that actually over the course of the four years we make up that 24 %
Or maybe it's not that straightforward
So the change
David Skinner - Director of Finance & S151 Officer - 1:30:43
High needs block elements are set out on page 93 landscape 101
portrait and that's where you can see these step changes in terms of kind of impact in terms of
from SEND. So there's two elements. There's a bit which is within the dedicated schools grant and there's a bit which is then
general funding in terms of kind of education inclusion work, but it's the high needs block is where you'll see the real impact.
Thank you. Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Cllr John Chilver - 1:31:11
Apologies, Councillor Tett, I wasn't sure if you'd put your hand up. Yes. Thank you. Over to you.
Cllr Martin Tett - 1:31:21
I'm being tail in Charlie on this and there in all seriousness. This is a very very important budget
It's important because morally, you know, we have an obligation to maximise the opportunities for our young people
But strategically I don't mean to you know, be little the the moral side of it
This is a portfolio that historically has virtually always overspent
You know, it is a constant problem of overspend
that
That means therefore that the other services that residents really, the majority of residents
look to, the sort of real basics, get squeezed every year when this overspend starts to materialise.
So getting the right numbers into this budget are really important up front.
So it's a big area for us to look at.
And I really welcome the comments and questions from my colleagues on this.
Just wanted to ask first of all about the children's homes.
It says 10 more.
I get slightly confused about how many.
You know, what, 10 more than what, I guess is my question.
Does this take us to a new number,
or does this simply confirm the original target?
And how many children's homes is the optimum?
And I guess behind my question is,
every time we have a business case for children's homes,
it's an investor's save, so effectively we save more money.
Is there a point at which there is a break even?
In other words, where do you get to the point
we're actually having more children's homes
costs you more than you save.
And if there isn't one,
why don't we just keep building more children's homes?
That's my first question.
Maybe just pause at that point if that's okay.
Okay, I think stand, do we have seven?
Cllr Carl Jackson - 1:33:00
So we started with four.
Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services - 1:33:03
Our programme was for an additional 10, which was great.
Okay, that's the first answer.
So just for clarity then,
Cllr Carl Jackson - 1:33:10
and the target is for 14.
Cllr Martin Tett - 1:33:12
We started with four, and the target is for 14.
So none of the other 10 currently exist
in this financial year or beyond.
I'm getting on seven open, which was my original thought.
Yeah, so that's a -
Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services - 1:33:30
I thought there were more than four.
That's why I'm just checking my own stats.
There are seven currently open.
That's, that's -
Cllr Martin Tett - 1:33:39
So when we talk about an extra 10, what we really mean is an extra 7.
Yeah, I just want to confirm that.
So just for clarity, for everybody watching and for members of the committee, we're looking at an extra 7, not an extra 10.
OK, fine. And the other part of that question was, where do you reach a break -even point?
Why not just keep, why stop at 14? Why not 15? Why not 17? Why not 20? Why not 50?
Where do you get to the point where actually the investor save becomes a spend to lose?
I think I'll start with that one.
Cllr Carl Jackson - 1:34:16
I think my view on this is, you know, obviously these are expensive long -term commitments.
You still know, we're not keeping them for a couple of years.
The children's residential care market is changing.
We're not the only council who have had this idea.
And so my view is that we ought to sort of push through this project, which is ambitious,
pretty ambitious, and will make us one of the biggest providers of in -house residential
care of any local authority.
And my view is sort of, I think we should sort of see how we go and see how the market
changes, because if you have a lot of local authorities starting to provide more in -house
placements, you might find it shifts things.
and it might change our calculations on terms of how much you're investing and
how much you're saving. I think the officers might have further input on it
but that's that's sort of my my instinct on that at the moment. Okay obviously the
Cllr Martin Tett - 1:35:14
other side of it is, oh sorry, I thought you'd answer. Should just come in on that as well because I
Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive - 1:35:20
suppose it's as the cabinet member has said, we've got a programme we're in the
process of delivering that.
We're learning quite a lot as we go.
And at some point, we'll need to take stock and say, is it
OK for us to continue?
Or have we reached saturation point in terms of the risk?
Because there is a big risk that we carry around the
staffing, each of these homes is heavily regulated.
So there's a lot that goes into that.
So I think there'll be a point where we think, if we needed
more, is it better to go into a partnership to do that?
What's the next model for us?
And as context, we're part of the, across the southeast,
what's called the Regional Care Cooperative, the RCC,
which is in its infancy, but is looking at,
across the southeast, how do we work together on our homes?
So it may be that as others, as the councillor said,
start to increase their homes,
we think some of those specialisms,
we might not need to provide ourselves,
we might access in other places.
So the market is changing,
and there will be a point, I think,
where we need to take stock about what's our next strategy.
But at the moment, our focus is very much on delivering
the homes that we've got the business case approved around.
Thank you, that's really helpful, actually,
because obviously one of my thoughts was,
Cllr Martin Tett - 1:36:36
have we looked if we're providing these,
and others need them as well,
is there the opportunity to effectively
almost over -provide for ourselves,
and then actually earn income from adjoining councils
who don't have to take that upfront capital cost
would actually could use our facilities on an incremental
cost basis and actually generate income for us, save them money.
So I just wondered whether that had been looked at.
But it sounds like that would be another phase or maybe part
of this regional care cooperative.
My next question is about, well, just on foster carers.
I mean, the cost of foster, the additional costs,
I have to just refer back to the right page now,
which I nearly missed.
It's on, I think, your page 97 or 89, depending on which way you're looking at it.
I mean, what's amazing is the continued use of residential placements due to shortage of foster carers is nearly 7 million extra, not a cost of 7 million.
It's 7 million extra in these years.
And that's a phenomenal cost.
And again, you know, let's go back a little bit on some of the earlier questions, but,
you know, what more could we do to increase the foster care supply within the county?
Because this is an additional seven million on top of the budget that has previously been
agreed, even last February, for these particular services.
It's a phenomenal number.
So that's my second question.
And I have a third question coming up, if that's okay, Chairman, on the high needs block.
But I'll pause for an answer maybe on foster care.
Sure.
Cllr Carl Jackson - 1:38:16
I mean, obviously, you'll be familiar from being part of this process many times, sat
on the other side of the table, that the costs involved with external residential placements
are huge.
I mean, you can look at 1200 pounds a night for external residential for a case where
there's not particularly complex needs.
And it can go higher than that if you start to get complex needs or secure accommodation
required.
So, in terms of sort of mitigating that cost,
recruiting more foster carers, it's a,
I think it's a combination of sort of financial support
and also support with performing that role.
So, we've increased the sort of perks side of things,
for want of a better word.
You know, you have your council tax rebate,
access to leisure centres, parking,
your platinum merling pass, you know,
or help with activities and holidays, that kind of thing.
And also allowances will continue to be reviewed
and looked at for specialist foster carers
who will be taking on children with the most complex needs
and offer their full, the greatest savings
in terms of not using residential care.
There will be higher allowances for them
based on the complexity of the needs.
We also have, on the non -financial side of things,
support, better support networks now,
which are grouping foster carers
where with some others people can then connect
newer foster carers being connected
with more experienced foster carers
to try and support them through that journey.
And we can let them know in advance
that support will be in place,
so that they know they're not just going to be
sort of given a child or young person
and then told good luck.
So I think there's clearly scope there
to increase the foster carer community.
We have a target of 20 for this financial year,
so which we considered ambitious,
which has been beaten as we achieved 26.
So at the moment there's reason to believe
there's scope to keep increasing,
but obviously we will need to keep monitoring as we go.
Thank you, I'm making the assumption
that within the service you've done a segmentation
Cllr Martin Tett - 1:40:19
of the sort of, I would call it the market,
it's a terribly derogative term,
but basically there'll be children
who have very complex needs, who are very difficult
and complex to foster for obvious reasons,
and there'll be children with very basic needs.
And I'm presuming you've looked at,
given the extra cost of 7 million,
whether in fact you can invest,
particularly for those relatively simple needs,
and whether extra incentives there
would actually generate substantial savings
in that 7 million budget.
I mean, you don't need to answer that.
I'm just making that as an assumption.
If I'm not making the right assumption,
then by all means come back.
Can I also then just ask about the high needs block?
And we touched on this in earlier sessions,
and I know it's below the line,
and I know it's technically a corporate cost,
but actually it's your portfolio that's driving it.
So I think it's right to raise it here.
The numbers are eye -watering and growing exponentially.
So they're currently at 25 million
and growing to 212 million.
This sinks this council's budget.
I mean it destroys every other service at sort of runaway cost and it's real cash
I'm saying this because obviously residents watching won't understand this. I know you understand it
It's real cash going out the door. It's money. We're spending real money. We're spending
It's not showing on the management budget you've got here
But it's on our corporate budget effectively
And I wondered if you as cabinet member and maybe the head of service as well could explain what you're doing to actually
demand, quite frankly, from government that they really step in on this.
And they know they've talked about changes and
taking on this budget going forward.
But how much of this budget does it take into account
the accumulated deficit that we've already got?
And what about, and we heard this from the homeschool transport team,
under transport, there is a very substantial element of the homeschool
transport budget which is driven by this particular cohort.
So can you just reassure us that actually the right action is being taken politically and with the civil service
To really make government seized of the need here to get this budget under control and eliminate the deficit
Cumulative deficit and not just this budget going forward
Thank you
Cllr Carl Jackson - 1:42:44
Well, of course, you're right. What's at the moment we have is real money going out of the door on high needs which
which the government sort of allows you to pretend
isn't there for the purposes of your reserves.
It's at the moment, frankly, more of an accounting trick
than a real solution.
Now what the government has said,
and I was in a meeting with the local government minister,
Alistair McGovern, just before Christmas,
is they've said they are going to take on
this deficit centrally from March 2028.
Which is fine, but by the time we get to March 2028,
we're going to have a deficit comfortably in excess of 100 million.
So the question then is, well, what happens to what we've already racked up by that point?
And on that, there isn't an answer.
It's been asked at local government association and county council network events.
I asked it in the meeting and the answer would be, well, we're looking at that, we'll do
something.
But all the talk about the plan has been from March 2028.
Now it might be they convert it to debt.
I don't know what their solution is, but ultimately,
I think while we are in a relatively strong financial position,
there are a lot of councils that will find themselves at risk of toppling it
if they're not given some kind of help.
In terms of mitigating the cost in the meantime,
because we can't just let it sit there and say,
well, the government will take care of it,
because we have no guarantee that the government will take care
of the next two financial years.
We'll see what the SEND reforms say as a start.
I've been told that they will come this month.
We have been told that twice before in different months.
So I'm not sure.
I mean, there's been really nothing more than rumours on that.
We've heard talk about, say, EHCPs being restricted to children who need special schools, although
I suspect that will be too far for the government to go.
There's been talk about local authorities being given powers to build their own special
schools.
In the meantime, we have to try and provide more additional,
more arts, more centre units in schools,
more specialty school places to try and get this under control.
Try and provide that earlier support to help children
and young people perhaps stay in mainstream schooling.
If we can intervene with children early enough and work
with schools to intervene early enough,
it might be the point they don't need an EHCP.
And the EHDP isn't always inevitable.
And so that's, those are some of the crucial things we can do to mitigate.
But I mean the, in terms of the long term future of the deficit,
all we know is that the central government says it will have it from March 28th.
But we don't know what it does to what we've got before then.
So, sorry, thank you, Councillor.
Just to add to the mitigation piece.
Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services - 1:45:33
Locally, we've been proactive, absolutely.
We have our SEND improvement programme, which as Councillor has mentioned,
in relation to working closely with schools and our partners
in terms of what more can be done to avoid the potential
that a request for an assessment from EACP will be required.
There's something around changing the narrative
and that default position and looking at what else
can be offered out within the community,
making use of various opportunities,
particularly with the best family hubs,
ensuring that we've got more support that's available
at a universal offer in the community and working closely.
and that's partly what the programme is.
We have our same improvement board this afternoon,
which is chaired by one of the directors
to ensure that all of the work streams
looking at our early support and inclusion,
neurodevelopmental pathways, et cetera,
is progressing to mitigate against
some of the pressures you've referenced.
Dave, I think you want to come in.
Cllr John Chilver - 1:46:30
Just to add, and probably more for residents watching this
than the members in the room,
David Skinner - Director of Finance & S151 Officer - 1:46:33
then this isn't an issue that is restricted
to Buckinghamshire, this is a national issue,
and I think we just have to make that clear.
This is a national shortage of funding
provided by central government
to match the statutory expectations
that are placed on local authorities.
I think probably it's worth providing some overall context.
So the latest estimates in terms of figures
when the statutory override expires
at the end of March 28,
will be that that will be a national position
of a 14 billion pound deficit.
That is not set out in terms of the government's CSR
in the budget in terms of how that will be funded.
So the challenge that Councillor Jackson's alluding to
in terms of how the government is going to take that off
is something that they're obviously grappling with
at a national level in terms of how that will impact
the overall position.
Probably worthwhile in terms of positioning our deficit
within that overall context.
So the median deficit of CCN Council,
so the County Council's networks
are kind of comparable authorities,
will be somewhere in the region of about 179 million.
And our position will be somewhere in the region
of about 138 million.
So we're below that median average,
but it is still a phenomenal figure
that we are having to manage
and try and manage that risk going forward.
But I think it's just useful to have some of that
national and local context.
Just to say that was very helpful.
Thank you very much.
And I have to say, I'm very disappointed
Cllr Martin Tett - 1:47:59
in the government's latest U -turn on this,
SEND school. We were promised that. We made a big contribution to the lives of some very
challenged children. It was promised, postponed, and then cancelled. And that sort of U -turn
really does no favours to young people in our county.
Thank you. Councillor Dhillon.
Cllr John Chilver - 1:48:19
Cllr Dev Dhillon - 1:48:21
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, cabinet member. I'm really grateful that we are doing some
excellent work with foster care and new children homes. But I'm equally disappointed to see
that we got 47 % of children only living in our local authority
boundary.
Are these the total cohort of the children that in care?
And the one which they live outside the boundary,
do we pay extra money?
Or apart from that, we've been away from their loved ones,
or maybe their families, or whatever the case may be.
Is there any strategy to have more provision within the county?
And that's my only question, part of my question is already been answered, which is asked by Councillor Deh.
Thank you Councillor Dillon.
Cllr Carl Jackson - 1:49:15
So obviously what we're looking to do is rebalance, a change of the balance of our placements for looked after children.
So we want, obviously we don't want any children in unregulated placements if we can avoid it.
We don't want children and young people outside the county if we can avoid it.
And ideally, of course, if children and young people can be in foster care or in residential
care, then that's the ideal situation, both in terms of the outcomes for children and
the outcomes for our finances.
It's a question of capacity.
We would rather children and young people be looked after in Buckinghamshire closer
to their communities, closer to their school, their friends.
It's not always possible, just in terms of sheer numbers,
to have every child placed within Buckinghamshire.
Sometimes if there is a specialist needs,
there might not be the capability within Buckinghamshire
to find a suitable placement.
In terms of the strategy, well, it's
increasing our in -house residential provision.
It's opening these extra children's homes.
Because obviously, we're not opening
in -house children's homes in other counties.
They're all in Buckinghamshire,
so the more spaces we have in -house,
then the more children young people we can look after
closer to home, so that's really the core of the plan.
As well, of course, increasing our foster care provision,
because our foster care is based in Buckinghamshire,
so the more foster carers we can find
and the more children young people can look after
there where possible will help us have more children
looked after in county as well.
I don't know if there's anything officers want to add.
Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services - 1:50:50
Thank you, Councillor, just to make reference to the strategy, my home, my future, if you haven't seen that, talks more about what the Councillor referred to.
Just in terms of population as well, some of those children in county, again, additional complexities, some children would not necessarily be safe in county.
So we have to have that nuance too, in relation to that population.
And as the Councillor has mentioned, there are other elements to this.
We're bringing them back in.
It was mentioned around the budget for foster carers,
training our specialist foster carers to manage children with more complex needs is another opportunity or solution
that we've got to bring some of those children back in county as well and out of those external residential placements.
So yeah, that's where we are at the moment. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Councillor Pole, I think you're next.
Cllr John Chilver - 1:51:44
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Chris Poll - 1:51:46
Councillor and Mrs. Morgan has asked most of the questions
that I had, but I have got too specific.
In the news this week was about local authorities
challenging education, health and care plans
through the courts and that they were losing,
I think I heard 99 % of cases, so I wonder if you could give us the figures if we are challenging
HCP awards and at what rate we are losing and
also on your page 99 of the budget pack our 107 the
provision for special educational need goes from six and three -quarter million
to 16 and a half and then drops down by approximately 2 million each year
subsequent. Can you just please explain that to me?
I might look to officers on the challenging point. Are we challenging the HCPs?
Cllr Carl Jackson - 1:52:45
I mean is this a tribunal question? Is that what you're talking about?
Yeah so it's it's not so much we're challenging HCPs it's more we made a
decision in relation to the HCP and then the the parents or carers of the child
challenging is that is that the context right but the item in the news said the
Cllr Chris Poll - 1:53:03
99 % of cases the council were losing and that's that must be a nationwide figure
Cllr Carl Jackson - 1:53:13
okay I will look to officers on our success rate I think on tribunals we can
Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive - 1:53:19
get you the exact figure I I suspect it will be it will be very high I'm not
sure it's quite that high but it does tend to be quite high that tribunals
find in favour of families, but we can get you the exact figure for Buckinghamshire.
Cllr John Chilver - 1:53:36
And the other question is the SEND capital requirement, Sarah, I don't know if you found that on page 99.
Cllr Carl Jackson - 1:53:41
Is it the provision for special education will need that on 99?
Cllr Chris Poll - 1:53:50
Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive - 1:53:53
Yes, so this is the capital budget that we're allocated by DFE, so this is us basically
using that funding to its full extent.
So it's on that series of projects around ARPs, so additional resource provision at
mainstream schools and expansion of places at special schools, but this shows us using
all the funding that we're being allocated.
So this is the 8 million that's been talked about instead of the additional school?
Cllr Chris Poll - 1:54:20
Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive - 1:54:22
No, so the 8 million is, we haven't got that yet, so that isn't incorporated in these figures,
but every year the DFE gives us an amount of capital funding both for mainstream schools
and special school provision, so the 8 million would be on top of this as and when we get
But this at the moment shows our formula allocation that we that we are allocated as a sort standard
Thank you very much
Thank You councillor Crabtree
Cllr John Chilver - 1:54:49
Thank you. Um, several of my questions have already been answered by
The committee so that's fantastic
Cllr Anna Crabtree - 1:54:57
I have been surprised there that we haven't heard any mention of kinship carers and I just wondered within the fostering strategy
what benefits are being budgeted for kinship carers and
And obviously we should be aware that they're often a vital part of the service and can be least disruptive for children.
So I wondered how they've been factored in. Thank you.
Cllr Carl Jackson - 1:55:22
Is that, yeah, if I look to Elspeth maybe on that one, is that yours or is that more an error?
Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services - 1:55:30
So thank you, Councillor, for that.
that somebody would step up within the family.
Certainly in terms of the work that we're doing at the moment
around the reforms and readiness for those reforms
is ensuring that family members are identified early
and sooner in our engagements with them
so that in the event of crisis,
we can avoid children going into local authority care
and indeed remain with a member of their family.
So there is a kinship offer which can be found online
and obviously that's something that we want to also
continue to focus on and encourage as many family members with the support that we can
offer.
And there is potentially some additional provision that we can look to provide in order to assist
them in providing care for a relative or a child that is known to them.
I think it's a specific requirement to the children's wellbeing in schools as well
to provide more support on kinship care.
Cllr Carl Jackson - 1:56:24
So that also provides some requirements and guidance for what we need to be looking to
Thank you very much.
Councillor Huxley.
Cllr John Chilver - 1:56:36
Thank you Chairman.
Cllr Andy Huxley - 1:56:40
Good afternoon.
My questions or questions come regarding asylum seeking children.
In the portfolio key data in page 92, we talk about 79 unaccompanied asylum seeking children,
which was, well, 1 % increase.
But can I ask what the total mandated figure is, and do any of these come with SEND?
But my sort of main concern goes to the next bullet point, which is 98 former unaccompanied
asylum seeking children, now over 18.
In a recent meeting I attended, it showed, I think we talked about adults in the meeting,
that our mandated figure for adults was something like 130 from memory, of which we had 70.
So, I'm just wondering where this 98, I presume now we're calling them children over 18,
they have become adults, and as a result of that, where are they in the greater scheme of things?
Thank you.
I'm not sure about a mandated number.
The officers might be able to advise on that.
Cllr Carl Jackson - 1:58:16
I mean, I think it's we've modelled on a certain percentage of growth, I think, haven't we?
And then obviously, you can extrapolate from that what likely extra costs we're going to
have and what extra grant we're going to have.
In terms of SEND, I mean, obviously, it's going to depend on it.
It's going to vary on a case -by -case basis.
But in many cases, there will be experience of trauma there,
which the unaccompanied or time -seeking child or children
will need support.
In terms of the interaction with sort of adults,
I might look to Sarah or Errol.
Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive - 1:58:58
So, Councillor Jackson referred before to the 0 .1 %
of the child population.
So that is the sort of maximum that we could be mandated to take, and that's about 127.
That's the sort of upper limit. And in addition to that, as Errol said previously, if children
arrive spontaneously and come into Buckinghamshire and say, I'm here, and refer themselves to us,
that will be on top of that 127. So that is about as high as we would go in terms of the
under 18 population, I think there's a maximum of 10 a month,
something like that in terms of the flow.
But so at the moment we're within that,
but we are budgeting up to that limit.
As they turn 18, we are still under an obligation
in children's to provide them with services
until they're 26.
So as with other children, care leavers for example,
we have an ongoing responsibility around them.
So that extends until their asylum application is resolved.
So a lot of the work after they're 18 is trying to encourage the home office to get those
asylum applications resolved so that those children either have a permanent residency
and they can move on with their lives or they return to other countries.
So there is still a lot of work with them from Children's Services after they turn 18.
Thanks.
Cllr John Chilver - 2:00:31
Now before we move on to second questions,
we have an elected member in attendance who's indicated that he wishes to ask a question.
So I'd like to invite Councillor Stutchbury to come to the table, introduce himself and ask his question, please.
Yeah, Councillor Robinson actually represents Buckingham.
Firstly, thank you for the opportunity to ask a question and you may or may not know
the answer and if you don't, we'll talk of it.
I was very grateful in our earlier question around high -needs block that we've had a couple
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:01:10
of times where I've questioned the high -needs block and the decision to draw back from schools
on two occasions and what came out of that was the right decision was taken not to take
the high -needs block funding from the schools which was 0 .6 % of their funding.
But in my own local school, it worked out at 1 .6 % of their funding which was 112 ,000
pounds out of their budget.
So the schools were very grateful when the decision was taken not to move forward with
that process.
Now, when you look at your budgets, you still state on page 93, you're showing an income
of 2 .3 million.
And it could be another income, but you presumably, I'm advised by the heads that that decision
is not going forward, but you're counting a 2 .3 million income in the higher needs block.
Now, if I've got the wrong high needs block and the wrong figure, I could be very relieved
and be corrected and not worry.
But these things are very important,
and we need to reassure them,
because these budgets are going out,
that after the decision was taken,
are presumed by your good self and your team,
not to pursue that,
that it's now appeared as a budget figure.
I just want to make sure that's not the same budget figure,
because when this goes to the preset,
and these are agreed, it becomes part of the overall budget.
I just need to clarify that this isn't the same figure and it's not been put back in and going to the budget and
Then agreed which you and I would then be very difficult for us to discuss it because it had been agreed
At the precept and that would be difficult. I hope that's okay to ask that question and you'll be able to answer that
Yes, thank you
I think I think else was is gonna be able to provide an answer on the source of income
Cllr Carl Jackson - 2:03:01
I can assure you we're not pulling a fast one. I would just clarify on
The high needs block.
So there was never a proposal to take money sort of out of the schools,
but it was a transfer from the schools to the high needs block.
So what it would have been is a 0 .5 % transfer where money would have been made
available to target based on demand for sort of support with special educational needs.
Now, of course, you are right that there were then varying impacts financially on
different schools, but there was never going to be taken off schools.
That's in the budget as a whole.
Yeah, as we rightly did, we consulted with the schools forum on this.
The proposal, I think, was understood in terms of its aims, but proved undeniably unpopular.
And I think while you can go over the schools forum's head and apply to the Secretary of
State for permission to do the transfer anyway regardless, and some local authorities have
done that, I think we were right to say, you know what, it's 75 % opposition.
We've got to work with the schools not against them so we're not going to do it.
In terms of the 2 .3 million else but I think this time I'm correctly calling on you to
provide the answer on that one.
Thank you.
Yes and so in terms of the question, yeah that is exactly right.
Elspeth O'Neill - Head of Finance - 2:04:17
There is no block transfer assumed in the budget and all I was going to say on the income
is to apologise and say I will have to take it away just to give you an exact answer to
that.
I don't want to come in and give you the wrong information so if I can come back to you I'll
you know what that income is. I thank you for that and just one thing I noticed
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:04:36
that rightfully we're putting extra three million pounds into SEND which you
know I've always been very interested in some I'm personally interested in. With
that I didn't and I'm no accountant on the agricultural stockman. I didn't
Didn't notice where the budget that three million pound was collated in the in in it
Or is that going to go on the on the discretionary fund?
Which is the money which is alluded to earlier which is going to be?
sorted out in not
eventually we believe in
2028
We're not gonna designate
override or is that money which was taken from reserve and we budgeted it from reserves in this?
I think it's key to know that that is what you've done. That's quite a big decision and an important
decision and but if we've just put three million pounds in the budget but then we're putting it
on the it's quite a different decision still the right decision but it's just where the money in
my opinion it's still the right decision but it's just where the money is collated and if if one's
done and it's wrong, happy to be corrected. Thank you.
I think Elspeth was nodding at me. Yeah, so in relation to the 3 million, that
Elspeth O'Neill - Head of Finance - 2:05:56
is council money that is being spent from the council's general fund and the council
is responsible for staffing that supports the work around those HCPs and this is therefore
not being added to the DSD deficit on the high needs block.
Thank you very much and I look forward to this settling out of that 2 .3 million pound
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:06:16
I ain't got a clue where it's coming from and I hope that you professional people do know where it's coming from because we need to know. Thank you.
Thank you very much indeed, Councillor Stachary.
Cllr John Chilver - 2:06:28
Councillor Mehta.
Thank you, Chairman. I'm Councillor Nadeema Hutter from Aylesbury West.
Cllr Nidhi Mehta - 2:06:34
My questions, few of them are again for the high need block money.
So the first question is, how is the high needs block money
in practise, including what measures have been taken to reduce the cost.
The next question is, who can apply for support?
What is the criteria used to determine whether a child is entitled and how consistency is
ensured across the cases?
Okay.
Cllr Carl Jackson - 2:07:16
So these are cost allocated to support children with special
educational needs.
So in terms of eligibility, I mean,
some of that funding will come in response to issuing an EHCP
or identification of other special educational needs shorter
than the HCP because not just an identification of very low level
needs doesn't mean you're going to need an EHCP.
So funding is kind of provided to schools to support with that once you have established a need.
Obviously, this is an impact
you want to think about of the EHCP recovery plan
because as we
as we issue more EHCPs quick more quickly
there will be more high -needs block funding that will need to go out with it. In terms of how it's
allocated in practise the mechanics I might
looks at the offices on that.
In terms of the measures to reduce the cost,
so a lot of this is about early intervention.
After the discussion we had about the high needs block
transfer, which we're not going ahead with,
which the Council starts research rate,
we had a conversation in schools forum
about working with schools to intervene a lot earlier
with children with special educational needs.
So it might be just the HCP is not needed at all,
or just the child is not, it just gets support much earlier,
which is obviously always going to be a good thing.
There's also the programme of providing more send units,
more apps, more specialist school places
to provide support here.
On the mechanics of how it's provided in practise
and any other details you want to add,
I will look to Sarah.
Yeah, thank you.
Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive - 2:08:55
So the majority of the funding is allocated,
as the Councillor has said, specifically around the needs
that are set out in EHCP.
So as an assessment comes forward, as you'll know,
the educational psychologist will do a review and set
out what they think the child needs, and then the cost
of that is what is delivered through the EHCP
through the high needs block.
So we have, in terms of consistency,
we have internal panels that review the asks
as they come forward.
So there is a lot of cheque and challenge around that.
Professionals have the opportunity to come along,
present their case, and we have a rigorous process to try
and drive that consistency.
And it's something that we are constantly challenging
ourselves on.
We recently had an external sort of audit of that, just to have
a look and say, are our thresholds appropriate?
Are we allocating consistently?
So there's a lot of work around that.
There is a small amount of money within the high needs block.
I think it's around 2 million.
That is what we call exceptional support funding.
And that is used for children who might be in the pipeline.
The school might say, you know, we need something urgently now.
We can't wait for the EHCP.
So there is a small amount of money that is used along those lines.
So that is outside of an EHCP.
And that there is an application process for that.
Schools put forward their case and it's allocated on a needs basis.
But that is a small proportion of the money.
So hopefully that sort of sets out how we're working in terms
of allocating funding to the EHCPs.
And obviously that's why once we start accelerating through the backlog,
sort of schools will be able to access more of the high needs block funding
because that is the key to unlocking the grant.
So hopefully that sets out the mechanics of how it works,
but I'm happy to take any more questions.
Yeah, thank you.
Thank you very much.
Cllr John Chilver - 2:11:05
I think we can move on to a round of second questions now.
So, Councillor Wilson.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 2:11:14
Firstly, last year the Budget scrutiny made a recommendation
around the question that Councillor Tett asked,
which was around what's the potential
for our investor -save programmes.
I understand that both in terms of fostering
and children's homes, that perhaps we need to understand
the market landscape on that.
But I do think as a recommendation,
both this committee and perhaps
Children Education Select Committee
do require some kind of review perhaps ahead of next year's budget process
where nine months down the track we will perhaps have a bit of a better
perspective so I wonder whether that can be included as a recommendation I
appreciate not there's no point doing the next three months but perhaps in the
next nine months there might well be sense in doing that as to what is the
potential against what we've learned over nine months both from the market
and our own experience.
My question is a cross portfolio question,
and that is in relation to the capital programme
that is on either page 107 or page 99.
And so I note on the capital programme we have
in total across the four year period,
66 million in primary school places,
and the 40, 50 million pounds in for special education needs,
for example, not in substantial amounts of money.
If I think about local context, my local context,
so I represent Flacke or Heath in the Woburns,
and we would consider ourselves part
of a wider catchment area.
So I'm aware, for example, in primary school places
with falling roll numbers that there are primary school
enclosures in Marlow and Little Marlow.
Equally, we have some capacity in our local primary school.
And we have an excellent specialist educational needs
school, Westfield.
And we also have a relatively new ARP in Juniper Hill.
So what work is being done with both our estates team, who
may or may not be the owner of the land,
or at least the, you know, may have be on leases to academies.
And in relation to how we manage the use of those facilities
that we already have, because, you know,
having gone around all the primary schools before the
summer vacation, certainly Westfield are looking
for satellite sites.
So, you know, where we've got potential vacancies in sites.
So, where are we looking to maximise usage or the provision of satellite sites where we've got a very successful school?
And also from a planning point of view, so I'm just extending this now into planning as well,
you know, we have a major application coming forward that potentially provides for a single form entry school,
which I understand is not ideal
from an admissions point of view,
as a primary school, but we have capacity in the area,
and can we sensibly look at, or are you looking at,
given the amount of capital here,
that we're actually getting what we need,
not what is either Department for Education
are telling us what we need,
or an out -of -date local plan is telling us what we need,
but actually in a dynamic market environment
with falling roles at this level,
that we're actually spending the money wisely
and not because we've got it
and we've been told to spend it in a certain way.
So we have land, we have facilities that are being vacated,
we have potential to create satellite specialist schools,
and we have potentially funding being allocated to schools we don't need.
So how are you managing that in the budget process on a cross portfolio basis? Thank you.
Cllr Carl Jackson - 2:15:45
I think if I start with the planning side, I mean there's certainly, there's conversations with the planning team around our likely new allocation of sites
and where those are going to fall to obviously plan.
There's been responses to significant developments
in, say, Aylesbury, because we have the new schools
in Kingsborough, there was a new school,
Salton Park in your ward, I think,
Gillie as well, I think you said 1 ,800 houses.
Yeah, it's a, Salton Place is a very large housing estate
Cllr Jilly Jordan - 2:16:18
and being built at the moment in the north of the county,
bordering Milton Keynes and Bletchley.
And it's proposing, well it will hopefully open
a new primary school there in 2029,
and it will be a three -form entry.
But I think a lot of the work so far has been done
on housing targets of 45 ,000,
and now we're having to shift to a new reality
Cllr Carl Jackson - 2:16:40
of more like 95 ,000.
In terms of the capital programme for schools,
it's actually a 10 -year programme,
and so it's a question really of what falls within the MTFP,
and we're finding that in case of quite a lot of primary schools
because of declining birth rates, and particularly somewhere like Marlowe,
where you've got two schools looking to close, which creates no capacity issues.
We're finding that we're sort of pushing back primary
and early year settings sort of beyond the MTFP period.
Obviously, there's a, it's not just about mainstream places,
there's also focused on same places,
which is possibly outside the scope of your question.
I mean there we're looking at sort of it's gonna be about four hundred and
four hundred twenty, four hundred twenty -five and new places between now and 2030. Obviously we've got the gap
there now with the special school is cancelled that creates an issue which
we're gonna have to solve. I think in terms of the estates team that is
where I'm gonna have to look to officers because that's not a conversation I've
had massive detail on at the moment.
Yeah, I'll add to that, Kelsey, that our estate team
Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services - 2:17:53
work very closely with our school's commissioning team
and the capital investment team, looking
at planning and housing growth, as we know,
and the targets there, migration figures, et cetera.
Modelling what we've seen over the last few months.
So there is a programme of work, obviously,
where they work closely in terms of hoping
to predict what will be required in relation
to the needs of Buckinghamshire and Buckinghamshire children
in view of those housing targets
and migration figures, et cetera.
So that's all I want to say.
Just to add to that, so we have got,
Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive - 2:18:29
at an officer level, we have got the sufficiency board
where we are working on developing a sufficiency strategy
that looks across the whole of the education landscape.
So mainstream school places, special school places,
nursery places in response to the two year old offer.
So that includes colleagues from the sort of
corporate landlord side, it includes planners,
it includes our school commissioning.
So there is a cross section of people there
who are looking on a, sort of looking both
at the projections and looking at site by site,
what are the opportunities.
So for example, if we know that there's going to be
a school closure, what are the opportunities for that site?
Would it work for special needs provision?
Would it work for early years provision?
Would it fill a gap?
So that sort of group is our driving force.
Dave, I think you wanted to go in.
Cllr John Chilver - 2:19:25
Just to add in terms of kind of the coordination,
David Skinner - Director of Finance & S151 Officer - 2:19:27
then obviously there's a complexity that you alluded to
in terms of for Academy sites,
where we're not necessarily the landowner anymore.
So there's that complexity that's taken on board,
but also then you'll be aware through
capital investment strategy that gets approved
by council every year,
that before things come to cabinet
and you see changes to the capital programme coming through
to cabinet on a quarterly basis,
and you'll see there some additions and movements
and releases of money in terms of for the school programme
that that's scrutinised on a cross portfolio basis
by CCIB, so the Corporate Capital Investment Board,
which is made up of members of the cabinet
who sit there and scrutinise, consider, challenge
those proposals before they get recommended
on to cabinet to then make the decisions as well.
Thank you, and I'd just like to come back, Chairman,
if I may.
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 2:20:16
It's not just a future local plan,
which is a box of frogs in its own right.
The legacy local plans also, which are now way out of date,
in terms of what we thought we might need 10 years ago,
but if I speak to a planning officer, they'll say,
But that's what's in the policy.
And we don't need it.
So I'd like to understand that there is an intervention
up front, because these are millions of pounds that
could be locked into a Section 106 agreement for something
we don't need.
So it would be much more sensible to have
a conversation of what we do need than what we don't need.
So I'd ask you to look at the existing plans as well as the.
But I'm reassured by the discussion around the sufficiency board.
And I think that there is some joined up thinking. Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor O 'Dahle.
Cllr John Chilver - 2:21:15
Thank you.
Cllr Christine Adali - 2:21:18
Again, two questions. One is around agency staff.
Dave Skinner informed us that about half of the agency staff falls within your portfolio.
About 8 million, we were told.
What areas of roles or positions within your portfolio are most prone to agency staff,
so to recruitment pressures and difficulties?
And if you've got any strategies to address the shortage of full -time staff going forward.
And then I've got a second one on early assessment prevention.
question.
Cllr Carl Jackson - 2:22:02
Thank you, Councillor.
You're absolutely right.
Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services - 2:22:06
We've known for several years, notwithstanding the education psychologist which we touched
on earlier as a major issue, but there's also a crisis in qualified social workers, particularly
those engaged in child protection and safeguarding investigations and so on.
So that national shortage was something that we were looking to be proactively involved in locally,
where we did a recruitment campaign last year that we began,
which was very much targeting social workers across the county and across the country, in fact.
So there was a media campaign, and I'm pleased to say, I think one of the things that we've successfully achieved
is reducing our numbers, which was in the region.
I don't have them exactly here.
They were reduced from 100 this time last year, is that correct?
We went from, so we're now having 76 agency qualified social workers
from over 100 last year.
So that recruitment campaign has been pretty successful in relation to that.
It's something that we continually review.
We are in a good position at the moment.
Inevitably, we'll always need agency social workers to cover that off.
but will we continue to monitor via our workforce boards
and ensuring that we attract qualified social workers
so that we can offer that consistency
to children on the caseloads.
I just add, if I may, there are conversations
with agency workers, aren't there,
Cllr Carl Jackson - 2:23:36
about the advantages of perhaps sort of coming on board
full -time, you know, your annual leave and your pensions.
I think the point's worth adding as well
that we don't just think about the finance
and also think about outcomes for children and young people.
The corporate parenting strategy has a building meaningful
relationships priority in it.
And part of that is about consistency of the person
who is caring for them.
It is not a fantastic situation.
It doesn't add to the sense of instability
a child or a person in care will feel
if they have a different social worker every week.
So we are thinking it very much from that angle as well.
I'm very glad that you addressed that angle,
because having been a school government for years,
Cllr Christine Adali - 2:24:17
consistency in staff and interactions for children
is paramount.
And that was my main concern around agency,
because you are dealing with children.
So consistency and having the same person to deal with
is just essential and tops any financial considerations.
In a similar vein,
What support do you provide for preschools and schools
to identify children's needs as early as possible
because those needs are a barrier to learning,
a barrier to them achieving their potential
and getting to their full enjoyment of school as well
because with that, I mean, identifying needs like dyslexia,
which are relatively easy supports in school,
dyspraxia, ADHD, where the schools,
if it's identified early, can put preventions
and mitigations in place for that child to enjoy learning.
So their attendance will improve,
their outcomes will improve, their enjoyment of school.
Generally, they will achieve a much better...
they have much better prospects in life
because they enjoy school, they enjoy learning,
they will have better outcomes, which
will impact their whole life.
So the earlier you address that, the less knock -on costs,
if you want to talk that way, because sadly, education
is still seen as a cost and not an investment.
The earlier you address that, the less knock -on costs
you have.
And also, it will affect your jobs market, et cetera,
the skilled workers you'll have.
So what mitigations or plans do you have to address this as early as possible and to support schools and preschools in their work?
Because they're quite good at helping children once it's identified, but they're not always qualified to identify at the preschool stage, for example.
Where if it's identified there, you're home dry.
Cllr Carl Jackson - 2:26:34
I mean you've hit on a massively key theme and from our perspective but also I know the
government's taking a very strong interest in this and its reforms as well which is early
intervention and this can take place in schools but also through other interactions with the
council too like when we open our first Best Start hub we've got family hubs already 16
around the county, which this is, these are the sort of locations where you can get early
intervention with families to spot these issues.
So I mean this is an area where all the work's being done.
In terms of sort of how we practise these issues identified with schools and that need
for support, I will leave to Errol.
Yeah, thank you, Councillor.
So yes, our early years colleagues and early health practitioners work very closely with
Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services - 2:27:19
schools in relation to that.
You're absolutely right, the earlier we identify these issues and the Councillor referenced
family centres that we have currently moving towards the Best Start in Life programme, which
is very much around home learning environments and ensuring that via outreach, but also provision
within family hubs, that there is the work that effectively works with children, parents
with young children, getting them engaged in learning, in reading, and all the things
that help their social development.
So that work is continuing on and we will absolutely be focused on ensuring that we're
putting a lot of effort because this process of the government forms currently is very
much around resetting that balance.
The more we can do earlier.
So things like in our family centres we have speech and language professionals which again
working closely with speech and language can pick up some of those really early signs which
if untreated if you like or dealt with later on can result in more critical issues in terms
of school absences etc. So that work is going on and will continue on as part of our reforms
and the work around our readiness for those reforms.
Cllr Christine Adali - 2:28:35
Thank you very much and just an idea on cross portfolio working. Being a foreign language
mum myself, nursery rhymes in libraries is a great resource to get children
introduced to English and to teach mums the nursery rhymes because I know them
in German I didn't know them in English and the kids absolutely love it so
that's a very low cost resource there. Thank you. Great, thank you.
Cllr John Chilver - 2:29:03
Cllr Susan Morgan - 2:29:06
Class on Morgan. Thank you. Kind of follows on quite nicely really I just wanted to
talk about early intervention.
I also am a mom of a special needs child,
and I like to talk about the hamster wheel
that we go on as parents.
And I see it's all too familiar where
I don't think early intervention has been a priority for us.
And I say that because when I look
at the financials for early intervention,
I'm just not sure that we've given the right tools
to schools to be able to deal with early intervention up to this point now.
You know, we're all waiting with bated breath to see what this white paper in SEND is going
to look like and I hope, you know, they keep delaying it and delaying it.
I really hope that that's going to come out and have some wonderful,
miraculous things in it in the next month.
I somehow doubt it.
But I don't think the responsibility is purely on the government.
I think some of the decisions that we've made is because we've constantly been firefighting.
I think the other issue we've got is over -reliance on partners.
Now, the committee called CAMS in, the Children's and Adolescent Mental Health Service, in.
We had a private briefing with them.
To get an autism diagnosis currently through there is three years.
So we got three years for an autism diagnosis.
We've got one year wait for an EHCP, or over a year.
That's four years of a child's life.
Now, you used to be able to access
the Higher Needs Block Fund, or schools' courage,
to provide alternative education,
because if they're not able to financially meet these needs in schools,
then they need to look elsewhere.
As a committee, we're going to do a rapid review into educational outcomes
force -end children in particular.
And there's also the, my son had a private tutor
while he was not in school for seven months,
but that private tutor did not cover his core subjects.
And I really do have huge concerns
about the educational outcomes.
But in terms of this budget, I just think,
have we done a piece of work that looks at
early intervention and the costs of investing in
that early intervention?
Because we don't need as many EHCPs.
And I genuinely feel like parents are applying because they're desperate,
not because their child needs them.
It's because they can't get the help and support without an educational healthcare plan.
And so if we can reduce the number of educational healthcare plans that have been applied for in the first place,
I just wonder if we've done a piece of work to look at how much it would cost to invest
versus how much we might save in educational healthcare plans.
Thank you, Councillor Morgan.
I appreciate the tip -off about the Select Committee Annual Review as well, which I look
Cllr Carl Jackson - 2:31:58
forward to seeing.
Obviously, on the wait for the EHCPs, we've got a plan which is going to bring that backlog
down and see.
EHCP is issued a lot more quickly at the moment.
The percentage of EHCPs issued within the statutory 20 -week timeline is well short of
where it needs to be, but the recovery plan will change that round.
The same reforms, as you say, remain sort of big unknown.
I'm just not sure how bold they're going to be
and how effective.
There's been a couple of rumours about what they might include,
but nothing to really hang your hat on at this point.
In terms of context about interaction with CAMs,
I'll probably have to leave the officers
who have slightly more longer experience of this than I do.
And the same on whether we've done work on the costs of,
almost investor save in early interventions.
But I think what I can reassure you on
is that there is an absolute understanding of the need to intervene earlier.
The discussion with schools forum after it was agreed not to go ahead with the high needs
block, the school block transfer to high needs block was, okay, let's help you spot issues
earlier and deal earlier then because as you say, it's not necessarily the case that every
child who has special educational needs is on an inevitable journey to an EHCP.
You can intervene earlier, might not be necessary, or it might be a sort of, you know, lower
intervention EHCP in the end with resulting impacts on cost.
I will defer to the officers on the points I've raised where they will know more than I do.
Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services - 2:33:27
Thank you, Councillor Morgan. Just on the point, I think there's an opportunity now, certainly with the Families First programme, where we're looking to redirect some of that funding.
Particularly in terms of the parents that you describe or carers that are waiting. I think the strategy of waiting well. Ultimately, what is it that we can do in the meantime?
We are exploring the opportunity along with those strategies and Best Start for providing services in via our family hubs that will come online where we can provide some peer support, parent support within those family hubs on a regional basis within the community.
One of those models, which is currently in operation,
so parents, carers of children with SCND actually attend
drop -in where they can receive some special advice
from special teachers and others, but also other parents
and carers who have experienced similar concerns in terms
of that waiting period.
And it's really important that we, that it might be something
that we can scale up and certainly something we're
looking into as we move forward.
And as part of the programme that I referenced earlier,
at the SEND Improvement Programme.
We are working with our CAMS colleagues,
looking at part of that neurodevelopmental pathway
and conversations around a screening tool,
for want of a better word, in relation to as to whether
those children that are waiting still require
what was identified some months ago,
in some cases a couple of years ago.
So that's something that we're exploring at the moment.
I'll be happy to talk to you more on that offline.
The meeting with CAMS is really interesting.
I just wanted to add some context in there,
Cllr Susan Morgan - 2:35:03
because I think what they're doing is phenomenal.
They've got an initial kind of triage process
where the children go in, and they do an initial screening.
But I think the problems become, it
used to be that children under the age of 11
were diagnosed through a paediatrician.
CAMS are now taking children from the age of five,
and I think that's what's caused the backlog in that service.
I think what's really good is CAMS really
were willing to engage with the committee.
They were looking for us for recommendations
about how they could speed up that waiting time process.
So I really think that there's some valuable working together
with CAMS in there to try and speed up that process
and for us to maybe work together and have a look at that.
So just to add on that, Councillor,
so I actually chair the Early Support
and Inclusion Workstream as part of that improvement programme.
Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services - 2:35:51
We have a CAMS representation on there
and we've got a separate workstream
that looks at exactly what you've just described.
So, I'll be happy to keep you informed
in terms of that progress.
Thank you.
Councillor Teit?
Yes, thank you.
Cllr John Chilver - 2:36:06
I think this has been a really good discussion, actually.
Cllr Martin Tett - 2:36:08
I just wanted to tail end a little bit on some of the
comments you just made there, and it hearkens back
to the discussion we had also on the health and
wellbeing portfolio about the corporation and joint
funding of things from partners.
So, for example, in the MASH, you know, obviously
we have, sorry, multi -agency, safe cutting hub.
We have partnerships with police and health and so on.
There are other aspects of the entire service where, again,
health service camps and so on are very important.
Given the pressure on the police budgets and also given
the pressures on the health budget,
either reorganisation or re -scoping of the integrated
care system, which is the name given to the health service
locally, they're under intense pressure to cut their budgets.
They're told it has to be headcount,
but the reality is it won't just be headcount.
So are we confident that the joint budgeting
and the resourcing we get from both police and health
will be maintained through this budget period?
And we've made allowance for that.
I have a second question if we have time as well, please.
Cllr Carl Jackson - 2:37:25
So I'm joined funding and resourcing.
Cllr Martin Tett - 2:37:29
So I think we're all very aware of the challenges
Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive - 2:37:31
that our partners are experiencing.
And I wouldn't say that we're confident that what's
in place at the moment will necessarily be sustained
going forward.
Obviously, the health colleagues in particular
are in the midst of their changes,
and we are working with them to understand
the implications of some of the things
that they're going through.
I think probably less so in terms of the police.
I think the relationship with health
is probably on the top of our concerns
in terms of partnerships.
So that goes across the board.
It goes to the discussion around CAMs
and the CAMs contracts.
It goes through to joint posts in teams like the MASH.
It feeds through into our reforms.
So as part of the Families First programme,
we've got to look at multi -agency child protection
teams, which the model is that each partner has a member
staff in those multi -agency teams.
That is quite a long jump from where we are at the moment
in terms of partners' ability to staff some
of those joint arrangements.
So I would say that that's probably quite high up
on our risk register, but something that we are in regular dialogue around.
I would just add as well, so in terms of resourcing, if you look at the Children's Wellbeing in
Cllr Carl Jackson - 2:38:52
Schools Bill, that puts a lot of extra requirements, a lot of emphasis on multi -agency cooperation.
So that is, the government is expecting us to sort of deepen and intensify that.
It doesn't involve us reinventing the wheel in terms of the concept, but it's certainly
something we want to do more of.
It does include some new projects which, I mean, for me have got the odd red flag on
them or not.
There's a single unique identifier they now want us to use.
So this is basically have the same kind of code for every case for young people that's
used by all these different agencies.
Now that for me has got those four fatal words, public sector IT project on it, which I think
could cost a significant amount of money and take up quite a lot of time.
We need the details on what is expected to achieve but that it's another demand or resources
Cllr Martin Tett - 2:39:41
If it's some public sector IT project we can guarantee it's going to come in on time on budget and to specification. So that's good
I'm just on that issue of the risk. I'm
Sir Ashmeed says it's one of the top risks. I may have missed it
I'm just looking at page either 105 or page 97 on the portfolio
Can you just show me where we put that down as one of the key challenges and risks?
Because obviously, you know, the partnership cooperation, resource funding, etc., you've
just said it's a very high risk.
I can't see it there.
I may just have skipped over it quickly.
Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive - 2:40:14
High risk in terms of our relationships with partners, not necessarily the highest risks
in the portfolio, but will be my opt -out on that.
Short answer is you won't find it in there, but it might be a helpful addition.
Thank you, Councillor Ted.
Thank you.
Cllr Carl Jackson - 2:40:23
That was a very good answer, Mr. Jackson.
Very good answer.
Cllr Martin Tett - 2:40:27
But it does feel like it's one of those things that really ought to be in here, because it
is a high risk.
I'm just very conscious of time.
Can I just, again, sort of fairly overarching question.
Someone who's sat through these now for the best part, well, over 20 years now, every
year Children's Services comes in, promises they've done some great modelling, promises
they've got the budget right now.
They've had enormous increases year on year on year on year on year.
And every year it overspends.
This year, you're here.
I'm sure there's some great modelling.
What assurance can you give us?
I wouldn't ask for a guarantee, because that's not going to get that.
But what assurance can you give us that the modelling that's gone into this
will mean that we're not sitting here next year
with another significant increase over and above the already very large budget?
And the consequence of that, as I said at the very beginning, is that puts real pressure on the other basic services
that every resident looks to this council to provide. I'm not saying this isn't important, just be really clear,
but it's the pressure it puts on everybody else when this budget seems to think it's okay to keep overspending.
Cllr Carl Jackson - 2:41:43
Thank you. I'm certainly glad you didn't ask for a guarantee. I think you can offer a guarantee by all means.
It's a generous offer. I'll come back to you in writing.
I think what's important for me is that the two big areas
where we're looking to make savings,
so looking at the in -house children's homes
and the foster caring, I think on foster caring,
what's important for me, because this was one
of the first questions I asked when I started
to see figures looking ahead for the year,
was these are some quite big numbers.
Are they definitely achievable?
And what's in it, because obviously they're looking
at the millions of pounds being saved, thinking how many hundreds
of foster carers are we having to find for this?
But actually, when of course, when you look at the cost
to external residential, you don't need to find
that many extra foster carers.
What's important for me is that we're setting a target
which we've already achieved before, and in fact,
overachieved this year in terms of recruiting foster carers.
I think the provision of more in -house residential care
is on a realistic timetable.
Eight of the 10 properties are already in our possession.
The reason, of course, I can give you assurances,
but not to guarantee, is that there are factors in there
which are outside our control.
So for example, if the Ofsted registration time has slipped as indicated,
then that is something that I think poorly poses one of the
one of the risks to that being delivered.
Errol is waving at me either to stop or to add.
No, thank you, Councillor.
Sorry, Councillor Tepp, you know, and it's six years on from Covid now,
Errol Albert - Corporate Director for Children's Services - 2:43:04
Children's Services, I think, predicted in 2020
that the impact of various lockdowns was going to have a significant impact
in terms of the complexity that we're now experiencing,
as we've referenced already around significant mental health,
self -harm, suicide ideation, all the various issues
that have been raised in this conversation today
are still playing out, and they will continue to play out
for years to come.
So in terms of that level playing field
in children's services, will we ever get there,
I think is the question.
Last year, as you were well aware,
we set upon and initiated our first phase of transformation,
which we are seeing some positive results.
Sadly, we are in a stage where we look to phase two.
I say sadly, the interruption, if you like,
is with the children's reforms
because there's a potential that we change things again.
So the goalposts often change within children's services,
as you well know, and that's something I think,
as a council, as a service, we adapt to very well,
better than others in the country in many respects,
but it's a constant challenge as you've raised
and we do our best to mitigate in terms of the budget
as best as we can and forecast as best as we can
in view of future changes.
So we'll continue to do so.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Cllr John Chilver - 2:44:27
I'm afraid we're running out of time now.
So I think we'll have to call it a day there,
but I'd just like to thank all the members and officers.
I thought we had an extremely good discussion session.
Apologies to anybody who didn't get to ask that question.
Please do send it in my email and you will get a reply.
So we are starting again at half past one
with the final session of our budget scrutiny inquiry.
And we will have the leader and the chief executive
of the council in attendance.
So thank you all again.

6 Lunch

Cllr John Chilver - 2:45:11
So, welcome back, and this is now the final session of the Budget Scrutiny Inquiry Group,

7 Leader (Councillor Steven Broadbent)

and we will be talking to the leader and the interim chief executive, leader of the Council,
Councillor Stephen Broadbent, interim chief executive Sarah Ashmead.
As ever, we are supported by our Head of Finance, Dave Skinner, and his deputy Fiona Jump.
So welcome to you all.
I'd like to invite the leader to share any reflections or thoughts he has at this stage.
Thank you.
Thank you and good afternoon to everyone watching, but to you on the committee.
I know it looks like you've had an enjoyable week, and I realise there's a lot of hours
sat in this room.
So thank you for the time and effort you put into it.
My reflections, Mr. Chairman, from the sessions I've seen,
Cllr Steven Broadbent - 2:46:12
probably respond very closely to the priorities and the context
that is set when I appear before you on Monday morning.
You know, setting the balanced budget,
trying to evidence to you the value for money
that the council delivers, the financial impact of having
reduced funding from government through the so -called fair
funding formula. But now you've gone through the portfolios, hopefully you've
got a much greater insight into just the activities happening in each and every
portfolio to deliver for people. So my reflections not only around resident
priorities but I know there was a comment about ambition for the county
and this is a county that we're all very proud of because of its its character
its people, its places, and there's lots in the budget that will help deliver ambition,
be that regeneration plans, continuing the tree planting, investing even more into our
roads and those fundamentals that residents want us to have.
I know you also quite rightly have asked every portfolio holder around reserves, and I just
think maybe for people watching, my reflection was to think, oh,
if there's reserves and people are spending it,
is that a red flag?
Is that a challenge?
Well, actually, I think it's really important.
I just try and give a little bit more collective detail on that.
A lot of reserves spend is because we effectively
create a reserve to almost like you put money away
in your savings account or your piggy bank back in the day
for a set purpose.
And therefore then when you see expenditure
of a EMR reserve that's been set up,
that is not a red flag on use of reserves.
Those elements are very much the result
of sound financial planning.
Of course there are some risk reserves in there
and we talked about that a little bit on Monday morning
and I'm sure you'll continue in your deliberations later
around reserves, but I just think it's important
for people watching to realise there are different reserves
and sometimes we create them for specific reasons.
Not least, as we mentioned on Monday,
having to smooth that financial change
that happens year to year
due to the changes to the funding formula.
And of course, this is all about risk
and I raise the prospects of risk.
When I met you on Monday,
Allocating risk is particularly important
in the budget setting programme.
And again, because we have a three year
funding settlement here.
So that makes it even more risk
because whilst you have some certainty
over the cash amounts coming in,
we haven't got any expectation that the government
would certainly offer up more money.
And therefore, the conversations you've had
around risk, scenario planning, what's on the horizon,
what are we doing to mitigate that,
is where I hope you've seen a lot of foresight
and indeed use of capital,
like you were just talking about
with Children's Homes with Carl,
to try and bring down that revenue risk.
We do have a strong track record of delivering the savings,
and I'll remind you one of those four numbers I gave you
on Monday, 296 million,
which is the total amount that would have been taken out
of the collective budgets from when this council was formed
by the end of this financial period.
And of course, the year -to -year, day -to -day cost control.
So just looping back to reserves,
if there's a revenue contribution to reserves
available, then of course, that's
something we would look at doing in each and every one
of those three years.
And whilst we haven't got the formal quarter three plan yet,
I've got, touching whatever wood is available,
we are getting closer and closer to bringing that budget in
on budget by the year end.
So there may be an opportunity to do that.
I'm very mindful that you have taken a deep dive this week
to look into the finances of the budget.
And of course that happens all year round
with the select committee.
But for people watching, we just had published
our corporate PRIA challenge report.
So this is an external testing of the council,
just a sort of health cheque if you like,
done by people across the political spectrum
from different councils, senior officials,
and politicians from around the country.
And there's a whole section
on financial planning and management.
And I just wanted to leave,
to maybe read two short paragraphs out
from what they said in the report.
The council has sound financial systems and processes
to manage its financial position both for the current year and over the medium term.
It has a good track record of savings delivery and is currently on target to achieve the
savings set for the year 25 -26.
There's transparent processes for agreeing the savings options through CMT, that's the
corporate management team, Cabinet Finance and Resources Select Committee and with appropriate
scrutiny throughout.
The finance function is well respected, the financial position is understood across the Council services and is a key priority for the leadership and the Executive.
The level of general fund reserves and EMR reserves are at a sufficient level for the size and risks of the Council.
I say that just because I hope that aligns with ultimately the feeling you will have by the end of this week.
but given they came in in the last few months,
I think that's interesting external validation
and context that we can have.
And my final reflection really is,
I hope residents having heard from everyone
and heard the questioning and the answers that you've given
realise that it really is the context
of the funding we have that has left us
with the council tax proposals we've got to make.
I wish that wasn't the case,
but I hope people can see the complexity
of what we have to deliver,
the scale and scope of the services that we deliver,
and of course, how we're bearing down
to make sure every pound is spent with accountability
and to get the best value that we can.
So, they're my reflections from your week.
Thank you very much indeed.
I'll just ask our interim chief executive
and head of finance if they have anything
Cllr John Chilver - 2:52:45
they wish they had before we move to questions.
Right, so we can now open the floor
and I'll invite questions.
Councillor Tett.
Thank you very much Mr Chairman.
Cllr Martin Tett - 2:53:01
I just want to say to the lead of the Council and the Chief Executive, I think this week's
been very impressive quite frankly.
Most of your cabinet members have really got a grip on their portfolios.
They personally answered most of our questions rather than just deferring obviously to their
office and team.
And it's really good to see that strength in your cabinet.
I think you've also set out very well just how unfair the funding regime is to areas like
Buckinghamshire who have that track record of efficiency and good delivery which effectively is being penalised in the way the government is changing the funding formula.
To take away 45 million pounds from us is a massive amount of money. That's effectively taking our residents money and redistributing it elsewhere
which our residents will find really hard to understand.
So it's good to see you've taken that task, that challenge, and as far as possible mitigated it.
My concerns, overarching concerns rather than individual portfolio concerns, what is around partner risk?
We rely a lot, particularly in things like adult social care, children services,
but elsewhere on very close joint working with partners.
That potentially takes the form of money.
That might take the form of resource.
And particularly in police and health,
they're both very financially challenged.
So the police are under financial pressure.
The health service is under both financial pressure,
but also reorganizational pressure.
And I have to be honest, I'm not completely
convinced that the budgets have sufficiently
taken into account the risks posed
around those reorganisations and those financial pressures
in partners.
So my first question to you is, are you confident that actually adequate safeguarding is taking
place around the potential risk of partner resource and partner funding?
And I have a second question if that's okay, Joe, and after the answer to that.
Thank you for that, and thank you for the comments that are feedback to cabinet members
Cllr Steven Broadbent - 2:55:04
and your praise for the recognition of the grit they have.
I think that's absolutely right and it's a really strong team who work closely together.
I think I mentioned the other day how we can't make a change in one portfolio area if that's
going to create pressure elsewhere.
And I draw that parallel because in many ways it leads to my answer to the question you've
just asked.
You're right, but in the same way we have the funding challenges we have, police reorganisation
has been announced, the local ICBs have turned their notification, their budgets were getting
stripped by 50 % virtually overnight.
And of course, we do a lot of great partnership working
with them.
So I meet with, for example, just last week,
the current police crime commissioner,
along with Sarah, and the chief constable,
and had exactly the conversation about how do we
do enough joint working together so that we're not
creating duplication in budgets, but we're still
having the policing impact and the community impact
that we would want to have.
And therefore, some of the work isn't necessarily,
and the numbers aren't necessarily in our budget,
is to make sure that collectively we lean
into the provisions that one another have
for the good of our people and our communities.
Health on the High Street is another great example
of what we're doing with the NHS.
And that has already, the interventions we're doing
through Health on the High Street,
but other health -related interventions,
particularly in the Opportunity Bucks wards, for example,
has got the wait times down in those areas
to the same as the general population.
And that's because some of the work we're doing
is signposting people earlier,
making sure they're finding,
sometimes through council access points,
the right direction to go in.
And Health on the High Street,
for example, in Wickham, starting now,
We're utilising council property in the library to provide a space for that
And indeed some of the consultation spaces. So again, that's not necessarily a budget line
That says working in partnership say well, we've got some space you want to do the activity and then we work together. So
There's a range of partners that we work with to deliver that kind of stuff as well as our economic
Our economic plans and so on
So I'm very mindful of it.
We have to be careful of cost shunting.
You know, we don't want someone to say,
which is what I'm effectively alluding to
within our portfolios in the council,
but to make sure that doesn't happen
between partners as well.
So it's something I'm very mindful of
and something we look towards.
But we're only going to get there,
not by saying, don't give it to us,
just saying, what can we do
given the available budgets that we have?
Sarah wants to add, I think.
Yeah, just to add, I think, just linking back to the peer review again, I think what came
Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive - 2:57:59
out was real acknowledgement of the strength of our partnership working.
So I think we have the relationships and we have the governance in place to have those
conversations.
So I think we're very alert to those risks.
We're having the conversations both at a strategic level and an operational level.
A really good example is around the SEND space where we are absolutely reliant upon each
other to deliver the outcomes, ourselves and health,
for those children and young people.
And we're having very detailed conversations about how do we
prioritise, for example, improvements in therapy and
keep that on the sort of front of our agenda and maybe sort of
agree some things that we can deprioritize.
So I think the conversations are happening.
I think we're very aware of the risks.
But obviously that is going to be one of our collective
challenges as a place going forward.
Yes, thank you, and obviously there's the risk of actual withdrawal of funding, but
Cllr Martin Tett - 2:58:55
also as the leader has said, the cost shunting, you know, that's your cost, not ours, which
is another side of what's actually the same coin.
The other area I just wanted to raise at this point is about the risk and uncertainty around
changes in the government agenda.
There is a lot of ebb and flow in terms of the government in terms of what its policies
are sometimes u -turns on those policies, delays in announcements and policies.
But there are, for me, three key areas.
I mean, one obviously is in the whole high needs block, what's happening about it.
2028 is quite a while away.
You know, there's a lot of water, financial water going under the bridge before then,
a lot of cost to us in real cash terms, big impact on our budgets.
The second one obviously is the overall unfair funding review and the wash through of that.
And the third one, which worries me most of all frankly, is on infrastructure and the
local plan where there is a real need, I think, to be laying down very clearly to central
government that actually if they want us to deliver a plan that's deliverable for 95 ,500
thousand new houses, we need an assurance from the government, a commitment from the
government for the funding for the infrastructure that goes along with that.
And that's not just, you know, the traffic lights in a new estate.
We're talking about the roads that link to new settlements.
We're talking about the new hospitals, the new GP surgeries, the increase in perhaps
funding for utility services like water and so on.
There's a massive agenda there.
And I'm just really asking the leader and the chief executive, what confidence you can
give us that, A, do you agree they are risks and uncertainties?
And secondly, you know, what confidence can you give us that, A, you are engaged at a
very senior level with the secretaries of state and the chief executive with the equivalent
in the civil service?
And indeed, your cabinet members are engaged with the right people at minister level to
be actually arguing our case on behalf of our residents so that we mitigate the
risk and the financial impact on this county. Thanks Councillor Tepp for that.
You're absolutely right and we're clearly in agreement on three major
Cllr Steven Broadbent - 3:01:17
risks. I think I covered and touched on at least those three in maybe in slightly
different ways in my comments to you on on Monday. The high needs block and how
that feeds into DSG.
The government are looking at a $14 billion national issue
at the end of that period.
And I have made representations into MACLG
previously with previous ministers
and the current ones to talk about how unsustainable
the situation is for financing.
So it crosses a bit into the fair funding
point, the second one.
But a key level of uncertainty on that is the high needs block, and they have to give
clarity on it.
So yes, I am in dialogue.
You will also know that I'm fortunate enough to give voice to Buckinghamshire on a more
national scale through membership of the CCM, the Council Council Network, which I'm Vice
Chair, and the national spokesperson for finance.
That means every bit of lobbying that we do,
that we do in Buckinghamshire,
can be amplified through the CCN.
And it has to be both,
because the CCN position will cover a range.
So the fair funding, there are some in the parlance,
winners and losers.
For us though, we have to say,
those will weigh very well,
but now I'm putting the Buckinghamshire hat on,
because to say here,
we're feeling the pain maybe more than some others.
The reality is there's not enough money in the sector.
And I think I said this on Monday, it will be unacceptable for the government to suggest
that their system over a number of years to build up the DSG then has to fall on local
taxpayers to pay back.
They have kicked it down the road too many times.
And this is a point I've made almost as stridently into ministers through the correspondence
that I've had and I will continue to have.
So I hope that gives you reassurance that it's not just a Buckinghamshire voice, but
we're using the size, scale and positioning of Buckinghamshire to play a part in the sector
and nationally on infrastructure and the local plan.
Equally the same, because at the local government association, I'm able to play a part on the
Growth and Infrastructure Committee, I think it's called Inclusive Growth now, and we therefore
give a voice of the country because it is frankly a disgrace that the housing numbers
are coming down without a single penny being committed for infrastructure. And this is
from a transport point of view. I've pressed personally with the Rail Minister, with Lord
Valance and others to say we need the infrastructure that will make a difference, not only for the
future housing, but indeed for some of the housing we've already had, such as the Aylesbury
rail link.
Frankly, there's a bit of, oh, well, you need to talk over there because there's part of
a growth corridor that money might come from somewhere else.
But I will persevere with that because we cannot have a situation where houses are expected
to come on top of already overstretched infrastructure.
There's an element in that that means
some of the regen work, maybe we make changes
in some of our existing settlements,
where we might, you may be able to increase some housing
if something has been regenerated.
But broadly speaking, you cannot expect
the open spaces of Buckinghamshire,
not only to be devastated and changed
from a character point of view, but expect people to live there without good connexions
to all the services that you've said.
So we'll continue to do that.
And that can include with the arms length bodies.
So in course, with people like Homes England, because that's where some of the funding comes
for infrastructure.
Just this morning though, before earlier, at Harper State this morning, I was six metres
in the air above the rail track, looking at the bridge that's just been putting full sealer.
That's an example where as much as it is disruptive to get the infrastructure put in place, that
housing infrastructure fund of money is going directly into infrastructure.
We would rather not have the railway frankly, but given that, as in H2, given that, we're
at least we managed to extract infrastructure.
So it is, you know, it's beholden on us to make sure we get what funding we can
To before any houses of great numbers are delivered
But as a huge challenge because that is not where government is they seem to think developers will pay for everything
But and at the same time of a high percentage of affordable housing provision
and
The point I've made to ministers directly is that will not make it commercially viable
so those houses won't get built.
So you need to think again.
Thank you.
Councillor Adali.
Cllr John Chilver - 3:06:35
Thank you.
Cllr Christine Adali - 3:06:38
My question relates to the financial risk register
in relation to the extended producer responsibility.
Need to read this data, get it right, sorry.
From the published budget and the financial risk register,
and the MTFS, I can see that there is a general risk
and recycling cost pressure risk.
There is a national funding government policy change risk.
But what I can't see is a specified or quantified risk
covering the EPR income under recovery.
The loss of EPR where recyclable material is incinerated,
there's a risk there.
And the double impact of lost EPR income
plus the EFW gate fees.
In other words, the issue is at best implicit
folded into broad headings and not treated
as discrete impact financial risk.
So this matters because I think the EPR income
is assumed in the budget.
The incineration contracts are fixed and inflexible.
The failure mode is known and measurable,
but there is no separately identified risk
that is scored or mitigated, which has the implication of,
firstly, who owns the risk, so which portfolio.
The pressure doesn't seem to be quantified either,
so what is the trigger point for action
and what are the mitigations you have in mind?
Because I just can't see them properly in the budget.
Yeah, I mean, and I think you covered this a little bit
this morning.
Cllr Steven Broadbent - 3:08:15
So it's on the risk register because we know it's coming.
But this is a perfect example.
I think it was alluded to as part of Martin's question,
is as things get kicked down the road.
So here's a government announcement,
and this happens quite a lot.
They make an announcement and say more detail to follow,
and detail doesn't come.
So we have to include that on the risk register
so that we're doing, we've got to range in
on what those might be.
But I can't crystallise that into an absolute number
until we can see what the detail is
and work up at least a model on,
given us a more accurate estimate.
But in the same way,
I think we talked about SIL the other day,
I don't know exactly how many houses will be there.
So we've had to put in,
we have to make provision that we can,
based on the information we have at the time.
But what I mentioned, I think a minute ago,
I talked about horizon scanning and looking at scenarios.
We will keep an eye on that.
and as soon as there's announcements,
we'll have to adjust as time goes on.
And that's the kind of thing that happens
as we do the quarterly reviews of the budget.
We look at the risk registers.
Everyone does that in portfolio.
Then we look at the strategic risk register as a cabinet.
Then of course, we would discuss what more needs to be done
and what the financial impact is of that.
I mean, ultimately, no matter which portfolio it rests in,
and this one will probably rest in
the environment portfolio,
it's still taxpayers' money
and the council sell us to operate a balanced budget.
So we'll all own it.
I can't actually see it on the risk register.
Could you tell me where it is?
Sorry, you see?
I couldn't find it on the risk register.
Cllr Christine Adali - 3:09:58
Although Dave's pointing to the mission trading scheme.
So we will, we'll,
They're very different.
Cllr Steven Broadbent - 3:10:07
On the ETS, I got answered this morning.
You're absolutely right.
the packaging because we get a grant from government
to deal with packaging, well, we get money
to deal with packaging that the producers are responsible for.
But incinerating is not a responsible way
of dealing with it.
So there is something that has to give.
So we basically expose ourselves to risk
by incinerating packaging that we should recycle.
We might lose grant or we incur more costs.
So it just has to be at least mentioned somewhere.
We might.
So we have the mitigation future risks reserve.
In the same way, I can't tell you
how many named storms there are going to be this winter,
and therefore, how many floods we've got to deal with.
So it's there to be able to say, when we've got more detail
and we know, then we'll be able to respond, like I said.
We'll keep a view on that.
You're right.
It's a known thing that will potentially come down the track.
But, you know, through the quarterly updating, we'll update that when we know more.
But I was very clear on Monday, and I think I have been again today, you know, this budget
and the complexity has risk baked in.
But what we've had to do across the board is where we can put some clarity on that,
include that on the registers.
But I'm not, I don't wish to, you know, dismiss the risk you're raising because you're right.
that will potentially have a financial impact
when we go to detail.
Yes, I'd just recommend an inclusion in the risk register
in that case.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Christine Adali - 3:11:46
Thank you.
Catholic Crabtree.
Yes, thank you.
Cllr John Chilver - 3:11:52
So I also have a concern about funding stream
Cllr Anna Crabtree - 3:11:56
and the financial risk associated with it,
which I think was touched on
in some of the meetings previously.
But I just wanted to highlight the capital receipts line.
I don't actually know whether it's 107 million,
which is what's quoted on page 38, or whether it's 103 million,
which is what's quoted on 173.
But I just wanted to flag that I don't think members are able
to assess the financial risk associated with this
until we can see the breakdown of what makes up that figure.
And we haven't got any details about that in this report.
Yeah, and I think we answered that as well. You see what's in the
Cllr Steven Broadbent - 3:12:35
The the estimate and I'll work it out so it's one of three or 107
And as I said on Monday, then every every time an asset comes forward
it's usually brought to cabinet with a marketing outline and then again when the marketing exercise has happened and
Dave will do an assessment of best value
and
the cabinet would make a decision on the disposal or not.
But it's incredibly, it's an incredibly sensitive line
in terms of you can imagine you go out to market.
So we don't publish estimated values
or anything like that on there
because that would affect the marketing exercise.
But I understand the point, but again,
We come back to the track record of delivery on that to give you some assurance
Okay
Council snakes
Cllr John Chilver - 3:13:36
Now so
Maybe to help provide some assurance to the committee
David Skinner - Director of Finance & S151 Officer - 3:13:44
So it's hundred and three million in terms of capital receipt that we're securing of that hundred and three million
Then there's about 20 million or so
which is sort of from technical capital receipts,
so things like finance leases and right to buy receipts
that come through that are passported through from RPs
where stock transfers have previously happened
in terms of kind of the arrangements that were done
on the stock transfer agreement.
So there's a certain element that isn't subject
to market forces if you call them that
in terms of kind of going forward.
Often the amount that's left and sort of for the sake
round things on these things then it's called that about 83 million. About 60
million or so of that is for disposals that have either previously been agreed
in terms of for marketing so members will have seen the whole series of and
proposals come forward over the last few months in terms of to go to market so
subject to bids that come through people will have seen those that the land
holdings in the estate that's kind of been there or has previously been agreed from either
this council or in some cases even predecessor councils in terms of going through.
So there is very, very small amount of any new considerations that members wouldn't be
cited on in terms of kind of going forward.
So after that 103 million, only about 20 million is subject to kind of those new considerations
and the majority of those are relatively small,
windfall sites that you may well call them,
where either some opportune landholding comes through,
or whether there's some small -scale disposals
of which there are relatively operational proposals.
They still come through the cabinet process
in terms of for those approvals, but they come through.
So I think members can get some assurance
that there isn't a sort of a hidden large -scale disposal
that isn't previously unsighted to members in terms of coming forward.
Thank you. Councillor Snave.
Cllr John Chilver - 3:15:58
Cllr Trevor Snaith - 3:16:01
Yes, thank you. It's been an absolute pleasure to take part in these last three days.
It's been hard, but it's a pleasure.
And we've heard so much about managing risk and managing budgets,
But the one I'd like to focus on and ask a question around and get a bit more info on is
one of your, actually fits in your portfolio leader, it's the economic development and growth and the investment.
Now, I look at things and I think, right, how does one grow oneself out of a problem?
How does one create wealth?
And you're doing some sterling work there from what I can see with those top tier businesses and those centres of excellence.
However, what I'm trying to understand is, and if you can help me on this, is I'm not seeing the investment that I feel we need in our town centres, the surrounding wards, the SMEs, those community and charity organisations.
In fact, if you want to look at the resources portfolio, I don't see enough funding in there
to support what really needs to happen with our towns.
Can you give me some feeling of warmth that we're actually investing in our towns and
we're seeing the money going to those towns rather than just being spent at the top?
Thank you.
Absolutely right.
And I'm glad you enjoyed the days, Trevor.
And I'm sure everyone's enjoyed being with you.
Cllr Steven Broadbent - 3:17:24
You're right about the investment in town centres.
I can give you some warmth around it.
We have our foundation economy, if you like, to use the pylons,
which provides most of the economic benefit to the county,
provides most of the employment.
And then we have, if you like, the frontier economy, the new stuff,
which we have a proud set of examples of in this county.
I think I probably referenced our enterprise zones on Monday.
So high -tech manufacturing, Silverstone, creative industries at Pinewood.
And even tomorrow, the latest is the opening of something called the Skylark building at
the Westcott enterprise zone, which is our emerging space cluster amongst other businesses
with drones and so on.
The reason that's important is that the growth board we have, which comes back to the strong
partnership point which has health on that represented the community voluntary
and charitable sector represented in through the sub boards and private sector
both from the foundation and the frontier economy. The growth board that
take on took on responsibilities when the LEPs disappeared the local
enterprise partnerships. There is funding there that is often coming from some
government grants, that then gets invested.
And that's an example tomorrow with that opening
of where money was invested to help new
and expanding businesses, admittedly in the new sector,
and I'll come back to town centres in a minute,
that is growing the sector to put the economic,
to grow the economic footprint of Buckinghamshire
by playing a part in those key sectors,
attracting more investment of more businesses to the county.
And actually that investment is recycled money.
So it was invested once before, comes back out.
This will be the same.
We collectively, you may not know this, we effectively are the owner of one of the largest
vacuum chambers in the country.
And this is because of the work that they want to do in the space sector in that kind
environment by helping unlock some of the money through investing these grants, that
vacuum chamber then gets rented out.
And that money, once the cash has been recycled, may give us a return in the future.
So there's an opportunity there to utilise grant money, work with those sectors to recycle
it to grow our economy.
What the other thing the enterprise zones does is sell out or lease out the floor space.
So where the extra money to give you the comfort for the town centres comes in is, and again,
this is referenced in our corporate peer challenge, we will utilise that funding that is EMR for
economic development to leverage in, and again, I mentioned this on Monday, to leverage in
additional investment into our town centres,
which will be transformative.
We have quite a record of doing relatively
small scale bits of regeneration work,
taking on units, helping recycle them,
that help our town centres work,
and that's really important.
But I think if I take from your question,
we wanna move the dial a bit more.
And so tying up the use of that funds,
those funds with greater investment will mean we can do bigger things coming up
in in the next well in this council term and so we're working up you know what
we're calling investible propositions that we can go to market the pension
funds and people like that and say there's a real opportunity here in our
town centres because without that we won't achieve the scale that I think we
would all like so a big tangible difference we should have in the coming
years is see that transformation. Our town centres are under a great change.
We've been over profiled in retail as have a lot of places in the country. A
link to that was a bit of partnership working again with housing providers as
well. So our registered providers, we need them to play a part on their holdings. So
there's a lot of warm words there and I'll give you an update this time next
year because we'll have got to market about it. Thank you for your initial
comments Councillor Snave, it's been a pleasure for the committee to have your
Cllr John Chilver - 3:22:04
attendance and participation as well. Councillor Powell. Thank you Chairman, it's been a
Cllr Chris Poll - 3:22:11
pleasure for me as well to be here, it's very informative and once again all the
cabinet members have been in a most candid and forthcoming. What's come out of
I've gone through a journey of understanding as we've gone on,
and I've come to a different position now than I did at the beginning,
which I suppose is the purpose of this.
But what has really leapt out at me is about the reduction in grants.
These appear to me to be somewhat masked by the merging of grants,
which has the effect of taking 100 ,000 pounds from here
and 100 ,000 pounds from there.
Cumulatively, they make quite a large difference.
I've asked that we request of you and our members
of Parliament to lobby government
to not forget Buckinghamshire.
I said in the piece to Councillor Darby
on health and wellbeing, that there are pockets
of Buckinghamshire, supposedly leafy, wealthy
Buckinghamshire, that are just as deprived
as many other parts of the country,
and that we could do with all the lobbying that we can
so that we're not forgotten.
So that's the message that I take away from this week.
Yeah, and I think I tried to,
thank you for that, Councillor Paul.
Cllr Steven Broadbent - 3:23:36
I will give voice to Buckinghamshire in government,
and it's another part of the question
that Councillor Tett asked earlier.
I think I said two things on Monday
about the grants are up and down and they've merged.
They're also much more conditional, which in some cases,
it doesn't really matter, but in a lot of others,
it means we can't respond to the specifics of what we need to in Buckinghamshire.
So the public health grant is a good example.
That actually went up, but we can only use that in the prescribed ways.
So the short answer, maybe I'll give a short answer for one,
of course I will continue to call.
And not just into government, but as I already do
when I meet with our local MPs of all political colours,
is to say you need to go and get a result for Buckinghamshire
because we cannot be forgotten.
An example, this school that we didn't get a result on
because they've cancelled the special school,
to be fair to our MPs, they did write a letter in Chasing
and where is this school that you've been delayed on?
But of course, sometimes you fall short.
But a big part of my job is to just be,
to keep perseverance, to say,
Buckinghamshire needs help as well.
But more than that, we have a real opportunity.
If you support Buckinghamshire, remember,
we're a net contributor back into government
because of our economy and because of the commitment
of our people and our places.
So whilst we have our challenges, undoubtedly,
We can be really confident that you know if you back bucks
You know you're backing Britain effectively and at some point
I make to government in various ways all the time we have the track record you can trust us to do the right thing with the
Money you give us and you get results, so I will trade on that record a lot
Thank you
Thank You chairman
Cllr John Chilver - 3:25:31
and I've also enjoyed my fifth budget scrutiny
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 3:25:34
and got the scars and the grey hair to show it.
I'm sure there should be an honour or a medal for that,
but anyway.
There will be.
So, yeah, we've heard themes of risk and assurance,
and it's interesting listening to colleagues.
They've raised a lot of the points I would have raised.
I think we should acknowledge, as you have done,
that we have to plan with risk.
There is no alternative given the funding situation we find ourselves in.
And I raised the point earlier at the beginning of the week about the risk matrix.
It's my view then and having listened to all of the cabinet presentations
that it's probably bigger than the 5 .8 million pounds that we've put into the document
both mechanically in terms of the way the document works,
but also in reality from all of the issues
that we've looked at.
And I don't think we should be surprised at that.
That's the nature of the environment we're in.
And a couple of years ago, we'd have had a contingency pot.
We don't have that anymore.
And that contingency pot might have been $15 million,
and we shouldn't be surprised if it's there or actually
higher because of inflation and demand and what have you.
So, you know, it would be my view that probably the number is bigger, but we do so knowingly.
And, you know, it doesn't necessarily change anything. So, I think it is important to acknowledge that.
And the other one on a point of assurance, and I pick up Councillor Crabtree's point,
I've been back through and checked the capital receipts for every budget since the inception of this council.
And I don't think we've ever seen a shape like this one.
And that raises two questions really.
One is the detail which Mr. Skinner very kindly kind of went into a little bit more of the detail on that in terms of the drivers.
And the other one is the tail off.
So it looks like the year after the budget year has a huge number in it,
which is almost twice as big as anything we've ever had in previously.
And then we really tail off to 12 .4 million and then 4 .8 million in subsequent years.
And again, those are way lower than we've ever had in any of our capital receipt profiles.
So, you know, hopefully it's not a surprise that committee members have raised a question
that says, so this is the last big hurrah of everything that we're selling off.
Because that's the way it looks without any of the detail.
So I do appreciate Mr. Skinner's additional information.
My comment, and again, you referenced the peer review,
in the spirit of where we now find ourselves
in an overall control position,
I think it might be helpful to have a note,
perhaps, to the Leader of the Opposition and myself
as a group leader, in terms of some of the detail,
as we have had on a couple of other points,
and would request that perhaps you can provide
a little bit more detail on a confidential basis,
that we can go into the budget meeting
with the level of confidence that we would like
around the profile and the quantum of that,
because it is fundamentally different
from anything we've ever seen in the past.
Thank you, so I think there's two questions really in there.
On the first point, the 5 .8 million
that comes out of the risk profile,
Cllr Steven Broadbent - 3:29:22
I think as David Skinner outlined on Monday,
I think the average drawdown on that over recent years
it's 4 .3 and again I'll refer you back to we had a waiting discussion on Monday
morning so there's all obviously a judgement in that there's a there's a
judgement from my side there's a professional judgement from Dave and of
course the corporate plan the thing I read out said you know they feel that
EMI reserves and general fund reserves a sufficient level for the size and risk
of the council it's always a matter of going to be a matter of opinion I think
We were quite upfront on Monday.
You know, that entire list could crystallise.
And if it does, then we're in an all other world of pain.
But of course, you will collectively decide
if people are in agreement with you
and you may wish us to look at that.
But the reality is I think it's reasonably well weighted.
The capital receipts part,
and I think I've made my position on information now
quite clear, and Dave clearly tried to give non -step
level of information further out. I think I wouldn't describe it as a last hurrah
but the reality is when we brought councils together there were property
and land holdings and other things that clearly if you're going to unlock some
of the benefits of unitarization of which there are many in undoubted then
we do have the ability to dispose of some some of those assets that the
And of course that money gets popped back into the capital programme.
Again, we've talked about that quite a lot during the sessions that we've had.
So I think it's right to say you would expect to tail off because the thing I'm always mindful of with capital receipts is you can only sell it once.
And once it's gone, it's gone.
And therefore, frankly, as you look around,
then there are fewer and fewer options available to us
over the long term.
I thought maybe where the question would go is,
I know we talked about the long term look into capital.
One of the bigger concerns I have
throughout this three -year period
is what opportunities can we create to create more into the future beyond this
MTFP and the full year programme. Where can we go next with the capital programme
because the reality is there's no hurrah left to shout and so we will have to
create our own opportunities through that. I'm so pleased to raise that third point because my notes on here is
where next in my follow up question.
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 3:32:12
I will be prospecting around in the ways
you would expect of me so that we can answer
Cllr Steven Broadbent - 3:32:19
that question during the period.
Some of that will undoubtedly be,
where does money come from infrastructure?
Is there grant money?
How much, given the numbers we have,
how much are unlocked by things like seal and 106,
and balance all of that,
and the revenue to capital conversation
that I alluded to earlier, it's going to be a multiplicity.
Again, I said on Monday there's no silver bullet to our finances.
I don't think there's a single one answer either to the capital programme, but
we will have to create ways to make sure we refloat that up.
Because what we can't do, whilst the amount will be the same level we've had
in the first five, six years of the council term,
we've got to make sure that investment into books,
it comes back to don't forget books, continues to happen.
So that's undoubtedly a challenge piece for us during this council term to be able to answer for the for the longer term
But I think sorry we're talking over David. So thank you just to add a thinking in terms of the yes
We might have to to examine some of the weighted risk
David Skinner - Director of Finance & S151 Officer - 3:33:23
Again, but fundamentally it doesn't doesn't change the overall proposition
I don't think in terms of I think everybody accepts there's a significant risk element within
the delivery of the MTF P
But I think as the leader said then, on average then the use of the historic contingency was
about 4 .3 million when we had it in terms of kind of going forward.
It's what we have been able to do, and again, due to prudent budget management and taking
advantage of where we have over exceeded budgets in terms of things like treasury management
or where we haven't actually had to borrow money in terms of on capital charges and so
is we've put that money aside into EMR reserves
in terms of for the mitigating future financial risk.
So that's running at about just over 21 million pounds now
mitigating future financial risk
due to strong prudent management in the past.
And therefore, there is money before we have to get
into the general fund if we did exhaust everything else
going forwards.
And as the leader again said,
depending on the position that we get to at this year end,
then we may be able to put some more money in there
or into making additional revenue contribution to capital,
or consider all the other factors
that will be going on at that point in time.
So there may well be an opportunity if,
as you said, the Q3 position continues
on a positive trajectory to be able to top up and mitigate
and manage some of that future uncertainty.
And I know last year, when we got the final government
settlement, there was some additional funding
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 3:34:56
that we could put aside to manage risk as well.
I doubt we'll get that this year.
But well, we have comes back apart to the lobbying point and the response point.
You know, we have certainly made our feelings known to government on the
Cllr Steven Broadbent - 3:35:09
the provisional settlements as it is currently,
both as Buckinghamshire and and as the sector.
But yeah, clearly,
if I were a betting man, I'd be saying there wouldn't be great differences.
Anything advantageous coming in would clearly be upside on
on the budget we've got and you know,
that may ease the pressure somewhere
or allow us to put money aside for future use
and or mitigation but I certainly can't bank on that.
As you said.
Thank you.
Before we move on to second questions,
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 3:35:46
we have the leader of the opposition in attendance.
Cllr John Chilver - 3:35:48
It was indicated that she would like to ask a question
so I'd like to invite Councillor Morgan to the table
and ask her question.
Thank you.
Cllr Susan Morgan - 3:36:00
Thank you chair, I think all of what I had in my head has been answered
I think there are I
Think there are some really huge risks in this budget. I also feel and I felt for years actually that there's
Not enough ambition in the budget around housing and temporary accommodation I
think that there is a lot more that we haven't looked at that we can do and
You know, I kind of hoped after May's election that there'd be a lot more cooperative working across the board,
and I feel like we're pretty shut out sometimes still, especially on those asset decisions.
I hear what you're saying about delivering financially for the council,
but that doesn't necessarily mean that we would agree on decisions that you've made in terms of selling assets.
You know, daycare centres are probably a really good example of that.
And actually, that had to go back to the board to be re -looked at,
because it hadn't been thought through properly.
So you have to understand why we've got reservations about this huge amount of money that's in the budget.
We don't know what its breakdown is. We don't know what that is.
Therefore, how can we possibly say whether or not we would agree or disagree
on those decisions that you've already made ahead of time that perhaps haven't been shared with us.
Now, I would have hoped by now that you would have felt able to share that with myself and with Stuart
on a confidential basis so that we can in turn reassure our groups and ask our groups to get behind your budget.
But if you're choosing not to do that, then it's going to be really difficult for us to get our groups on board here.
Cllr Steven Broadbent - 3:37:59
Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive - 3:38:04
Thank you. I think your opening remarks are about risk. I think it's very clear that not only have we recognised the risk in the budget, we've set out a series of measures of how we're mitigating that risk, how we're looking at the long term to say how do we foresee and offset the risk before it happens.
Cllr Steven Broadbent - 3:38:07
and that last conversation was a bit around,
well, if risks do materialise,
do we have a provision to meet them in the same way?
As I said on Monday, we get the examples of NRS
and you heard more from people like Isabelle
on what that risk is over time.
It's to preserve a cabinet to work with the offices
to bring forward the budget proposals.
And I think as was recognised on Monday,
there's more information in this pack in many ways than than the house being before and that's to
That's to reflect that this committee needs to have
Be able to have the oversight it has but again the third time I've made my position quite clear
That the the forward look on the capital receipts is something that Dave is heavily involved in
There was a number of Gateway cheques to make that happen both from an officer point of view and a political point of view
then it gets flagged into cabinet as a marketing exercise.
Responses and questions come therein,
and then again before any decision is made.
So there's quite, there's a number of opportunities
for people to come into.
But I hear what you're saying on your opinion
on your matter and your disappointment,
but from a budgetary point of view,
the information you've also been given today
shows what the relative size of any risk is you perceive it to be is.
And I'll just go back to the best value considerations that we all have to have.
Otherwise, the 151 would step in.
Thank you.
Yeah, I don't think we're going to...
We'll just agree to disagree, I think, on some things.
Cllr Susan Morgan - 3:39:55
But I think it would be nice to just have a more cooperative level of working
going forward. I mean that's what I'm striving for. So that we can understand
some of these decisions because you know you're marking your own homework in
effect because none of the opposition are on the cabinet none of the
opposition have a say in that and you've obviously baked this into the budget
you've obviously kind of pre decided what what that's going to be or there
wouldn't be a figure in the budget you haven't shared that with myself and
Stuart which I think is a mistake. Well we have a conservative run or two
administration of the council and it reflects our position.
Cllr Steven Broadbent - 3:40:34
Thank you.
I think we can move on to second questions now.
Councillor Tate.
Yes, thank you.
Cllr John Chilver - 3:40:45
I just want to reiterate what I said at the beginning, which is this I think is a local
Cllr Martin Tett - 3:40:47
government association exemplar in terms of cross party scrutiny on the budget.
I'm not aware of any information this particular cross party group has asked for that has been
denied by the cabinet or the leader.
So I credit you completely for that.
It's also disappointing that some of our MPs
have been going public on social media talking
about how the government has given us an 8 % increase
in our core spending power.
The reality is, of course, the government
hasn't given us any of that.
That's due almost entirely to the increase
in council tax, which has effectively been mandated
on us by central government.
So I think more support from all of our MPs
would be really helpful.
So first of all, I'd ask the leader
to ensure that RMPs understand the government hasn't given us
anything like an 8 % increase from themselves,
and they need to row behind us, I think, a little more strongly
than I'm seeing them doing.
My key questions come back really.
A, I think there's a lot of reliance
at the moment on the corporate underspend
to bail out overspends in particularly children's
services and adult social care.
You can enrol in homes called transport and temporary accommodation.
And what happens if that corporate underspend isn't there?
And secondly, a lot of the savings are predicated on cross -portfolio working.
And a question we've asked various cabinet members as they've come in is, what is the
mechanism at a political level for cross -portfolio working?
There's really good individual service presentations by individual cabinet members, but what I
don't think we've seen enough of is the explanation of the mechanisms and processes
that enable really good cross -portfolio working by cabinet members that's going to deliver
the savings that are inherent within this budget.
Thank you.
Fair being there.
I think if I pick up on the MP point,
Cllr Steven Broadbent - 3:42:50
I have actually had cause to write to some of the MPs
to correct the record and ask them to correct the record.
They came out and said we had a 14 % increase
in core spending power.
And I've just looked back at my notes from Monday morning.
I decided not to try and complicate matters
by explaining core spending power,
but now maybe I will, given we're later in the week.
Core spending power is the comparator
they put into fair funding formula to say,
what available funds does the council have
to spend on core services?
But you are absolutely right.
Core spending power includes any changes to council tax.
We have not had 14%.
And the reason they said 14 % because, unbelievably, they
were basing that on last year's figures as their baseline,
not this year, which shows you, unfortunately,
maybe sometimes you just send the press release out
and they haven't actually considered it.
It is true to say that there is an 8 .1 % increase
in core spending power if you include the 5 %
year on year increase we have to put into council tax.
We are one of only four county authorities
and county unitaries in the country who will have a real terms cut in all funding if there
was no council tax increase.
So that shows you just how off -beam it is to claim there is more money for Buckinghamshire.
There was fundamentally less money for Buckinghamshire.
There was a requirement for us to increase taxation effectively in order to create any
change to core spending power.
And of course, core spending power does not include all the risks we talked about.
So it doesn't give any regard to inflation,
it doesn't give any regard to the demand curves.
So that's why you need an increase in core spending power,
otherwise you won't be able to meet the cost of running those services.
So that was very disappointing and something that I have
communicated with them to say, I'm afraid you have this wrong,
please correct the record.
I think on your other parts about corporate underspend,
I think we touched on that again on Monday,
which was we deliberately do not put in to you here
things like treasury management.
Of course, as I mentioned earlier about if there's a risk
that's gonna manifest in one portfolio,
we have to manage that across the board.
It's the same in a way with all bits of money.
Don't maybe get, again, touching wood,
some of the portfolios you just mentioned
may not end up over budget by the end of the year
as we get closer to budget, so remain hopeful on that.
Because of what I've said, we have close management
on the budget lines all through the year.
If we were to, we would never build a budget
that is reliant upon corporate under spends
and as a result being driven by elements
of treasury management.
Undoubtedly though, it's a factor, but as one,
and I think we touched on this, over time,
as capital balances and capital is spent,
you wouldn't have, you'll have, you couldn't rely on it
because you'll get a diminishing return.
So I'm very mindful of that.
You're right to flag it because it highlights the problem
of making sure that all the effort goes into keeping
portfolio budgets as close to their budget as possible.
Because let's face it, if we swing out in year,
that's cost that needs meeting in the short term
and will just have an impact on other activity
or the following year.
The political mechanisms point,
well, I think we slightly touched on this again.
I know you've spoken to every cabinet member about it.
It's a really important point that cabinet members realise
where the sphere of influence is between portfolios.
There's definitely some officer working
and there's definitely political working.
So I mentioned earlier, for example, some of the gateways and the cross working on capital programme.
Well, there's a good example. Some of those capital cheques when we have money.
I mentioned housing infrastructure fund earlier. When that board sits, it will have me there, it will have planning there,
it will have transport there, it will have education there.
So there's some cross portfolio working that way. And then when we sit around the cabinet table in various forums
and we look at risks and we look at financial performance
and of course planning in the budget,
then we facilitate that conversation.
And then the bilaterals I have with cabinet colleagues
means that we pick up on those to cheque on delivery
and how that working is happening.
It's something I've been very mindful to raise
even from Monday because you're naturally having to look
at the operations of the council here
through the budget process in quite a siloed,
lineal kind of way.
I think the challenge, and I'm glad you've been asking cabinet
members on it, is to try and give you some flavour
and reassurance about how that meshes across as well.
So hopefully I've been able to add to that with a couple
of those examples just then.
I think that was all your points.
Thank you.
Yeah. I just wanted to add in terms of the, I suppose,
Cllr John Chilver - 3:48:17
Sarah Ashmead - Interim Chief Executive - 3:48:20
the rigour with which we've sort of approached the savings.
And I hope as you've gone through the process,
you've seen that we're not about putting balancing figures in
with the sort of, you know, which
we know we've seen in other places with a bit of a wish
that something is going to happen.
As we've gone through this process,
we've had really rigorous approaches to,
we want to know exactly what the plan is around that saving.
And I think over the last couple of years,
we have got so much more rigorous about,
we need a plan for that saving.
So they won't necessarily all meet their plans,
and that's what we're really monitoring on a regular basis.
But hopefully you'll have seen that there is something
behind all those figures, which,
well, I'm sure Dave will confirm,
sort of put us slightly in a better place
than some other authorities who have experienced
difficulties in delivering their savings.
And I think that's why we've got such a good track record
around it.
Can I just thank the cabinet member and the chief executive for that answer.
That's very reassuring.
Cllr John Chilver - 3:49:21
I would just observe, and this is my final comment and I will shut up.
Cllr Martin Tett - 3:49:29
The problem I've seen in past years and I worry about going forward is these big spending
departments tend to overspend in year.
We then end up with pressure in year on other services.
So I think this year the numbers are roughly 4 million overspend in those five key services.
services. The pressure therefore is to squeeze the others, so I think it comes down to about
two million over a spend when you're taking about two million out of the other services,
and then you balance the remaining two million out of below the line corporate. It's that
two million that actually is being taken out of the services that most residents really
value. So it's what I keep calling the basics in the various cabinet member meetings we've
just had over this week. It is the graffiti cleaning, it's the sign cleaning, it's the
flight tipping, it's the waste management and so on.
All the things that residents really care about.
And it's just a nagging worry I have
that looking forward across the four years of this plan,
the basics will carry on getting squeezed down
because of the remorseless pressure
from these key statutory services
that goes back to the lobbying that I think we need to do.
But I rest my point.
Dave wants to cork.
I think he wanted to say something on the last one.
He'll cover both and then I'll give you my view as well.
David Skinner - Director of Finance & S151 Officer - 3:50:44
So to follow on from Sarah's point now,
I think the robustness of our delivery of savings
is exemplary in terms of the approach that we take
in a number of different ways.
One is the fact that we set a balanced budget
over the three years.
Many councils set a balanced budget in year one
with showing a gap in future years,
and therefore then savings delivery
and everything else gets put back.
I think it's commendable that this council
sets our bank's position over the three years
with detail to support that,
and that's what we have to assess,
and that's what we have the detailed delivery plans set out,
and I think that's exemplary in terms of the approach,
and our track record in terms of delivering it
also sets us, I think, apart from many other authorities
in terms of where they have fallen behind
in terms of their savings delivery,
so I think that's very commendable,
and as I say, then, I think it's exemplary
in terms of the approach that we take
and how we've, the rigour that we apply to that.
I was then going to then talk about the fact
that we shouldn't just look at the potential
upside in terms of from corporate to look at
how we approach then an overall balance position.
So I think as this week's gone on,
then this committee has looked at the detailed modelling
that goes into the growth and the demand pressures
and inflation in terms of so on.
And in those critical four areas,
but I think highlighting the three that are probably
the most material, then this committee has scrutinised
and challenged in particular adult social care,
children's and home to school transport
in terms of the most material sums,
except the fact that temporary accommodations
in there as well, that come through.
And I think have been satisfied on the whole
with the level of modelling and we have used
best in class kind of modelling techniques
and approaches that we've done.
And that's actually been highlighted and commended
and held up as best practise in particular in adults
by SIPFAR in terms of the approach to adult modelling.
and we are rolling that out and undoubtedly over the past five years, six years, then we have got better at our modelling and therefore
then I think there is more rigour applied and the estimates are therefore more robust.
So the chances of overspend I think are starting to reduce.
So the world is outside our control completely so there's no guarantees but in terms of based on the information that we hold,
then our modelling is much more robust than I think it has been in the past.
So those instances of overspend and chances of probability that are reducing in particular
I think I'd highlight that in adults and we are probably last year then
As the corporate director said then adults didn't overspend
I think we'll be in a position this year when adults won't overspend as well and that I think you know, it came is exemplary
Performance especially in light of the the difficult financial constraints that we find ourselves in the system pressures
So I think those things stand us in good stead
with no guarantees that nothing's gonna happen
in the future, but I think the risks are managed
and mitigated as much as they can be
with the processes that we've got
and the modelling that we apply to them.
Yeah, and so for my part, and I'll be quick, Mr. Chairman,
because I know time is running on.
Cllr Steven Broadbent - 3:53:45
I mentioned previously just before Christmas,
three new people, children appearing,
cost of roughly three quarters of a million pounds or so.
there's always, always that risk.
So that's, if that were to drive an overspend,
that's not from anyone not doing the job,
it's just that dynamic nature of more people
needing the service beyond the model
because they just turn up effectively unexpectedly.
And the other bit I'll leave you with
is one of the numbers we talked about previously,
which is 76 % now, almost 77,
will go on those major services.
So you're absolutely right, the discretionary spend element,
if you like, as opposed to the statutory spend element,
will shrink down to 24%.
And I've said before, around 10 % of the population
utilise the 76 % of spend.
So the taxpayers, the majority of taxpayers, as you rightly
say, care mostly, on a day -to -day basis at least,
around the services in the 24%.
And that is undoubtedly the spinoff challenge to meeting the regulatory requirements that we have,
statutory requirements that we have, whilst keeping those services on the road.
So I opened up by talking about resident priorities, keeping the bin collections, investing in your roads,
doing planning enforcement, all of that sits in, or large part for roads, sits in the discretionary area.
And that's why we need to prioritise that.
But you're absolutely right, any pound overspent somewhere else puts more pressure on that.
So that is the daily challenge as you well know.
Thank you very much indeed, Councillor Broadbent.
Cllr John Chilver - 3:55:34
So the final item on today's agenda is to outline the next steps following the end of
this meeting.

8 Next Steps

The inquiry group, this committee, will meet in private confidential session following this meeting to discuss our proposed recommendations.
I'm afraid we're going to have to stay for a bit longer.
From these recommendations, the group will prepare a report which will then be considered by Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 10 February.
The cabinet will respond to each recommendation and the final budget and capital programme
will then go to the full council meeting on the 25th of February for approval.
I'd like to end with just a few words of thanks.
Thanks to members, to Councillor Broadbent and all the members of the committee for their
attendance and participation and for all other members who've been involved and attended.
I'd like to thank all the officers, Sarah Ashmead, Dave Skinner and Fiona who have been
here throughout the process, so grateful to you for that.
And I'd like to thank all the Council staff who have been involved with a lot of hard
work in supporting the event, whether preparing papers, catering, arranging the webcast, and
so on.
It's a massive operation, and so we're very grateful for all the support we've had.
And I think special thanks to Katie, who's sitting on my left here, for all her support
as the scrutiny officer and hard work, and all her team who are also with us.
And as the leader said earlier, we have been for many years known for our strong and robust
budget scrutiny process, and I hope we've maintained this tradition this week.
I'm very grateful for the constructive way
in which all members of the committee have participated
on a cross -party basis.
So thank you and I hereby close the 2026 budget
scrutiny group.
Can I just thank you on behalf of committee members
for chairing this week.
It's not an easy task when you've got people
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 3:57:52
coming in and out and I think you've done a great job
in terms of ensuring that everybody had a fair opportunity
to ask questions.
be assisted by Councillor Dillon. So thank you very much. Thank you, I appreciate that.
Thanks and I think we could have five minutes break before we move on.