The Head of Finance and Procurement introduced the report which headlined the figures of the revenue and capital outturn position for 2024/25. The report highlighted the reprofiling of capital budgets as a result of slippage on projects where the budgets had already been approved.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and these included:

·           The fees that were charged for Planning services needed to be strict to prevent the planning department from needing additional funding from the budget;

·           was the overspend on planning appeals referred to at paragraph 3.5 of the report, an overspend on the agreed budget, or was there no budget provision made for planning appeals in the last budget?;

·           how was the planning income compared to other councils?;

·           could the Council not provide a budget for the use of agency staff in the planning department?;

·           why had officers not planned the inflation increase on the grounds maintenance contract?;

·           what were the potential implications on the budget if the additional Kent County Council (KCC) incentive grants for Revenue and Benefits were not received?;

·           could individual budgets be delegated to the relevant service committees so the responsible service committee could monitor the budget?;

·           previously, the Council had no planning appeals budget and any appeal would always cost a considerable amount of money;

·           did not consider the overspend on planning appeals was unreasonable as even when the Council won planning appeals there was still a cost to the Council;

·           the Highsted Park inquiry was due to extend an extra two weeks, that would increase the Council costs so how would that impact the budget?; and

·           further consideration was needed to be taken in the recruitment of younger adults to help fill vacancies in the planning department. 

The Head of Finance and Procurement responded to the budget for planning appeals and referred Members to page 17 of the report, which showed a small budget for planning appeals. She added that the £139,418 was overspend from the original budget. With regard to other authorities’ planning services income, the Head of Finance and Procurement said that other authorities have had similar problems.

The Head of Finance and Procurement responded to the recruitment of new planning officers to prevent an overspend on agency staff and said that work had been ongoing with the potential to temporarily increase the budget for recruitment. She added that no provisions had been made in the 2025/26 budget for agency staff, as officers hoped the vacant posts would be filled.

With regard to the Grounds Maintenance contract, the Head of Finance and Procurement said officers had considered an increase in the budget based on the predicted inflation rate at the time of drafting the budget. However, the inflation was higher than anticipated for this particular contract.

The Director of Resources responded to points raised and said that the Revenue and Benefits team had already factored into the budget the potential loss of the KCC incentive grants. She added that a new report for the additional costs for the Highsted Park inquiry would need to be considered by the Policy and Resources Committee so that Members could agree how the costs would be funded.

Resolved:

(1)   That the reduced take from the budget contingency reserve of £371k to deliver a balanced outturn position be noted.

(2)   That the level of reserves at 31 March 2025 as detailed in table 3 be noted.

(3)   That the capital slippage of £14.711m and capital expenditure of £16.827m against the Revised Budget as detailed in table 4 and appendix II be noted.