Agenda item

The Chairman explained that there were recommendations from the Cabinet meetings held on 10th December 2024 and 7th January 2025 for the Council’s consideration.

 

Recommendations from the Cabinet meeting held on 10th December 2024

 

Bromsgrove Local Heritage List

 

The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Licensing and Worcestershire Regulatory Services, Councillor K. Taylor presented the Bromsgrove Heritage List report for Members’ consideration. It was noted that this had been a long piece of work and that the Officers had worked incredibly hard in putting the information together.

 

It was reported that four parishes were involved in this part of the work and thanks were extended to the parishes for their involvement. In addition to this, Councillor Taylor thanked the Overview and Scrutiny Board for the scrutiny that had been carried out in respect of this matter. Several responses had been received that outlined some reluctance to appear on the list and as a result there had been some appeals from local residents.

 

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor K. Taylor and seconded by Councillor S. Webb.

 

RESOLVED that

 

1)    The Local Heritage List for the following parishes be adopted: Alvechurch, Beoley, Belbroughton and Fairfield Dodford with Grafton

 

2)    The wording of the Officer Scheme of Delegations for the Local Heritage List be updated ; and

 

3)    The amended Local Heritage List Strategy be approved.

 

Low-Cost Housing Capital Receipts

 

The Portfolio Holder for Health and Wellbeing and Strategic Housing presented the Low-Cost Housing Capital Receipts report for Council’s consideration. During the presentation, Members were informed that the report set out the pressures on the Council’s statutory housing service including homelessness service and those in temporary accommodation.

 

It was reported that twenty-seven years previously, the Council had entered into an arrangement with a housing developer to establish a local housing scheme. This had resulted in properties being offered to those families who were eligible to buy one of the houses within the scheme at a thirty per cent discount. However, over time the housing had ceased to be suitable for low-cost housing needs.

 

A report was considered by Cabinet in February 2017 which sought approval for the housing within the scheme to be sold at one hundred percent value when the developer chose to sell the properties. The Council would then recoup their thirty per cent and invest in affordable housing. The capital receipts as a result of this decision were £577,912.26, At the date of the meeting none of this capital money had been spent.

 

Officers had carried out some research and a model had been developed in respect of the increasing costs of temporary accommodation and upward trend of homelessness. It was hoped that the plans in respect of the low-cost housing capital receipts would help increase the supply of temporary accommodation, thus resulting in a decrease in the use of Bed and Breakfast (B&B) accommodation. There were several options for use of the receipts, which included the purchase of any low-cost housing or the flipping of new build shared ownership into social housing.

 

Members welcomed this report, however there were some concerns raised in respect of the lack of social housing included in the report with more references to ‘affordable’ housing. It was noted that those who found themselves homeless would not be in a position to be financially able to buy affordable homes. It was clarified that there was an opportunity for shared ownership homes to be flipped to social housing where necessary. It was also highlighted that this was much needed in the District due to the high demand for access to Bromsgrove District Housing Trust (BDHT) homes currently for local people and the increased use of B&Bs. Members were keen to note that there was a Housing Task Group underway, that was looking at these types of issues within the District and that further work could be achieved following the completion of the investigation.  

 

Some Members were interested in the priorities of the use of the capital receipts. It was confirmed that if the recommendations contained within the report were approved then authority would be delegated to the Assistant Director of Housing following consultation with the Portfolio Holder to move forward with these priorities.

 

Finally, there was a question raised in respect of information on the four static caravans due to receive funding of £30,688 which had been considered at the meeting of the Cabinet on 10^th December 2024. Some Members thought that this was good value for money, and questioned whether it would  be possible to expand this funding further? The Portfolio Holder undertook to find out more information regarding this scheme.

 

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor S. Webb and seconded by Councillor K. Taylor.

 

RESOLVED that

 

1)    the low-cost housing receipts be used to purchase existing properties, flip shared ownership into social or affordable rented accommodation or invest in new build developments with BDHT to increase the supply of affordable housing and temporary accommodation to meet the growing demand; and 

 

2)    delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director Community and Housing Services following consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Housing to approve individual proposals for new developments or the purchase of existing satisfactory dwellings and flipping Shared Ownership to affordable or social rented properties and the spend relating to these, as and when they were brought forward.

 

Carbon Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan

 

Apologies had been received from the Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Climate Change for this meeting. Therefore, the Portfolio Holder for Economic Development and Regeneration presented the report in respect of the Carbon Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan.

 

Members were informed that this was a very detailed strategy that outlined the five key successes and actions for the Council in respect of carbon reduction for the future.

 

Thanks were extended to the Assistant Director for Community and Housing Services and the team for their hard work in putting the strategy together.

 

Members welcomed the report and the Council’s commitment to carbon neutrality by 2040[JB1] . However, it was raised that the Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change (IPCC) had since recommend that there was a need for carbon neutrality to be reached by 2030, if not sooner.

 

It was raised that a former Portfolio Holder had requested some modelling to be arranged in order to look at the potential for the Council’s operations to be carbon neutral by 2030, 2035 and 2040. This was to ascertain whether there might be the potential for the Council to be carbon neutral earlier than planned. Members were unaware if this modelling had been conducted but it was agreed that the Portfolio holder for Leisure and Climate Change should be asked to consult with Officers to see if the work had been carried out.

 

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor S. Baxter and seconded by Councillor K. May.

 

RESOLVED that

 

the Council endorse the findings of the Annual Review of the Carbon Reduction Strategy.

 

Bromsgrove Draft Air Quality Action Plan 2025 – 2030

 

The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Licensing and Worcestershire Regulatory Services presented the Bromsgrove Draft Air Quality report.

 

It was reported that the online consultation had already commenced. This consultation had commenced prior to consideration by Council in order to meet deadlines set by Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to complete consultation by 1^st April 2025. Members were satisfied that this had been necessary to do in order to avoid any penalties from late submissions from the consultation period. Members were encouraged to complete the online survey.

 

Following the presentation Members queried whether it would be possible to provide monitoring for individual residents who lived in an Air Quality Management Area(AQMA)  in order to understand if the air quality had a detrimental effect on the residents’ health. The Portfolio Holder undertook to obtain this information from Officers.

 

Members further requested any data held by the Council in respect of whether there were more occasions for residents to visit their General Practitioner (GP) with respiratory and lung diseases such as asthma or Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). This would be an interesting area to investigate as the impact of certain areas across the District might be adversely impacted by poor air quality. It was noted that this was information that was more likely to be held by Public Health. However, it was agreed that this information would be circulated, if possible, to all Members for their information.

 

The report was welcomed by Members particularly those who felt that certain areas needed to be monitored closely due to the increased number of vehicles on the roads. It was noted that a Member request had been made to a Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) Officer to see if there was the possibility to set up an additional AQMA in Bordesley.

 

Members were also keen to better understand what the criteria was for establishing an Air Quality Monitoring station. Currently, there were three across the District and it would be useful to understand how these areas had been chosen. The Portfolio Holder undertook to circulate this information to Members.

 

During presentation of the report Councillor Taylor extended his best wishes to one of the Officers involved in the preparation of the report who was currently unwell.

 

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor K. Taylor and seconded by Councillor S. Webb.

 

RESOLVED that

 

1)    the Draft Air Quality Action Plan 2025-2030 be approved;

 

2)    a Consultation on the Plan be undertaken for 2 months from Mid- December to February 2025: and

 

3)    authority be delegated to the Assistant Director Community and Housing, following consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Licencing Worcestershire Regulatory Services, to approve the final Plan following the consultation, and for submission to DEFRA by April 2025.

 

Quarter 2 Revenue and Performance Monitoring 2024/2025

 

The Portfolio Holder for Finance presented the Quarter Two Revenue and Performance Monitoring report for Members’ consideration.

 

Council was informed that the report set out the draft revenue position at the end of Quarter Two. It was forecast that there would be a full year overspend of £344,000 which was an increase of £103,000 from Quarter One. The outturn spend was reported as £1.944 million against a capital budget totalling £7.069 million.

 

Information was provided to Members in respect of £40,000 from earmarked reserves to support community hubs, which was due to be reallocated to Poverty Truth Commissions. It was stated that the project was likely to cost £120,000 in total, so the Council would be providing one third. The remaining funding would be provided from other partners (one third) and the voluntary sector (one third).

 

In addition to this, it was recommended that there be a new allocation of £50,000 from the General Fund for Planning Appeals in the future.

 

The report also included information on the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy, a statutory report that needed to be provided at least twice yearly. This report set out to provide information on the debt and borrowing of the Council along with working capital and prudential indicators.

 

Following the presentation of the report, Members queried several areas. The report stated that £32,000 had been spent on professional fees for commercialism. Members queried what these costs entailed. The Portfolio Holder undertook to find this information and circulate to Members.

 

Members expressed concerns regarding the use of agency staff and the increased costs. These concerns were noted as being appropriate to report, particularly at a time when there had been discussions regarding decreasing the use of agency staff across the Council. It was reported that agency staff had been used in the Finance team in order to ensure the closure of the accounts for the previous years and to deal with the amounts contained within the suspense account. Another area of significant use for agency staff had been within the Waste Team. It was hoped that use across these teams would decrease particularly as the Statement of Accounts had now been prepared for the outstanding years. It was suggested that this could be an area for Members of the Finance and Budget Working Group (FBWG) to look at more closely and monitor in the future. Alongside this, it was suggested that the impact of savings made by vacant posts should be looked at, and whether this had a detrimental impact on the Council’s services and its workforce. It was suggested that if any Members had specific queries regarding a specific area of impact, such as Environmental Services, that they should contact the service directly through the Assistant Director leading that service area.

 

It was raised that there had been discussions at a meeting of the FBWG regarding the allocation of £40,000 to the Poverty Trust Commission and that additional information had been requested by Members on this matter. Although information had been provided, it was not deemed adequate enough to scrutinise sufficiently and it was agreed that this would be further discussed at the next FBWG meeting with more evidence being provided to Members on the effectiveness of the initiative. For the time being the allocation would be included in the Medium-Term Financial Plan until this scrutiny had taken place.

 

Members discussed the allocation of the Members’ Ward Budgets. Members queried the information contained within the report regarding the allocation of the ward budgets, which it was suggested did not appear to be accurate. However, it was explained that the information provided was a ‘snapshot’ and therefore was not completely accurate or up to date. Members were informed that there had been twenty-one Councillors who had fully or partially spent their allocated budget, with ten Councillors still to spend their allocation. The total spend of those who had spent some or all of their allocation was currently £18,000, with a remaining £15,000 to be allocated. Of those Councillors who had not spent any of their allocation, it was reported that there was £16,000 to £18,000 outstanding. It was highlighted that any outstanding Ward Member Budgets needed to be spent by 31^st March 2025.

 

Some Members queried the £50,000 savings made on libraries referenced in the report as this was not a statutory responsibility of the District Council. It was reported that this was not strictly a ‘saving’ and had been earmarked in case there needed to be any support provided to libraires if there were any changes in the future. It was confirmed that money had already been allocated for Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB) and outreach work as agreed previously by Council.

 

The UK Shared Prosperity Funding allocation (UKSPF) of £74,000 was questioned by some Members. It was felt that this was a small amount given that the full amount of funding was £2.4 million. It was noted that as discussed at a recent Cabinet Advisory Group meeting, the funding had been allocated and a report was due to be considered by Cabinet in the near future.

 

In terms of the new allocation of £50,000 for planning appeals, Members were keen to understand why this had not been necessary in previous years. It was explained that historically planning appeals had been paid for directly from the Planning budget. However, this was not considered to be appropriate going forward, as it impacted on the operational budget for Planning and therefore the new allocation was being recommended.

 

There was a detailed discussion regarding the performance data included in the report.  Members suggested that because the data was not current this made it difficult to ascertain where improvements had been or needed to be made The crime statistics were specifically queried and whether they provided an accurate picture of crimes being reported in a balanced manner. It was noted that these figures were from the West Mercia Police website and not data held by the Council. Members were reminded that Councillors had the opportunity to understand these and other Community Safety data sets at the annual presentation in respect of the Community Safety Partnership provided at Overview and Scrutiny Board meetings.

 

RESOLVED that

 

1)              Council approve the £40,000 from the Community Hub earmarked reserves to be allocated to contribute to a Poverty Truth Commission in Bromsgrove (subject to further scrutiny);

 

2)       The Balance Sheet Monitoring Position for Quarter 2 be noted – which was the Treasury Monitoring Report and required to be reported to Council; and

 

3)       the £50,000 be transferred to earmarked Reserves from the General Fund for Planning Appeal costs

 

Recommendations from the Cabinet meeting held on 7th January 2025

 

Refuse Fleet Replacement and Wheeled Bin Pressures

 

The Cabinet Member for Environmental and Community Safety presented the report and took the opportunity to thank the Environmental Services Manager and the team for producing a comprehensive report. He also thanked the Overview and Scrutiny Board for pre-scrutinising the report at its meeting held on 6^th January 2025.

 

It was noted that there was a degree of urgency in respect of this report due to the timelines involved and in order to ensure that refuse collection continued to be an effective Council service.

 

Council was informed that the procurement of the current style wheeled bins had been approved by Members in 2004. They had been purchased using funding from DEFRA. The style of bins that were purchased were only compatible with a ‘diamond’ lift system. This style of lift was only invested in by three Local Authorities across the UK with most Councils choosing to invest in the ‘comb’ lift bin which was cheaper to manufacture. Currently, Bromsgrove District and Redditch Borough Councils were the only Local Authorities using this style of bin.

 

Over time, the bins had proved problematic due to the type of lift used on the refuse collection vehicles being incompatible with the lift on the bin. This issue had been resolved by fitting a supplementary mechanical arm to the vehicles which lifted ‘diamond’ and ‘comb’ lift bins. However, it had become increasingly difficult and expensive to maintain and repair the mechanical arms on the vehicles. It was therefore proposed that new wheeled bins with a ‘comb’ lift be procured.

 

Members were informed that during the discussions at the Overview and Scrutiny Board meeting on 6^th January 2025, it was recommended that two hundred and forty litre ‘comb’ bins be purchased rather than one hundred and sixty litre ‘comb’ bins as proposed in the Cabinet report, which had been endorsed.

 

Following the presentation, Members discussed the contents of the report in detail. Several areas were raised as follows:

 

·        What happened if the Council’s refuse vehicles were in need of repairs? Was there a way to source replacements? – It was noted that these types of lifts were no longer able to be sourced in the waste sector. Therefore, if there were no vehicles available at Bromsgrove, Redditch Borough Council, as the only other Local Authority still using these kinds of lifts, provided spare refuse vehicles. However, this inevitably impacted on their refuse service along with Bromsgrove’s refuse service.

·        The importance of a strategic approach in respect of proposed changes to wheeled bins, given the introduction of a statutory weekly food waste service as a result of the implementation of the Environment Act 2021. Members queried why the Council needed to procure larger bins if the food waste collection service would be in place, as this would potentially decrease the amount of waste by approximately thirty-five per cent being placed in the grey bins in the future. It was explained that bigger replacement bins would provide greater value for money and accommodate any changes to refuse collection regularity in the future. It was also explained that although food waste bins would be available in the future, households might not use it effectively, resulting in food waste being incorrectly placed in the grey bins. Members explained that there had been a detailed debate at the Overview and Scrutiny Board meeting and that the issue of equality must be considered alongside the replacement of the bins. It was stated that some residents needed the larger bin style in order for them to effectively dispose of waste,such as disposable nappies. It was noted that some residents might only require the smaller wheeled bins. It was confirmed that there would still be the opportunity to accommodate these kinds of requests. Some Members commented that the previous implementation of the roll out of wheeled bins had not been as efficient as had been hoped, therefore Members suggested that a more effective approach be taken this time.

·          Risk Implications – it was highlighted that there were no risk implications included in the report. However, it was noted that there were some implications specifically concerned with continued delivery of an effective service and reputational risk.

 

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor P. Whittaker and seconded by Councillor K. Taylor.

 

RESOLVED that

 

The Council allocate £2.2 million Capital funding in the Medium -Term Financial Plan for the 2025/26 financial year for the purchase and distribution of the standard ‘Comb’ 240 litre wheeled bins.

 

[At this stage in the meeting the Chairman announced that there would be a comfort break from 20:24 – 20:37].

 

Introduction of Food Waste Collection

 

The Portfolio Holder for Environmental and Community Safetypresented the Food Waste Collection report.

 

During consideration of the report, Members discussed the following in detail:

 

·       Adequate space at Bromsgrove Depot – Members raised concerns regarding the space available at the depot in dealing with the current refuse disposal. This pressure would inevitably increase when the food waste collection service was implemented,  potentially resulting in a future request to source a new depot site or further outsourcing the service. Members requested that a business case be prepared to look at the possibility of delivering the service in-house in future.

 

It was reported that following discussions at the Overview and Scrutiny Board and Cabinet meetings, it had been agreed that, in order to support the Council in managing the risks of being unsuccessful in outsourcing the operations,  a twin track approach would be taken. This meant that Officers would look at the possibilities of using an in-house option. Some Members expressed the view that they were confused as to why this approach had now been agreed. During the discussions at the Overview and Scrutiny Board meeting, it seemed that it would not be feasible to bring the service in-house. It was reported that this approach had been agreed in order to mitigate any risks should there be no appetite from the private waste sector to take on the Council’s waste disposal service. Furthermore, it was clarified that an in-house option was not being proposed currently as it was important to be able to offer a reasonable contract to a private waste operator if there were an appetite. The work that would be undertaken included cost analysis of land acquisition and requirements to comply with the statutory duty of food waste collection and increased need of refuse vehicles. This work would also include looking at the future population and housing growth. Members requested that the approach to implementation be considered and that although work was underway to look at the possibility of delivering an in-house service it was best to take a measured approach to ascertain all of the available options.

·       The uptake of the food waste collection service by residents – Members were concerned that the service would not be adequately used by residents following its implementation. Therefore, it was queried as to how the cost of the implementation had been decided. One million pounds had been allocated to the revenue funding to implement this collection,and given that all residents might not use it, Members questioned whether this amount was too much? Members suggested that residents be canvassed to ascertain the likely uptake of the service rather than a blanket approach being adopted that assumed that all residents would utilise the food waste collection service effectively. It was reported that there had been a number of meetings involving Worcestershire County Council and other Local Authorities within the County and that the system needed to be implemented by April 2026. The Council had instructed consultants to look at the estimates of implementation costs and that a number of options had been identified and that the million pounds option had been the most cost effective. It was stated that there was not the capacity in terms of staffing, vehicles and manpower at the Council. Due to DEFRA timelines, it was necessary to start the implementation of the service in order to be compliant by the time of the deadline. This had resulted in the recommendation being that the private sector be approached to provide the service. If the private sector were not interested in providing a North Worcestershire food waste service, then there would potentially be grounds to approach DEFRA to explain why there had been delays experienced and to postpone the introduction of the service. Members were informed that in terms of the cost of implementation, the modelling that had been used, took into account that not all residents would utilise the food waste service.However, there needed to be the opportunity for all residents to use the service due to its statutory nature. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to canvas residents in respect of this matter.

·       Some Members were interested in the option of providing compost bins to residents in order to offset some of the costs of the food waste service. It was clarified that a compost bin service was already provided by Worcestershire County Council.

 

Councillor P. Whittaker proposed the recommendations they were seconded by Councillor K. May.

 

RESOLVED that

 

The Council allocate £1,000,000 Revenue Funding in the Medium-Term Financial Plan as an operational budget from 2026/27 to fund the Food Waste Collection Service in the District, as accounted for within Tranche one of the budget.

 

Final Council Tax Support Scheme 2025/2026

 

The Portfolio Holder for Finance presented the Final Council Tax Support Scheme report for Members’ consideration. A typographical error was highlighted in respect of the omission of the Portfolio Holder’s name from the report. This had been noted by Officers. It was noted that there had been no change to the previous years’ scheme. However, in line with the approved increases benefit and pension rates for 2026 of 1.7 per cent, the income bands for Council Tax would also be increased at this level. Members were informed that there were eighteen hundred pension aged residents who received Council Tax support and approximately two thousand three hundred residents of non-pension age who received support. It was clarified that this financial support was provided by the Government.

 

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor S. Colella and seconded by Councillor K. May.

 

RESOLVED that

 

the Council Tax Reduction Scheme be retained for the 2025-26 tax year, subject to the uprating of income bands by 1.7 per cent in-line with increases to national benefits.

 

Medium Term Financial Plan - Tranche 1 Budget including Fees and Charges (following consultation)

 

The Portfolio Holder for Finance presented the Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP) – Tranche 1 report including Fees and Charges (following consultation). During the presentation, the following was reported to Council:

 

·       The tranche one budget was presented to Cabinet on 10^th December 2024. The report had subsequently been subject to public consultation.  The budget had been set out in two tranches. This was prudent in order to help close any deficits during the first tranche following the Chancellor’s Statement, with the second tranche being presented to Council once details of the Local Government Settlement had been released in January 2025.

 

The Chancellor’s Statement had impacted on the Council’s budgets as follows:

 

o   A 3.2% increase in core spending power – including £1.3 billion additional grant funding with at least £600 million of this being directed to social care.

o   £233 million new funding for homelessness prevention

o   £1 billion to extend the Household Support Fund Discretionary Housing payment into 2025-26.

o   £1.1 billion of new funding through implementation of the Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme for recycling.

o   Business Rates support for the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors.

o   £500 million increase to the Affordable Homes Programme in 2025/26.

o   The UK Shared Prosperity Fund had been extended for 2025-26. This was for one year and for £900 million, a forty per cent decrease from the current year.

o   Local Government funding systems would be changed following the 2025-26 financial year, with a three-year settlement at that point.

 

·       A four per cent increase in fees and charges was set out within the report. However, it was clarified that the parking fees and charges would remain unchanged.

·       Corporate pressures were also outlined within the report. These amounted to a surplus of £329,000 for the financial year 2025-26, changing to a deficit of £858,000 for 2026-27 and £644,000   for 2027-28. The key driver for these increased pressures was the implementation of the food waste service. A £1.37 million departmental revenue pressure was reported in 2025-26, decreasing to £938,000 by 2027-28. These costs would result in an ongoing pressure of approximately £1 million rising to £1.5 million over the three-year MTFP. Were the Council to get the full 3.3% core spending power increase, as set out in the Chancellor’s Statement, then this £490,000 additional funding would decrease the pressures outlined above to £500,000 in 2025-26 up to £1 million in 2027-28.

·       The consultation on tranche one of the budget had opened on 10^th December 2024, with an email invite to take part in the survey being sent to members of the Bromsgrove Community Panel. The survey was also promoted on the Council’s social media channels. The survey closed on 2^nd January 2025 with a response rate from the Community Panel of 48% and a total of 278 valid responses received. The survey asked what the three most important areas of investment should be for the Council. The responses were as follows:

 

o   Local Economic Development and employment at 47.1%

o   Community safety with 44.6 per cent of respondents

o   Maintenance of landscape and environment with 43.8 per cent of respondents.

 

Several questions included in the survey required responders to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with questions. Most of the responses had well over 50 per cent of responders that strongly agreed or agreed. However, there were two questions that fell below this level. These were as follows:

 

1.     Do you agree that the Council should invest more in our front-line services to cover increases in fuel? – this question had an approval rate of 49.6 per cent

 

2.     Do you support fees and charges (this excludes parking) rising by 4 per cent to keep them in line with inflation and rising staffing costs? - this question had an approval rate of 40.2 per cent.

 

A further question which asked: -

 

1.     Do you agree that the Council should invest in economic development in order to support local businesses, start-ups, the town and local centres and to prioritise local skills? – had an approval rate of 86.2 per cent, which was the highest approval rate overall.

 

There were two questions that dealt with Bromsgrove District Council’s proportion of Council Tax. 61.5 per cent of responders agreed or strongly agreed with a 1.99 per cent increase. This rate dropped to 45.8 per cent for a 2.99 per cent increase.

 

Two free text questions appeared in the survey regarding investment in the District, to increase prosperity and enhance the appeal for residents and businesses alike. The top three responses to this question were Bromsgrove Town Centre, supporting businesses and the importance of infrastructure, including roads and public transport.

 

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor S. Colella and seconded by Councillor K. May.

 

RESOLVED that

 

1)       Members endorse the inputs into the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan as at the middle of October 2024, and the associated risks and opportunities; and 

 

2)              An initial Tranche of savings proposals and pressures, as set out in Sections 3.03 to 3.14, including the fees and charges increases (non-commercial), after consideration of feedback from the consultation exercise which closed on 2^nd January 2025, be approved.