Agenda item

To consider the recommendation from the meeting of the Cabinet held on 26^th March 2025.

Members are asked to note that any recommendations made at the Cabinet meeting held on 19^th February 2025 were considered at the full Council meeting held on 19^th February 2025.

Quarter 3 Finance and Performance Monitoring Report 2024/25

The Cabinet Member for Finance presented the Finance and Performance Monitoring report for the third quarter of the 2024/25 financial year. 

Council was informed that in March 2025, Cabinet had agreed to submit a bid to Birmingham City Council for Bromsgrove District Council’s share of funding arising from the authority’s previous membership of the former Greater Birmingham and Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership (GBSLEP).  Birmingham City Council held this funding on behalf of all former members of the GBSLEP and there was a requirement to submit business cases in order to access the funding.  The budget needed to be amended to reflect the incorporation of this funding moving forward.

Members were asked to note that the balance sheet monitoring information that the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee had requested had been included within the appendices to the report.

Following the presentation of the report, questions were raised about the reasons why Bromsgrove District Council had to submit business cases to access the authority’s own funds and the extent to which there was a risk that this funding would not be made available.  Clarification was provided that former members of the GBSLEP, including Bromsgrove District Council, had pooled their business rates.  This pooled funding had remained, even though the GBSLEP had ceased to exist and each former member of the GBSLEP was eligible to receive a portion of the remaining funds; Bromsgrove District Council was due to receive £2.5 million from this fund.  Members were asked to note that the funding could only be used for certain purposes relating to regeneration and transformation.  There were other former members of the GBSLEP that were also applying for their share of the funding and Birmingham City Council could not refuse to provide this funding.

The proposed allocation of the £2.5 million GBSLEP funding to the Levelling Up project at the former Market Hall site was discussed by Members and questions were raised about whether this would result in the availability of other Council funds to use on alternative projects.  Clarification was provided that, by the date of the meeting, there was a projected overspend of £1.5 million on the former Market Hall site and it was therefore anticipated that the GBSLEP funding could help to address some of these financial pressures.  Members were also reminded that from the start of the project there had always been a requirement for Bromsgrove District Council to contribute 10 per cent of the funding and the GBSLEP funds would therefore help the authority to address this cost.

Reference was made to the current position of the £2.4 million GBSLEP funding that the Council was due to receive and Members commented that this fund would be accruing interest.  The suggestion was made that this interest should be returned to Bromsgrove District Council as part of the process of accessing those funds.

The content of the report was discussed and concerns were raised about references in the report to financial costs arising from using agency staff.  In particular, Members commented that the report referred to agency staff costs for the planning department at a time when it was also being reported that there was a shortage of applications.  The Cabinet Member for Finance advised that further information would be requested from Officers in response to this query after the meeting.

Consideration was given to the savings that had been recorded for Legal Democratic and Procurement Services, including in respect of salary savings and elections and questions were raised about the reasons for these savings.  The Leader explained that the figures recorded in this section of the report included the impact of the recruitment process for the positions of Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Executive respectively, which had been deferred from a previous planned timetable.

Budget forecasting by different departments was also discussed during the meeting.  Concerns were raised that for many departments, the projected budget by the end of the financial year differed from the designated budget, with variances of up to 30 per cent in places.  In response, it was acknowledged that there were variances in the budgets, although Members were asked to note that there were complex circumstances impacting on the budget.  The Leader explained that she would aim to work with the Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Executive on action that could be taken to improve budget management at the authority moving forward.

The timing of the Finance and Performance Monitoring report for the third quarter of the 2024/25 financial year was discussed.  Members noted that the figures included in this report were projections and did not necessarily represent the final position by the end of the financial year.  However, Members also commented that the report was often provided a few months after that quarter of the financial year had taken place and this could create challenges in terms of Members accessing and assessing current data.

In concluding discussions in respect of this item, Members noted that the Finance and Budget Working Group had an important role at the Council in terms of scrutinising the authority’s budget and financial management.  The suggestion was made that the group could identify and review a range of issues relating to the budget and the group’s input was welcomed by the Cabinet.

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

RESOLVED that

1)          That the Balance Sheet Monitoring Position for Quarter 3 be noted – which was the Treasury Monitoring Report and required to be reported to Council; and

2)          In the event that the bid was successful, the budget be amended to reflect that the Greater Birmingham and Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership (GBSLEP) funding would be applied to the Market Hall development.