Cabinet, at its meeting on 13 March 2024, considered a report from the Head of Financial Services on the Integrated Performance Report for Q3 2023/24. Cllr Ed Turner, Deputy Leader (Statutory) and Cabinet Member for Finance and Asset Management and Nigel Kennedy, Head of Financial Services, have been invited to present the report and answer questions. The Committee is asked to consider the report and agree any recommendations.

Cllr Latif joined the meeting.

This report provided an update on the Council’s finance, risk and corporate performance matters as at 31 December 2023. It was considered by Cabinet at its meeting on 13 March 2024; Cllr Turner, Deputy Leader (Statutory) and Cabinet Member for Finance and Asset Management had sent his apologies for the Panel meeting. Nigel Kennedy, Head of Financial Services was in attendance to answer questions.

In response to questions, the Panel was advised that:

·       All spend which met the requirement for capital expenditure in respect of Responsive & Cyclical Repairs (currently charged to the revenue budget) would be capitalised; this would improve the financial position of the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) as that spend would be taken out of the revenue budget and charged to capital, which would then be funded through borrowing and/or grants.

·       A 40% ‘optimism bias’ reduction had been applied in the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) for 2024/25 to 2027/28 in order to better account for slippage within the Capital Programme. No comparisons had been undertaken between current slippage levels and how they aligned with the 40% optimism bias assumptions which would be applied to the Capital Programme from 2024/25.

·       Slippage within the Capital Programme was generally unintentional and projects were not intentionally delayed so as to improve the revenue budget position.

·       The Cave Street capital project was classed as a postponement, rather than slippage, as it had been proactively taken out of the Capital Programme completely for the time being as the business case was no longer viable in the current climate.

·       The Head of Financial Services would seek clarification as to why four of the corporate indicators had no data available for the report and feed back to the Panel.

·       The Council did not generally budget for maternity cover as it was too difficult to predict; where maternity cover required backfilling of a post, this led to a budget overspend. The Business Improvement staffing pressures related largely to high levels of maternity and sickness leave within the Contact Centre; it was hoped that the pressures would not carry forward, as mitigations such as the rollout of online forms sought to relieve the pressures to an extent.

·       St Aldate’s Chambers and Cadogan House had both now been let, however there was a grace period within which the Council would not receive any income. Income was expected to flow through over the next 12 months.

·       The ‘Fusion saving’ referenced in the report related to a saving in energy costs in connection with the Fusion contract, as the Council had budgeted for higher energy bills and the actual energy bills had been slightly below the forecasted budget.

·       The Head of Financial Services relied on the expertise of officers within Corporate Property when factoring the time taken to complete lettings into the budget.

·       The Head of Financial Services took the advice of other officers in relation to the number and classification of risks.

·       The red service area risk relating to procurement challenges was not intrinsic to the Council, it was as a result of a national trend which had seen an increase in procurement challenges. The Council had received two challenges in the past six months, though both had been successfully rebutted. Challenges did cause delays but a standstill period was already built into procurement processes; the Council had robust procurement processes in place and would also ensure adequate training for officers.

·       Mitigations to address workforce sustainability risks included pay settlements and pay benchmarking with other local authorities.

·       The Executive Director (Communities and People) would seek clarification around the timescales for delivery of the Adult Homeless Pathway transformation programme and report back to the Panel.

·       The Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) included at Appendix D to the report covered the ‘year to date’. The Head of Financial Services agreed that this could be set out more clearly in the appendix to ensure clarity on the period covered. The KPIs were currently under review and revised KPIs would be brought forward in due course.

·       Housing Services held data in relation to longevity in Temporary Accommodation which could be shared with the Panel.

The Panel requested that:

·       The Head of Financial Services seek clarification as to why four of the corporate indicators had no data available for the report and feed back to the Panel.

·       The Executive Director (Communities and People) seek clarification around the timescales for delivery of the Adult Homeless Pathway transformation programme and report back to the Panel.

·       Information relating to longevity in Temporary Accommodation be shared with the Panel to allow Members to understand how long individuals currently in Temporary Accommodation had been accommodated in Temporary Accommodation.

The Panel agreed to recommend to Cabinet that:

1.    The Council undertakes a comparative analysis of the current overall slippage of the Capital Programme and how that aligns with the 40% optimism bias assumptions included in the MTFP 2024/25 to 2027/28, to understand the extent to which the 40% optimism bias assumptions from 2024/25 are realistic.

2.    The Council undertakes an analysis in relation to the letting of Council-owned property between estimated time taken to let properties versus actual time taken to let properties, with a view to being able to incorporate more accurate assumptions in the budget going forward.

3.    The Council reassesses corporate and service area risks to ensure accuracy of the number and classification of risks, with particular consideration given as to whether the two corporate risks relating to climate change should be merged into one risk and whether the service area risk related to Hinksey Heated Outdoor Pool should be reduced to an amber risk.

4.    The Council ensures clarity in future Integrated Performance reports in relation to the period covered by Key Performance Indicator reporting.