Agenda item

(To receive a report from Keith Noyland, Head of Finance, Communities, which enables the Committee to consider and comment on the budget proposals for the Council’s Environment and Economy services, prior to a decision being taken by the Executive at it’s meeting on 8 February 2022, on the budget proposals for 2022)

Consideration was given to a report by the Head of Finance - Communities, which invited the Committee to consider a report on the Revenue and Capital Budget Proposals for 2022/23 in relation to the Council’s Environment and Economic services, prior to their consideration by the Executive on 8 February 2022.

The Committee was advised that there were no further updates on the implementation of local government funding reforms, therefore the budget proposals set out in the report were for a single year.

At the meeting on the 5 January, the Executive had approved the budget proposals for consultation, that included a proposed 3% increase in Council tax which was the 3% adult social care precept which had been deferred from 2021/22.

Members referred to the proposed revenue budgets, which could be found at Table A (page 18) of the report and showed the movements from the current year’s budget in terms of unavoidable cost pressures and expected savings. The figures excluded pay inflation, which had been budgeted for at 2%, but was currently being held centrally pending agreements of any pay award.

The proposed budgets remained largely unchanged. A cost pressure of £200,000 for the Countryside Service had arisen from the increased cost of maintenance of public rights of way fuelled by materials and labour price inflation.

The Committee was also informed that there was a saving of £365.000 in waste services derived from efficiencies from the continued rollout of separated waste paper and card collections.

Members were referred to Table B (page 20), which set out the proposed capital programme for the Economic and Environmental services. The capital programme was currently supplemented by funding of around £2m from the Development Fund, following approval in the 2020/21 to increase capacity to carry out drainage works and investigation and repair works scheme. It was proposed that the scheme be extended for another two years, using £1.4 million which remained unallocated in the Development Fund.

A consultation meeting with local business representatives, trade unions and other partners was scheduled for the 28 January. The public had the opportunity to comment on the proposals, which were now live on Let’s Talk Lincolnshire.  The Executive will make final proposals on 8 February for consideration by Full Council on 18 February.

Consideration was given to the report and during the discussion the following points were noted:

• The Committee acknowledged the importance of efforts made to roll out efficient waste collection services, including the separate paper and cardboard collection trial and the food waste collection trial that took place in South Holland District and South Kesteven District respectively.
• It was confirmed the funding for food waste collection in South Kesteven was still available, however it was uncertain whether the service would continue due to pressures in obtaining the appropriate vehicles when renewing their fleet. 
• The Committee welcomed future plans for wider roll out of the food waste collection appreciating that these were affected and shaped by the implementation of the Environment Act 2022 in which food waste collection would be mandatory. The Committee requested to receive a timeline of the proposed roll out across the County.
• The Chairman acknowledged the importance of monitoring the recycling and food waste collection across the County and requested that a future report be added to the Committee’s work programme. 
• The Committee expressed a concern over the apparent removal of the development management budget and the anticipated impact on services and were pleased to hear that this was a budget that received income from development contributions, and therefore the income received, exceeded the cost of providing that service, thus not reflecting a reduction in budget year-on-year.

RESOLVED:

1. That the recommendations to the Executive be supported;
2. That a summary of the comments made be passed on to the Executive as part of their consideration of this item.