Agenda item

To present the Council’s forecast 2025/26 financial position as at end of September 2025 with specific regard to:  

• General Fund Revenue Budget 

• General Fund Capital Programme

The Leader of the Council presented the report which outlined the Council’s forecast 2025-26 financial position in respect of September 2025 revenue and capital budgets.

The report had previously been presented and approved by Cabinet on 4 November 2025.

The General Fund was performing strongly and currently had a underspend of £499,000. The underspend was mainly due to fuel price reductions, utility cost reductions, lower tariffs, an increase in car parking income, planning fee income and green waste income.

The salary vacancy continued to be monitored and was on track to be achieved by 31 March 2026.

In terms of the capital programme, there was an overall of 1.26% variance for all schemes, which had been presented in table 4 of the report.

The report provided information regarding the collection rates for council tax and business rates which confirmed no areas of concern at this stage of the financial year.

A query was raised on whether the Council received any income from the cardboard waste collections.

It was clarified the Council were the waste collection authority and Lincolnshire County Council were the waste disposal authority. Therefore, the Council only incurred the costs of waste collection.

The return on investments was at 4.3% which seemed positive. It was queried what notice period was applied to notice accounts.

The Council take advice from MUFG on their investments. Investments had previously been discussed at a Governance and Audit Committee held on 13 November 2025.

A query was raised on whether the budget underspend was a ‘one-off’ or whether the Council would be in the same position in years to come.

It was noted the National Pay Award was 2% higher than budgeted for. It was questioned whether the Pay Award had come from the local priorities reserve and how this would be sustainable in future.

The Deputy Chief Executive (S151 Officer) confirmed the local priority reserve may not be required to fund the 3.2% Pay Award. Underspends and overachieving budget lines would be used to fund the Pay Award increase instead of the local priority reserve.

The Leader of the Council drew the Committee’s attention to table 2 where significant variances were outlined.

A query was raised about whether the Council was considering lowering planning fees and encouraging people to apply for more development.

The Deputy Chief Executive (S151 Officer) informed the Committee that the majority of planning fees were set by Government and not by the Council. The reason for the increased income of budget of £250,000 was due to late notification from Government on the increases alongside additional planning applications.

In previous years, Government had not increased planning fees at all. The Council had budgeting on the assumption there would be no increase on planning fees.

One Member noted a £60,000 overspend on the decarbonisation scheme. A query was raised if there was a payback period for the overspend.

The Leader of the Council stated there would be around a 30-year pay back, however, the decarbonisation project at the Meres leisure centre would bring a reduction in their energy bills and would generate savings from utility consumption. The overspend would be a ‘one-off’ cost from the property reserve.

One Member raised a point in terms of the planning fee income. It was noted of the £250,000 surplus, £162,000 was related to a large solar farm planning application.

It was noted that local developers looking to build houses were critical of the discretionary fees of the Council.

The Assistant Director of Finance (Deputy S151 Officer) highlighted the only discretionary charges were during the pre-planning stage.

Green waste income was bringing in a £100,000 surplus over budget. A query was raised on whether the Council would explore bringing the cost of green waste down after making the saving.

The Council currently charged the second highest rate in the County for green waste. The routes had been changed to save a significant amount of money, therefore, understand how the income saved would be utilised was questioned.

The Deputy Chief Executive (S151 Officer) clarified the green waste round review was around cost avoidance due to the growth of the District as a whole. The routes became outdated, insufficient and were based on a different geographical layout.

(Councillor Graham Jeal left the meeting at 11:40).

The Committee:

1.    Reviewed and noted the forecast 2025/26 outturn position for the General Fund Revenue and Capital budgets as at the end of September 2025.