Agenda item

Colleen Warren, Financial Services Manager:

a)    presented a report to Performance Scrutiny Committee on the second quarter’s performance 2021/2022 (up to 30^th September 2021)

b)    provided information on the Council’s:

·         General Fund Revenue Account - the General Fund Summary was currently projecting a forecast overspend of £46,366 (Appendix A provided a forecast General Fund Summary), resulting in general balance at the year-end of £2,146,993. There were a significant number of forecast year-end variations in income and expenditure against the approved budget. Full details of the main variances were provided in Appendix B.

·         Housing Revenue Account – the HRA was projecting an in-year variance of a £156,480 overspend, which would decrease the general balances to £918,173 at the end of 2021/22. There were a number of forecast year-end variations in income and expenditure against the approved budget. Full details of the main variances were provided in Appendix D.

·         Housing Repairs Service – the HRS was forecasting a deficit of £811,418 in 2021/22. Appendix E provided a forecast summary, with full details of the main variances provided in Appendix F.

c)    provided information in the following areas:

·         General Investment Programme – the revised General Investment Programme for 2021/22 amounted to £17.451m following the quarter 1 report. At quarter 2 the programme had been increased by £2.947m to £20.398m as shown at paragraph 7.2.

The overall spending on the General Investment Programme for the second quarter of 2021/22 was £3.111m, which was 15% of the 2021/22 programme and 15% of the active programme. This was detailed further at Appendix J.

·         Housing Investment Programme – the Housing Investment Programme for 2021/22 following the quarter 1 report amounted to £29.047m. this had been further adjusted to £30.248m during the second quarter of 2021/22. A summary of the changes was shown in paragraph 7.8.

d)    invited members’ comments and questions.

Question: Members asked what the Money allocated to Wigford Way was spent on.

Response: The money was spent on feasibility studies.

Question: Members asked how many buy back properties had been purchased.

Response: There had been 18 properties that had been bought this financial year which varied in size in specific areas where there was a higher demand for properties.

Question: Members commented that there was an issue with properties being left in a poor state of repair and asked whether tenants were being asked to leave them in a better condition so that the turnaround for the house was quicker.

Response: Pre-termination inspections weren’t able to take place during COVID, but these were now being carried out. Tenants were charged for damages, but this money was difficult to collect. Gas inspections and electrical inspections needed to take place before a property was re-let which could delay the property being let.

Question: Members asked how much the recharges equated to.

Response: This information was to be forwarded onto the committee.

Question: Members asked what the increased cost to PPASB was and if the income for car parking had increased.

Response: The extra money for PPASB was for a temporary member of staff to help the team over the COVID period. Car parking income started the year low but has picked up and was on the way to reach the income target.

RESOLVED that:

1.    Information on costs for void recharges be forwarded to the Committee.

2.    The content of the report be noted.