Issue - meetings

To consider the Final Outturn position for 2023/24.

The Committee received the report which provided an overview of the Cheshire East Council provisional outturn for the financial year 2023/24 and the financial performance of the Council relevant to the committee remit.

Reference was made to an additional consultant cost of £62,000 which could not be recharges and it was asked what this related to. In response it as stated that it was the intention when employing any expert advice what is not available within the Council to try and recover the costs through a capital budget. However sometimes this was not possible as the advice needed was not subject to a capital programme project.

It was noted that there was a overspend on responsive maintenance and it was asked what this related to. In reply it was stated that forecasting of likely expenditure was undertaken at the beginning of each budget year but there had been high inflation rates which meant that the initial forecast had been exceed due these inflationary costs.

There had been a recharge to Shared Prosperity Fund and assurance was sought that this had not been used to fund existing services. In response it was confirmed that it was not the case and that there was a 4% top slice of the money to manage the programme and this paid for the programme manager.

The report stated that there had been an increase in debts over 6 months old and an explanation was requested for this. Officers responded that since the Covid pandemic some tenants had had financial difficulties. The service was looking to recover debts as quickly as possible but, in some cases, it was difficult to recover the debt i.e., absentee tenant, or was not viable to do so.

It was asked if the Committee could be provided with more details in relation to the Countryside Stewardship Grant in relation to Tatton Park. The Head of Rural and Cultural Economy undertook to provide a written response.

It was stated that the Council had benefited from a considerable amount of Decarbonisation Grant money, and it was asked where the money had been spent. In response it was stated that the money had been used for council buildings such as Delamere House and Macclesfield Town Hall and also schools.

Reference was made to the rural aspect of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, and it was asked if details could be provided on the projects in the rural element. The Head of Rural and Cultural Economy undertook to provide a written response.

It was noted that savings had been achieved through having vacancies across the Place Directorate and it was asked how long it was sustainable to have these vacancies. In response it was stated that it was not sustainable in the medium term. It was hoped that work as part of the Transformation Programme would help identify a structure that would enable capacity to be brought back into the department.

RESOLVED (by majority): That the Committee

1               note the factors leading to a positive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5