Agenda and minutes

To note any apologies for absence from Members.

Apologies were received from Councillor Vernon.

Councillor S Corcoran was present as substitute.

To provide an opportunity for Members and Officers to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests, other registerable interests, and non-registerable interests in any item on the agenda.

Councillor S Gardiner declared, in the interests of openness and transparency, that he was a beneficiary of the Cheshire Pension Fund.

Councillor D Clark declared, in the interests of openness and transparency, that she was a beneficiary of the Cheshire Pension Fund.

Councillor D Clark declared, in relation to agenda item 11 - ECW (Enterprise Cheshire & Warrington) Financial Update 2025/26, that she was a Member of the Cheshire and Warrington Enterprise Partnership.

Councillor G Marshall declared, in relation to agenda item 11 - ECW (Enterprise Cheshire & Warrington) Financial Update 2025/26, that he was a Member of the Cheshire and Warrington Enterprise Partnership.

During consideration of agenda item 7 - MTFS Strategies - Investment Strategy, Councillor S Gardiner declared an interest by virtue of his role as a Knutsford Town Councillor.  Bruntwood was also involved in a project with Knutsford Town Council.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on 3 November 2025.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2025 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

In accordance with paragraph 2.24 of the Committee Procedure Rules and Appendix on Public Speaking, set out in the Constitution, a total period of 15 minutes is allocated for members of the public to put questions to the Sub-Committee on any matter relating to this agenda. Each member of the public will be allowed up to two minutes to speak; the Chair will have discretion to vary this where they consider it appropriate.

Members of the public wishing to speak are required to provide notice of this at least three clear working days in advance of the meeting.

Elizabeth Monk addressed the Committee in relation to agenda item 6 - Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) Consultation 2026-30 and Provisional Settlement Update.

The following points were raised:

• Concerns were expressed regarding the proposed 9.99% possible increase in Council Tax for the forthcoming financial year.
• Citing concerns raised in the 2024 CIPFA review, it was questioned how such an increase could be justified to residents.
• It was commented that various fees and charges had already risen without noticeable service improvements.
• The speaker requested publication, within 20 working days, of detailed information on the transformation programme, audit findings, improvement plans, contract management data and key performance metrics, presented in an accessible format.
• The Council was asked to demonstrate the legal basis, operational assurance and transparency underpinning the proposed council tax rise.

The Chair thanked the speaker for her attendance and contribution to the meeting.

To consider the Third Financial Review 2025-26.

The Committee considered the Third Financial Review (FR3) for 2025/26, which reported a forecasted balanced outturn position for the year, representing a £2.345m improvement since FR2 (achieved after applying £25.261m of Exceptional Financial Support (EFS)).

Members noted continued significant pressures, particularly the £8.195m overspend in Children and Families driven by placement and staffing costs, alongside a £12.037m shortfall in cross?directorate Transformation savings. It was reported that the pressures were partially offset by a £7.412m favourable variance in the Place Directorate, mainly due to vacancy management and one?off income.

The Capital Programme had forecasted to spend £148.093m, an underspend against the revised programme, while the Council’s reserves were projected to reduce to £26.632m, with the planned £1.304m contribution to the General Fund not achievable.

Key financial risks noted included rising placement costs, winter pressures in Adults’ Services, agency staffing, and the scale of the Dedicated Schools Grant deficit (£147.966m forecast).

The Committee welcomed the balanced budget but noted that it depended on Exceptional Financial Support and an accounting override related to the DSG.  Consideration was given to service performance in relation to the delivery of transformation savings and the importance of transformation management, resource and delivery planning.

The Committee questioned the effectiveness and cost of the transformation programme and the accuracy of FR3 forecasting; concerns were raised in relation to ongoing capital underspending.  Members requested a standalone review to understand the more long?term impacts of this.  Officers supported the suggestion of a separate member working group of the capital programme, noting the significant link between capital delivery and revenue planning, and would look into this.  Officers confirmed FR3 forecasts used the best available information, with improving accuracy later in the year.  Updated capital figures had been shared and would be further refined for FR4.

The Committee referred to Adults and Health and highlighted winter?related increases in Adult Social Care demand and asked whether this and NHS financial pressures were factored into forecasts.  Officers confirmed that seasonal pressures were included in the forecasts and that NHS and Council responsibilities remained clearly defined.  Any issues around cost allocation would be addressed with partners.

The Committee raised concerns that although there had been improvements, significant pressures remained across the piece.

The Committee welcomed the reports and thanked the officers for their ongoing work.

RESOLVED (unanimously):

That the Finance Sub-Committee:

1.    Note

a)    the factors leading to a forecast balanced position

b)    the contents of Annex 1, Section of the report

c)    progress on the delivery of the MTFS approved budget policy change items

d)    the RAG ratings and latest forecasts

e)    the actions to be taken to address any adverse variances from the approved budget.

2.    Note the in-year forecast capital spending of £148.093m against an original capital budget (at out-turn) of £208.491m.

3.    Recommend to Council to approve the Supplementary Revenue Estimate Request for Allocation of Additional Grant Funding over £1,000,000 as per Annex 1, Section 3, Table 1 of the report.

4.    Note that the Children and Families  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

To receive an update on the MTFS Consultation and Provisional Settlement Update.

The Committee considered an update on the development of the Medium?Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) for 2026–2030, including the impact of the Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement received on 17 December 2025.

The Committee noted that the revised budget position incorporated a £6.104m net improvement in funding for 2026/27, following grant consolidation and updated government allocations. The report highlighted challenge?session refinements to growth and savings proposals, updated capital financing requirements, the rephasing of elements of the Transformation Programme, and revisions to pay and inflation assumptions.

The Committee reviewed the summary findings of the public budget consultation, including stakeholder engagement and survey results, and acknowledged the continuing budget gap of £30.950m for 2026/27, which included the previously approved one?off Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) requirement.

The Committee noted that, in relation to Council Tax, raising the referendum limit would help to address the Council’s budget gap by generating £15.5m next year and reducing future gaps to manageable levels.  Without flexibility, if granted, a full capitalisation direction and accelerated capital receipts would be required.  Historical decisions not to maximise Council Tax, taken with the best of intent, had created a £22.4m shortfall.

The Committee raised the following points/queries, particularly in relation to a proposed increase in Council Tax payments:

·         The impact on residents: Council Tax was a regressive tax; above inflation increases hit hardest those least able to afford it.  It particularly hit those with incomes that were above the Council Tax benefit threshold, but below 60% of medium income.  It was assumed that most of those households would be concentrated in Crewe and parts of Macclesfield.  It was queried how many households would fall into that group and what the effect on disposable income would be if the Council were to increase Council Tax by 9.99%.  In response, it was agreed that officers would provide a written response.

·         The Council offered ongoing financial support.  Officers confirmed that the Crisis and Resilience Fund (previously the Household Support Fund) provided support; the Council Tax Support (CTS) scheme was also in place.  Guidance to accompany Council Tax bills had been updated; additional support to residents also included signposting to wider financial?support options.

·         The implications of the local government settlement.

·         The amount of EFS provided by the government.

·         The officers’ professional recommendation on the 9.99% Council Tax flexibility.

·         The scale of service cuts required without a raise in Council Tax, and the level of confidence in service budgets.

·         The concerns raised by residents on the proposed Council Tax increase, particularly in areas with higher band properties.

·         Assurances were sought that the budget was deliverable given past underperformance, rising borrowing, and residents’ concerns.  Officers advised that all proposals now had delivery plans and business cases in place, unlike in previous years, and reiterated the need for transparent communication and realistic planning.

·         The potential impact on building the Council’s reserves if permission to increase the referendum limit was not granted.

·         The role of scrutiny and impending changes in the Council’s governance framework.  Consideration was given  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

To consider the Investment Strategy.

The meeting resumed at 12:20 p.m.

The Committee considered the Investment Strategy, presented as part of the suite of MTFS strategies for 2026–30.

The Committee noted that the Strategy set out the Council’s approach to managing its investments in accordance with statutory guidance, including the priorities of security, liquidity and yield, and the governance arrangements through which investment decisions were made and monitored.

The Strategy detailed the Council’s position on treasury investments, service investments, and commercial investments, and emphasised ensuring that all investment activity supported the Council’s financial sustainability and corporate objectives.

The Committee raised the following points/queries:

·         Investment in Alderley Park: officers explained that the Council was a minority shareholder.  AstraZeneca, previously a major occupier, had vacated the site and Bruntwood was working to refill space with advanced manufacturing and science?based tenants.  Disposal of the Council’s interest was constrained by existing legal agreements; therefore the focus was on long?term management.

·         Decision-making in respect of future disinvestment from commercial property.  Officers confirmed this would be a political decision supported by a full financial case considering capital receipts, holding costs, income loss, and any wider regeneration objectives.

·         Concerns were raised about planning and market changes at Alderley Park and asked whether risk assessments considered the possibility of working with different partners.  Officers agreed to provide a written response after consulting Place and Legal colleagues.

During consideration of this item, Councillor S Gardiner declared an interest by virtue of his role as a Knutsford Town Councillor.  Bruntwood was also involved in a project with Knutsford Town Council.

RESOLVED:

That the Finance Sub-Committee:

1.    Note the draft position of the Medium-Term Financial Strategy and the draft status of the Investment strategy.

2.    Note the draft Investment Strategy.

3.    Note provided comment and feedback for any additional narrative or changes to the draft Investment Strategy.

4.    Note the final Investment strategy will form part of the final Medium-Term Financial Strategy as part of the final approval process.

To consider the Treasury Management Strategy.

The Committee considered the Treasury Management Strategy for 2026–30.

The Committee noted that the Strategy set out the Council’s approach to the management of borrowing, investments and cashflow in accordance with the CIPFA Treasury Management Code and the Prudential Code.  The Strategy detailed expected borrowing requirements, interest rate considerations, the use of internal borrowing, and counterparty limits for investment activity, together with the Council’s approach to managing risk, particularly liquidity, refinancing, and interest?rate risk.

The Sub?Committee also noted the supporting prudential indicators and forecasts, which reflected the wider pressures on the Capital Programme and the need to ensure affordability and sustainability over the medium term.

The Committee raised the following points/queries:

·         Reference was made to paragraph 7.38 of the report regarding £20m held in strategic pooled funds, including £8m in property.  Previous concerns raised around investment in pooled property funds were reiterated, with distinction being made between this and the Alderley Park investment.  Alderley Park was located in Cheshire East and fit with the Council’s strategic aims, whereas this was a strategic pooled fund.  It was requested that this point be noted for consistency.

·         Members thanked officers for the finance workshops and training provided to all councillors, noting that these sessions were very helpful.

RESOLVED:

That the Finance Sub-Committee:

1.    Note the draft position of the Medium-Term Financial Strategy and the draft status of the Treasury Management strategy.

2.    Note the draft Treasury Management Strategy.

3.    Note provided comment and feedback for any additional narrative or changes to the draft Treasury Management Strategy.

4.    Note the final Treasury Management strategy will form part of the final Medium-Term Financial Strategy as part of the final approval process.

To consider the Capital Strategy.

The Committee considered the Capital Strategy for 2026–30.

The Committee noted that the Strategy set out the framework for the planning, prioritisation, financing and governance of the Council’s capital programme, including the principles underpinning capital investment, the assessment of affordability, prudence and sustainability, and alignment with the Council’s strategic objectives.

The Committee noted the continuing financial pressure on the capital programme, the reliance on prudential borrowing, and the need for ongoing re?prioritisation through the Capital Programme Board to ensure affordability.

The Committee was informed that MRP – Minimum Revenue Provision – was essentially a statutory requirement for officers to set aside a proportion of money every year to meet the cost of borrowing, similar to the principal capital payment on a mortgage.

The Committee raised the following points:

·         Officers were thanked for the clarification provided in relation to the long?term return on investment referenced in item 3 on page 216; the strategy prioritised long?term rather than short?term gain.

·         There was a significant increase in the Council’s asset net book value over the past 10 years, as illustrated on page 218.  It was observed that, unlike in commercial accounting, increases in asset valuations did not impact the Council’s revenue account.

RESOLVED:

That the Finance Sub-Committee:

1.    Note the draft position of the Medium-Term Financial Strategy and the draft status of the Capital strategy.

2.    Note the draft Capital Strategy.

3.    Note provided comment and feedback for any additional narrative or changes to the draft Capital Strategy.

4.    Note the final Capital strategy will form part of the final Medium-Term Financial Strategy as part of the final approval process.

To consider the Reserves Strategy.

The Committee considered the Reserves Strategy for 2026–30.

The Committee noted that the Strategy set out the Council’s approach to maintaining adequate reserves to support financial resilience, manage risk and provide flexibility in responding to unforeseen pressures.  The strategy highlighted the continuing challenge posed by the low level of the Council’s General Fund reserve, the projected drawdowns on earmarked reserves, and the need to rebuild reserve levels over the medium term to ensure sustainability.

The Committee also noted that the Strategy reflected the updated financial forecasts, including the impact of Exceptional Financial Support and ongoing demand pressures.

The Committee raised the following points/queries:

·         The Committee queried whether, given anticipated Section 25 statements indicating inadequate reserves for this and subsequent years, there was a risk that the Secretary of State might intervene to specify a minimum reserves level for the authority.  Officers confirmed that the Section 25 report would state that reserves were inadequate and was likely to do so for the next two years based on the current MTFS.  It was noted that this position was not unique as around 60 local authorities were currently in receipt of EFS due to insufficient reserves.  It was acknowledged there was a risk of Secretary of State intervention but assessed it as low at present, as no fixed statutory minimum reserve level existed unless set by ministers.  The professional judgment was that the authority should ultimately hold £25-£30 million in general fund reserves, aligned to projected net spend of around £0.5 billion by the end of the decade.

·         Officers confirmed that the term ‘unusable reserves’ was simply an alternative term for ‘accounting reserves’.

·         The Committee thanked the officers for the workshops undertaken and the written information provided to Members.

RESOLVED:

That the Finance Sub-Committee:

1.    Note the draft position of the Medium-Term Financial Strategy and the draft status of the Reserves strategy.

2.    Note the draft Reserves Strategy.

3.    Note provided comment and feedback for any additional narrative or changes to the draft Reserves Strategy.

4.    Note the final Reserves strategy will form part of the final Medium-Term Financial Strategy as part of the final approval process.

To consider the ECW Financial Update 2025/26.

The Committee considered the financial update for Enterprise Cheshire & Warrington (ECW) for 2025/26. The Committee noted that the Quarter 2 forecast indicated an overall surplus of £79,442, compared with a budgeted deficit of £148,625, reflecting higher?than?anticipated income and timing differences in grant receipts.

The Committee noted that Marketing Cheshire was forecasting a small deficit of £9,028 for the year. The Committee also noted the position on major ECW?managed programmes including Skills Bootcamps, the Regional Skills Pilot and the Careers Hub, alongside the funds held by Cheshire East Council on behalf of ECW, including Enterprise Zone and Growing Places Fund balances.

The Committee commented on the performance of Marketing Cheshire, noting concerns that the organisation appeared not to be performing well despite being a key component of ECW.  It was queried whether this was considered a one?off issue or something of wider concern.  It was agreed that officers would obtain a written response from ECW’s marketing colleagues.

RESOLVED:

That the Finance Sub Committee:

1. Note the information provided in the in-year financial review for Enterprise Cheshire & Warrington.

To consider a report on Tatton Park Enterprises Limited Contract Modification.

The Committee considered the report in relation to the catering provision contract at Tatton Park, held by Tatton Park Enterprises Ltd (TPE Ltd).  The Committee noted that the report proposed a 12?month extension of the catering services contract with TPE Ltd from 16 April 2026 to 15 April 2027.

Members noted that TPE Ltd, a wholly owned Council company established in 2012, continued to deliver a successful and resilient catering operation despite ongoing pressures in the hospitality sector, and that alternative delivery model, such as bringing the service in?house or outsourcing, presented greater financial, operational and service?quality risks.  It was highlighted that the extension would align with work underway on Tatton Park’s Target Operating Model and maintain continuity, brand alignment, and financial contribution.

The Committee raised the following points/queries:

·         Regarding staffing implications, officers confirmed that TPE Ltd and Tatton Park staff would be kept informed throughout the review process.

·         Clarification was sought in relation to recommendation 2 and the delegation of contract extensions for TPE Ltd to the Head of Rural and Cultural Economy Service.  It was queried whether this referred only to the current contract being discussed, or whether it would also apply to further extensions going forward.  In response, officers advised that it could cover some further short extensions or adaptations to align with the developing target operating model, noting that any significant changes would be reported to Cabinet and that decisions would be made in consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holder.

During consideration of this item, prior to the vote being taken, Councillor D Brown joined the meeting (10:37 a.m.).

RESOLVED (By majority):

That the Finance Sub-Committee:

1.    Agree that the contract with Tatton Park Enterprises Ltd for the catering provision at Tatton Park be extended for a further one year from the 16th April 2026 to the 15th April 2027.

2.    Delegate contract extensions for TPE Ltd to the Head of Rural and Cultural Economy Service in discussion with the Executive Director of Place, to ensure alignment with the development of the Target Operating Model for Tatton Park.

To consider the Work Programme and determine any required amendments.

The Committee considered the Work Programme; the following points were raised:

• Clarification was sought on how forthcoming service budget reports would operate in light of the transition from the committee system to the cabinet system in May, noting uncertainty around future cabinet portfolios. Officers advised that the shift to cabinet arrangements would not alter the underlying service budget lines.  Instead, budgets would transfer to whichever cabinet portfolio ultimately held responsibility for those services. The process would help ensure clarity and transparency around where previously approved budgets sat within the new governance structure.
• The Fourth Financial Review, not currently listed, would be added to the work programme.
• It was queried whether, when reviewing service budgets, the Committee would also be informed of how future scrutiny responsibilities would be allocated under the new governance arrangements. Officers advised that existing financial information, such as the Fourth Financial Review and service budget reports, would allow the Finance Sub-Committee to make recommendations to future scrutiny bodies.  This query would also be raised at a future Corporate Policy Committee meeting.

RESOLVED:

That the Work Programme be received and noted.

To consider a report that provides an update on procurement activity.

The Committee considered an update on the Procurement Pipeline, which provided an overview of forthcoming procurement activity and significant contracts requiring renewal across the Council.

The Committee noted the scale and complexity of the upcoming programme, including major contracts relating to social care, agency staffing, transport services, energy supply and capital infrastructure schemes. The report highlighted the importance of forward planning in securing value for money, ensuring compliance with procurement legislation, and supporting the Council’s financial sustainability.

The Committee raised the following points/queries:

·         Regarding the waivers reported at paragraph 11, an apparent inconsistency between the six waivers listed in the accompanying table and the eleven referenced earlier in the report was noted.  Concerns were also expressed about the overall use of waivers and asked whether procedures were in place to reduce their frequency, noting that levels in 2023/24 appeared unusually high, but that some earlier peaks were likely attributable to pandemic?related pressures.  In response, officers explained that the Council carried out over 3,000 procurement activities annually, and while they would prefer to see no waivers, the small number reported generally related to situations where only one suitable provider existed.  Greater concern was expressed over instances of non?adherence to Contract Procedure Rules (CPRs), three of which were reported and attributed to timing issues rather than deliberate non?compliance.  Officers confirmed that lessons?learned processes were in place to prevent recurrence.

·         Concerns were raised in relation to late identification of contract renewals leading to urgent extensions, particularly in sensitive service areas.

·          A query was raised regarding inconsistencies in contract dates shown in the contract register (page 297).  Officers advised that these appeared to be administrative errors, but this would be clarified in writing.

Following consideration of part?two matters, the meeting returned to part one.

RESOLVED (unanimously):

That the Finance Sub-Committee:

1.    Approve the pipeline of procurement activity in Appendix 1 of the report.

2.    Note the reason for 6 waivers approved between 1 August 2025 and 30 November 2025 (11 in total for 2025/26).

3.    Note the reason for 3 non-adherences between 1 August 2025 and 30 November 2025.

4.    Note the contracts awarded since April 2025, Appendix 2 of the report.

5.    That the report be presented to the next meeting of the Audit and Governance Committee for assurance with regards procurement waiver compliance and reporting.

To consider the Disposal of Earl Road, Handforth.

The Committee considered the report on the proposed freehold disposal of approximately 11.7 acres of employment land at Earl Road, Handforth (the Site), following a marketing exercise which generated seventeen offers from fourteen bidders.

The Committee noted the detailed bid analysis undertaken by the Council’s agents, CBRE (commercial property agent), including adjustments to reflect abnormal cost deductions and Biodiversity Net Gain risks. Members further noted that Kier Property Developments Ltd had submitted the highest and most advantageous offer on all assessed bases, subject to pre?contract technical due diligence. It was reported that the site had been declared surplus to requirements, was allocated for employment uses in the Local Plan, and that disposal would secure a significant capital receipt for the Council.

The Committee raised the following points/queries:

·         It was queried why external consultants were engaged to support the disposal of commercial assets, and assurance sought that this represented good value for money and could not be undertaken in?house.  In response, it was explained that the transactions involved were highly complex, required specialist valuation and due?diligence expertise, and occurred too infrequently to justify maintaining such specialist capacity within the Council.  Using external agents ensured bids were evaluated on a comparable basis, prevented risks such as inflated offers later reduced through due diligence, and demonstrated best value under Section 123. The approach was considered best practice, and conflicts of interest sometimes required the use of additional agents beyond the Council’s retained adviser.

·         No members wished to move into Part 2.

An amendment, which was accepted as a friendly amendment, was put forward in relation to recommendation 1, as set out below.

Amendment 1 – Recommendation 1

Delegate authority to the Director of Growth and Enterprise to dispose of the Site on terms and conditions to be agreed in consultation with the Director of Law and Governance, the Executive Director of Resources (S151), and the appropriate Chair or Portfolio Holder, as appropriate.

A second amendment, which was accepted as a friendly amendment, was put forward in relation to recommendation 2, as set out below.

Amendment 2 – Recommendation 2

Delegate authority to the Director of Growth and Enterprise in consultation with the Director of Law and Governance, the Executive Director of Resources (S151) and the appropriate Chair or Portfolio Holder, as appropriate, to complete all legal documentation required to complete the disposal of the Site.

RESOLVED (Unanimously):

That the Finance Sub-Committee:

1.    Delegate authority to the Director of Growth and Enterprise to dispose of the Site on terms and conditions to be agreed in consultation with the Director of Law and Governance, the Executive Director of Resources (S151), and the appropriate Chair or Portfolio Holder, as appropriate; and

2.    Delegate authority to the Director of Growth and Enterprise in consultation with the Director of Law and Governance, the Executive Director of Resources (S151) and the appropriate Chair or Portfolio Holder, as appropriate, to complete all legal documentation required to complete the disposal of the Site.

To consider the Acquisitions and Disposal Summary 2025-26 - Mid-Year Update.

The Committee received a mid?year update on the Council’s land and property acquisitions and disposals for quarters one and two of 2025/26.

Members noted that the report provided transparency over property activity and its relationship to the Medium?Term Financial Strategy, including the Council’s capital receipts programme.

It was reported that the Council had already exceeded the 2025/26 capital receipts target of £2.25m, with £2.766m achieved to date, and that further disposals were in progress as part of the wider estate rationalisation and transformation work.

The Committee raised/noted the following points:

·         The process for member involvement in decisions relating to proposed asset disposals.

·         A dedicated disposals programme team was in place, with detailed forecasting and horizon scanning undertaken for the next two financial years.  Although disposals could be subject to conditions such as planning, officers expressed confidence that targets for the coming year could be met or exceeded.

·         A Member indicated that the confidential matters they wished to raise could instead, as opposed to entering Part 2 arrangements, be discussed directly with officers and circulated to the Committee by email. The Committee accepted this approach.

RESOLVED:

That the Finance Sub-Committee:

1.    Note the acquisition and disposal activity undertaken by the Council in quarter one and two of the financial year 2025 /2026, identified in the Appendices A B and to note the disposal programme of future proposed disposals in Appendix C.

2.    Note that the Council has already met and exceeded the target (£2.25m) for 2025/26 receipts identified in the MTFS, with the receipts received by time of this report totalling £2.766M (to be updated).

The reports relating to the remaining items on the agenda have been withheld from public circulation and deposit pursuant to Section 100(B)(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that the matters may be determined with the press and public excluded.

The Committee may decide that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items pursuant to Section 100(A)4 of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 and public interest would not be served in publishing the information.

RESOLVED (unanimously):

That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the final item on the agenda pursuant to Section 100(A) 3 of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 3 of the Local Government Act 1972 and the public interest would not be served in publishing the information.

To consider the Part 2 appendices.

Procurement Pipeline

The Committee considered the Part 2 appendices.

RESOLVED:

That the Part 2 appendices be received and noted.