Transcript

Transcript

[BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Okay, everyone, good evening and welcome to this evening's meeting of cabinet. I'm Karen Grintz, our deputy leader, so I'll be chairing the meeting this evening in the absence of the leader. So welcome to the meeting, everyone. Can I mind everyone that this will be a hybrid meeting? I think we've only got one online at the moment with some participants in the room and some joining remotely. Members of the cabinet who are the decision makers must attend in person to be able to vote. So I think everyone's here that should be here. The meeting will be broadcast live by the internet and the records will be archived for future viewing. Those participating in the meeting are in control of their own microphones, so please speak clearly into the microphone and only turn it on when you're invited to speak. So we will get this evening's agenda started. I know some of you would probably rather be watching the football this evening. I think I'm reliably informed it's all square at the moment, so hopefully our team have a good outcome. So let's get the meeting started and can we have an agreement that the minutes on page, sorry, let's do the apologies first. So I need to go through the apologies first. I know Councillor CORT is not here. Councillor D'Sico and Councillor MACKIVIC. Lovely, so those will be recorded. Any decorations of interest? Councillor KAIS. DFE, the Department for Education has been mentioned on the report, so I'm just an employee of DFE. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor HAWKINGS. In relation to the playing pitch strategy, especially as my son, he had a PE and is going on tonight to that. Need a more 3G pitches, I think I ought to be clear. He's had a PE at LoVie. Okay, thank you. That will be recorded for the minutes. Minutes of the previous meeting held on the 4th of April, pages 4, 5 to 8. We agreed that there are a true reflection of the meeting. Councillor interjecting. Yep, agreed. Okay, so we will move on to the first substantive item, which is the medium-term financial strategy update report and the final out-turn for 23.24. So I'm going to hand over to Andrew Valton to take us through the report. Thank you. So just a brief overview of what you've got in front of you. So firstly, just to say, big welcome to the finance team, because we've, again, managed to deliver a statement of accounts before the statutory and the made deadline. A lot of authorities are just looking to do that. So just a welcome to the team for that in terms of producing the out-turn. We finished 23.24 with an overall overspend of 8.149 million. Children's account if it's just under 7 million of the overspend before we applied any mitigations, which was about 1.42 million more than what we planned for within the NTFS and what you had reported a quarter three, which was an overspend at that point in time of 5.57 million, which was provisioned for within the NTFS already. Of the 1.14 million increase in children's, there's a mix of staffing and placement cost pressures within children's social care, which is around 800,000. But then there was also additional pressures within an education service of 600,000, which related to DFE guidance that was issued about charges to the DSG, which we took a risk assessment of and decided there was some that we needed to charge back to the core council late in the year. The remaining overspend of 1.15 to 6 million relates mainly to corporate pressures rising from business rates. We had a number of last-minute valuation decisions that went against us that amounted to quite a sizable figure. And there were a couple of properties that have been taken out of commission for refurbishment, which again had about half a million-pound impact on the bottom line. The upshot of all of that meant that we had a net deficit of amount just over a million after we've applied, which is one of the recommendations and report the one of the business rates reserves. But we will have a further impact in 25, 26, or 4.5 million, which is adding to the gap that we've got to deal with in that period of time, just because of the way business rates work, none of it impacts in 24, 25, the current financial year because of the guarantees we have around the submissions we've done to government and sector 31 grants. But when the final position of business rates is wrapped up at the end of the year in the account, there will be a potential deficit for those amounts that will have to then make good in 25, 26. That increased overspend from quarter three, amounted to 2.5, 7, 5 million. CLT managed to close 1.5, 6 million of that gap through a quite detailed review of the carry-forward request coming from directors where there had been a range of underspends, and would agree to not approve those or put those forward for recommendation. There is a further set of just over half a million of, nearly 600,000 worth of carry-forward, the CLT do feel appropriate, because there are either ring fenced grants that we had in advance, or particular projects or pressures that we're going to have to deal with next year. So they're recommending in Appendix 2 for cabinet approval. The gaps in the core revenue position are being addressed going forward through the different work of the financial sustainability board. We've also got a conversation on that next week with Cabinet to start to think through the work of the board, and the commentary around the detail within the section 3 of the report, just for reference. In respect to the general form, there's a range of carry-forward, so the carry-forward was explained to me, so we're just looking forward for those to be approved. In terms of the day-to-day schools' grant, the out-turn position was higher than anticipated by 1.14 million, so we've got an overspend of 4.38 million on the high needs block. That's bringing our overall DSG deficit up to 20.7 4 million, which was slightly higher than was reported at Q3 as the estimated figure. We couldn't still have this naturally override in place, so the main impact of that is more a clash issue in terms of reducing our overall balances, and it will depend on what happens with the from the DFE and D-Look in 2026, when the review, whether that's that's fair enough, continues and whether we have a problem or not. We're picking up regionally, there is an issue generally, whilst a lot of areas seem to stabilize a little bit, we're starting to see them rise back up again, and the majority of that increases down to the fact that we've seen an increase in education, health and care plans beyond what we're assuming within our plans, and that's probably going to be a further pressure and issue within the current financial year as well, which we're going to have to understand and see how it works into the DSG deficit plan. In terms of the housing revenue account, overall it was a positive favour position compared to the budget of nearly 1.5 million, and then in terms of capital, we've spent 36.2 on the core council, we're 18.1 million on the HRA, and both behind the budgets, there's been quite a bit of re-facing, which is set out in Appendix D and E for the core council, they're 8.85 million, and there's requests for that re-facing to be approved, and 10.31 million of HRA re-facing, there's set out in Appendix F. Appendix F also seeks approval for a number of capital programme activity and changes for the HRA, namely support for the heat network efficiency scheme grant application in July, closure of the DIY shared ownership scheme, which is released about 1 million back into the capital pot, given the lack of interest and lack of take-up of that scheme. 371 K allocation to accelerate the completion of the stock condition surveys and the energy performance certificates, which is quite important to underpin our responsibilities under the various legislation that we've got to adhere to now, so trying to deliver that in a timely fashion is really important, and an allocation of 629,000 HRA in 24/25 for the increase in the boiler replacement programme. In terms of reserves, there's a 16.197 million overall reduction reserves at the end of 23/24, it's important to note that for the Budget Strategy Reserve that we're projecting a 6.98 million balance still left at the 31st of March, which means we're still in line with what we've said in the MTFS, so there's no issue in terms of the core protection we've got around the MTFS in the current year, but it's also important to highlight that the reserves balances at 31st of March 2024, predominantly are committed in the MTFS, so we use about 32.97 million over the period of the MTFS, leaving with about 33.93 million in total by the end, so there is quite a significant use of reserves that we need to make sure we've got sustainable answers for, from a budgeting point of view, as we move forward. I'll find a couple of things, so the balance sheets analysis, I think it's important to just highlight that the City for Financial Management Code ratios that are in the port, three of them have gone amber, that's predominantly down to the early repayment of the pension fund deductions, that will build back up over the three years as we get those paid back out, the payrolls, and we retain the top funds back up. There's a request, as always, for cabinet to consider the continuation or the resetting up of the budget strategy group, moving into the refresh of the MTFS, unless you feel there's any changes you'd like to that process. That's all I have to say to you. Lovely, thank you, Andrew. A lot of information contained in that report, so members, are there any questions, comments that you want to ask or state? Councillor McLACHLAN. Thank you, Deputy Leader. I appreciate, sorry, Jenny, this is probably more for you than it is for Andrew. Obviously, there's been a considerable amount of use of reserves within adult social care. What percentage of the budget actually do the remaining reserves account for in terms of the annual spending? Because I remember that good business practice was, or operational, my advice was to keep 5% of the annual budget within reserves. Can I ask how much is remaining within reserves? I'm not able to give you a percentage off the top of my head, but as Andrew's outlined, the remainder of the contingency reserves for adult social care are incorporated in the MTFS over the next three years, so they will be used to, the plans to be used as part of the spending over the next three years. So, in a sense, it's absorbed in the plan, and at the end of that time, there will be no contingency reserves left, so that would be zero percent at that point. I mean, that's obviously very concerning from a from a borough-wide position, firstly, because of the age profile of the borough, and secondly, because we know that adult social care is an area where demand is increasing, not decreasing. I know that's not of your making, I think actually what's spelt out within the report as well is the fact that lots of the issues that are being faced, Sully Hall is not alone in this. There's, I think in paragraph 3.5, the council has faced in-year pressures across all direct routes as a result of inflationary and demand pressures. I think that's that's something that most local authorities have experienced, and I think part of the challenge is that the funding has not been there from central government to meet the increasing costs and increasing demands that have been faced. I'm very concerned around how the finances look overall, and one of the specific concerns that I have is in relation to business rates, and Andrew, you may be able to help me on this, because I know previously there was a principle of no detriment in relation to business rates. I'm conscious that I think that principle of no detriment has gone, and there's now an 11 million adverse variance within business rates, is that correct? So the no detriment principle hasn't gone, so if government make any decisions, that then they give relief to sectors, we get actually 31 grants to cover those release. The bit that is the unknown, there's two things really, one is the tax base growth, so how many businesses out there are eligible to pay, and what are the valuations of those business in terms of the level of rates? So the reason we've been caught out to an extent is that we've had a number of last minute and the year adverse valuations from the independent BOA that has gone against us, to the tune of multiple millions, and a small number of businesses, as I said, have taken premises out of commission to refurbish, which means they then become in eligible to pay business rates as well. So it's not that there's no detriment has been removed, it's the circumstances around individual businesses within the BOA, and the valuation office stance on things has created a problem for us, compared to what we'd assumed in the returns that were estimating what we thought business rates were going to be. Now, as I say, the way the system works is that doesn't hit us in 24/25, there's an element of it linked to section 31 grants we'd had in advance that hit us in 23/24, which is why we had to make that good in the out-term report. The big chunk, 4.5 million, will hit us in 25/26 once we do the wash-up from the business rates reserved at the end of the year. In relation to paragraph 3.68, council tax, there was a surplus of 839,000. The MTFS had assumed 1.1 million, so that's a 31% difference in terms of projection. Does that create an issue going forward in the MTFS? Does that multiply, or is that something that is likely to be balanced out? I'm a switch, which paragraph? 8.68. Sorry, 3.68, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, let me just catch you. It's the short fall in the estimate, so there was a surplus in council tax, but the surplus was less than what was assumed within the MTFS. The concern I have is that that is a 31% difference, it's 31% less than what we had assumed was 31% more than what we actually collected. The council tax would collect is significantly higher than that, so this is just the differential to the percentage collection rate we assume we're going to get, and what we actually received. We thought we were going to get a million pound more than we were planning to get when we were projecting through the year based on the collection rates we were achieving, and we felt slightly shorter that by the time we got to the end of the year in terms of that surplus beyond the assumed council tax level we were going to get, basically, so that's where the 261,000 comes from in terms of that shortfall compared to our estimate. That did give us a problem because actually the 1.1 was baked into the overall budget position that we were forecasting in terms of offsetting other things, so we have had to make good that in terms of the overspend that we've had as well. Finally, because I'm conscious of the time, I appreciate that this is incredibly challenging. I think the word 'impressive' entered has been used an unprecedented number of times in recent times for the local government, and I just want to pass thanks to your team for, you know, it is increasingly difficult. I imagine it's very stressful, and I also appreciate that there are probably members outside of the team, members of the council who probably are concerned about what the implications are for this because some of the, some of what this talks about in the future is the need for savings to be able to maintain a balanced position, and they are not detailed as yet, and I know that that's something that is a political decision for the council and the administration, and I just wanted to thank you and your officers for the work that goes into just trying to keep, you know, the lights on. Thank you. I think Andrew wants to come back in. Sorry, I forgot. There was a point I wanted to come back on in terms of the reserves position, because you mentioned about the 5%, so the the guide of 5% is based on general reserves, not just specific directorate reserves effectively, so in terms of our general reserves, we've got 7, 7, 7 and a half million in terms of the budget strategy reserve, and we've got all the reserves that would take us over the 10 million 5% limit effectively, corporately, so I think corporately we are provisioning for that 5%, but obviously we've had more than that in the past, and obviously those are starting to shrink based on the directorate risk reserves, which are now being used for the MTFS, but we are still within the statutory minimum in terms of the 5% organisation. Absolutely, and thank you for that Andrew, but I would just say that we're not about to turn any lights off, so don't suggest that please. Councillor SLAY. Yeah, I think that I think that exactly sums up the position. I mean, Councillor McLACHLAN talks about issues that we have to face up to, and we'll do so to the budget strategy group. I think the underlying issue within this report, which is the out-turn report for 2324, is basically encapsulated 3.8, which says overall the application mitigations enable the Council to balance to the financial position. So I think we've done quite well. In fact, we've done very well, where I'm considered as what other local authorities in the air position is, so I think we should congratulate everyone, quite frankly, who have basically put themselves to the wheel and delivered what we have here today, which I think is a commendable position on the basis, as we are all very much aware, that local government finance nationally is an issue that must be addressed by whichever government I think takes over on the 4th of July, and quite clearly will be lobbying at every opportunity to make sure that we get our fair share for the people of Solihull to ensure that we can try and balance over the medium-term financial strategy overall plan. But I'll go back to the point, I think these are really really commendable that we're able to get to this position, accepting effect the mitigations have been used, and we all recognise within the report what those are. And equally, you know, I fully support the application of rephasing in the capital program. I support the recommendations with regard to putting funds into different areas. So all in all, I think it's a pretty good report, notwithstanding we do face enormous challenges going forward, and the budget strategy group will address those when it's served convenient. I think Councillor ADJIMO wants to come in. Thank you, Madam Deputy Leader. On page 16, sort of taking you to the dedicated schools grant, you know, deficit now is 20.74 million. For the past few years now, this has been sort of kicked into the grass year after year, and my concern is what happens if the government intervention that we keep, that we've been talking about for all these years, what happens if it doesn't happen, or what happens if it's not for the full amount, can the Council possibly withstand this cost? Does Andrew want to answer that? I mean, I think there's a number of people who can answer that question. I can start with my one. Nobody knows whatever the next government is going to do, basically. We know that prior to going into an election, there were clear noises that the previous government was acknowledging the strength of the issues in SCND. DFE, whether they are as a different kettle of fish in terms of, they've tried the Delivering Better Valley program, and that's delivering on the safety valve send authorities. It's not necessarily on those that have gone through the Delivering Better Valley side of things, so it can't just be dealt with through authorities doing the stuff that makes the system better. There is a fundamental discrepancy between the funding in the system and then under a children becoming eligible, and there's clearly circumstances in the society that's creating more children, pushing more children into a position where there's a need for support within the special educational needs space as well. It would seem at the moment within a number of VHCPs that we're having to deal with and families that are coping with these sort of issues. So from that perspective, I don't think it's going away, and it's going to have to be a priority for the next government to deal with, whether they've got their head room to deal with that financially or not, we'll have to wait and see depending on what priority they've got on things. In terms of our circumstances, if the statutory override isn't extended or if the level of deficit we've got at the moment isn't dealt with, that is a level of figure that could drag us down as an authority. It's that serious. So it needs to be addressed one way or another, and we're probably in no worse a position than the majority of councils that are dealing with the SD deficits. So the government will be faced with lots of councils falling off of a cliff edge at a point in time if they don't address it in the right way. Yes, and I would add to that, there are a number of councils that are in the hundreds of millions in the override, so we are in the lowest group currently. So I don't know whether Ruth wants to add anything to that. No, I mean, I think just to add to that, you know, take the group that Andy said, and we do know that the authorities that previously didn't have a problem now do, so it is a growing national challenge. I think really the issue for us is we are part of delivering better value programme. All the work that is going on through that is important and valuable in its own right, so we'll continue to progress that. But I think the points that have been made around rising demand, so our HGP's continue to grow at about 5% other areas. We are hearing anecdotally of growing at a faster rate than that. So, you know, the DBV was expected to deliver against a lower rate of growth than we're seeing, so I think we just need to have a degree of realism about that programme is important and needs to continue to deliver, but the scale of what we're deeming with is likely to exceed, you know, what we're able to manage through that process. Councillor McLACHLAN, next. Thank you Deputy Leader. It's actually just a question to the Cabinet portfolio holder for resources, and obviously you had mentioned that you were lobbying government and the Institute for IFS basically have produced an assessment of your party's manifesto, which says the money allocated by Conservatives would not be sufficient to meet rising costs and demands over the next Parliament, even if Council tax will increase by 4% a year, necessitating a further retrenchment in services or funded top-ups to the plan set out. I'm reading that in context of what's in this, and we've seen a reduction year-on-year in real terms to local government, how successful has your lobbying been, because we are seeing both the consequences of it here within this report, and we're also seeing that there isn't really a political direction from your party in terms of changing that situation. I think if you want to ban the manifestos around, we'll be all night, quite frankly, so I don't think that's really where we are tonight. This is about an out-turn report. You know, you've been our manifesto, I'm sure we could read yours and pick pieces out of that, and it's an institute at that time. OK, Councillor HAWKINS, please. Yeah, thank you. I wasn't going to go into this area of politics, but the fact that you can speak to the people that brighten, and they can tell you what they thought of at the Green Party when they run their administration. But I sort of still want to support what Councillor McLACHLAN did say is a congratulations to the officers for all the work that they're doing. Unlike an authority nearby, we know the position we're in financially, and so, because we're in control of that, by and large, and I think it's probably because of the prudent financial management across the whole piece of the Council, it shows that we have some great officers, they're all aware of the needs and supporting the public. And our services aren't being cut, it doesn't mean something like some of the authorities, but it has to be acknowledged. The future isn't anywhere near as Rosie as you'll want to, but certainly I sort of think that Andrew and his staff, and all the corporate teams, the work they're doing, and making sure we are in the place where we are. Thank you. So, to add to that, thank you to everyone who's been involved in drawing up the accounts. We do have recommendations from this report. They're quite extensive, actually, if we run from 2.1 through to 2.12, so I don't actually propose to read them all out. There's grant applications there, there's the continuation of the Budget Strategy Group, so I am proposing that we accept all of those on block, so do I have agreement for that? Yep, agreed. Okay, thank you. So, we're moving on now to item 6. So, Peter Carroll has joined the table. This is the proposed disposal of small areas of Council land, pages 45 to 54 of your papers. So, Peter, do you want to go through the report? Thank you, Chair. So, the report in front of you this evening relates to the disposal of two parcels of land that are used for community functions. The disposals by leasehold are, there is a delegated authority to strategic land in order to grant those leases, but both the nature of those dispositions is such that they require public consultations, and so the purpose of the report this evening is to seek authority to undertake those consultations and delegate to the authority to deal with any objections. The first site at 3.1 is land off Oakley at Fen End, and it's more particularly detailed in Appendix A, where you'll find a plan. It's part of a housing estate area, and it's a playground which the parish council have offered to invest in, and it's an important strand of our mitigations, if you like, to support and engage with third sector providers to ensure that community facilities are maintained, and by granting a long release to them of the accommodation of the land, then they are able to secure investment funding to maintain those facilities, and that funding wouldn't otherwise be accessible to the council to maintain those facilities for the local community. The second site is Land Off Moor and Avenue at Chelmsley Wood, which is a well-established adventure-paid playground, which I'm sure members will be aware of, which is run by Mapper. They have also asked for a reversion release, and that's a lease that a commitment for a new lease that will start beyond the term of their existing lease, for the same reasons to be able to access funding and invest and secure that facility for the long term, and we've incorporated a mutual break after 10 years just to ensure that the parks service have the ability to exercise some control over the future of who undertakes the delivery of those services within the community so that we maintain our interest in being involved in that. Councilloril Barrow is consulted as board member from Meriden and Councillor SESHA-Batter's board member for Chelmsley Wood, who both support this proposal, and it's also supported by the Assistant Director of Communities and Partnerships as an initiative to ensure that we can maintain these functions for the delivery of the local community. So I pause there chair and take any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Peter, and it seems like it's an excellent proposal for the community, so I can't envisage too much opposition to this, so does anybody want to make any comments? Just a comment from me, it's more about the language. When I first read this, it was disposal, gave the impression that we were actually giving the land away, but we're not, and I think we just need to make it clear that it's actually a lease, but yes, it's a lease held rather than a disposal, so it just gives a wrong impression, that's all. It's a lease hold arrangement. Okay. Thank you, Chair. It is, but the language of disposition and disposal is the, it does compromise, it comprises a disposal for the purposes of the act that's referenced in terms of the public consultation. I'm sure our legal will be happy with this. Everyone agrees? Okay, so that's agenda item six. Thank you. Item seven then, sorry, whole business improvement district and bid's going, what, for a fourth term? Excellent. Yeah, fairly self-explanatory part, actually, but just seeking approval for the council to bid to vote yes in the ballot, the re-ballot for the fourth term that's due in October, and we're seeking that to be delegated to the Director of Economy and Infrastructure and Consultation with Cabinet Member for Skills, Employment and Inclusion. Significant work gone into preparing for the next fourth term in the business plan can be seen at Appendix B, which would be implemented if the bid was successful. We could decide to vote no, this is not recommended. The bid has a proven track record of supporting economic growth in the town centre and has been successfully supporting town centre businesses since 2010 when the bid began. The proposal to extend the bid for the fourth term has been developed through extensive consultation engagement with Solid Hill bid businesses and a series of comprehensive surveys have shown that 99% of those returned surveys wish the bid to continue for a fourth term when asked to indicate a yes or no board. Any questions? Members? I think there's lots of nods of heads on this side of the table. Councillor McLACHLAN. Thank you, Deputy Leader. I mean, absolutely supportive and, you know, I wanted to see this happen in Shirley as well, so I appreciate what it does deliver for Solid Hill. I know a number of areas are the areas I wanted to bring one forward and it's very difficult to get to this stage. Once you get them, generally they are successful and it's demonstrated the benefits. I'd just like to see more of them, if I'm completely honest. Thank you. I think we all agree with that. Councillor SLAKE. Yeah, I agree entirely. I mean, I think bids have been demonstrated that they can do quite a lot for areas such as ours and, of course, all we now do is support with the yes vote for the council. I just wanted to ask the question and that was how the touchwood vote is that the individual concessions vote or is it the touchwood management company who votes? It's the individual business. OK, so it's the individual concessions within touchwood who vote. It's not one single vote for the touchwood operator. OK, that's great. Thank you. Can't trust me. Thank you. I think from my part as well, I think it's generally to support this. They do a very good job in town and, you know, I carry the card with me. I was just trying to find it actually. But yeah, so definitely we'll be supporting. I think that's a very straightforward vote. Everyone's in support. So I think we're OK to have a yes vote, please. OK, so agenda item eight then. We're looking at refreshing the plain pitch and outdoor sports strategy. So Niraj and Sadie are coming to the table just to explain what they're doing with the strategy. Thank you, Chair. I'll kick this off. That's a good analogy to you tonight, isn't it? So this is a strategy that we need to have and keep updated in line with National Guidance. I'll talk a little bit about process and then hand over to Sadie to talk about content. And we're asking for your approval in terms of adopting a strategy. So KKP, like Kevin and Paige have been commissioned to undertake this strategy and what they've done is a comprehensive needs assessment prior to then developing the strategy and associated action plan. So it's a bundle, if you like, that we're being asked to adopt this evening. I want to give you assurance that it's been through a rigorous process in terms of the methodology that they've used that is outlined in the assessment document itself. But also in terms of its oversight with the steering group that has comprised not only council representatives from across different directorates and local partners but also national governing bodies when they have been represented on that steering group. And not all national governing bodies of all sports can be a part of that. So other bodies have been approached when it's been appropriate to do so. So I wanted to give you that assurance about the process both in terms of doing that work and overseeing it and signing it off by a steering group from, like I said, from across different directorates within the council and local partners. The other thing that I wanted to just bring to your attention is that as I said at the beginning, this strategy needs to be updated on a regular basis. But if we maintain it and keep it up to date, then the duration of that strategy can be extended, which feels like a positive thing, giving the amount of work that needs to go into it to do it properly. The other thing I wanted to just bring to your attention is that if you like this strategy and assessment can be regarded as overarching. And then below that you have the playing pitch into implementation strategy, as mentioned in paragraph 3.9. And that's when you get into specific developments, specific ways in which if there is going to be a potential loss of a playing pitch, how it's going to be mitigated, how you bring in the funds, and so on. And that's when you get into the specific implementation. This strategy is overarching. Just setting out how we're doing in terms of the pictures that we've got, how well they're being used, their quality, projected demand, where is the shortfall, where is the projected shortfall, and taking steps to either maintain or enhance or provide new ones as needed by the population. I think I'll pause there and hand over to Staley. Thank you. Thank you, Erin. Good evening, everybody. So, in 3.11, that will just give you the table that gives you an overview in terms of the key findings and conclusions. What you will find in the actual report is that that's broken down into three sub areas of rural north and central. But for the ease and digestiveness of this session, I've just pulled that into one table. And what it does show is that existing position for all sports is either that demand is being met or that there is a shortfall. It also shows that future position does exacerbate that in terms of the shortfalls and creates additional shortfalls. Where there is spec capacity, though, in some of those pictures and where demand is being met, I just want to be clear that that doesn't equate to surplus provision. And actually, that's considered as a solution to some of the shortfalls that we have. So, there's quite a bit of work that needs to be done in terms of bringing the number of pictures into the borough to meet the demand of the number of teams. And what you can see from the last strategy to this strategy is the growth in teams and the reduction in pictures. So, that gap is getting a lot more for us to build and a little bit more difficult. So, in terms of the strategic recommendations, they have been developed through the assessment and the strategy process, which has been gathered from consultation with clubs and members of those clubs and site visits to those pictures and has produced the assessment report. And there are three objectives and they're easily remembered as protect what we already have, enhance what we already have, and where we need to put in more pictures that's bringing new pictures into the borough. The site-by-site action plan, which is in the appendices, seeks to address those issues. It's split into the three areas and it's prioritized in terms of low, medium, and high. And that looks at recommendations based on usage, the quality of those pictures, and the future demand of those pictures in those areas. In terms of how we monitor and review this moving forward, so the Sport England guidance suggests that the steering group meets on a six-month basis to try and keep that strategy and assessment report live. And how we do that is the governing bodies, we come together and we look at all of those site-by-site assessments, update if any improvements have been made, if any issues have exacerbated, and are there any opportunities that we can capitalize on. And some of the work that's linked to the playing picture implementation strategy is looking at some of those hub locations where we can look at a number of clubs coming together. So we have, this was signed off by the steering group back in January, so we actually have our six months in July, we've got a stage-e meeting which Sport England come along to. What we will also do in the next stage-e meeting is look at the affiliation data from those national governing bodies. So that happens every autumn, and that's the number of teams that sign up to that national governing body. So that will be able, that will be able as to input that into the assessment to see if there's been a growth in rugby, for example, then we know that we need to do the calculation of well what does that mean for additional pictures over and above what is already here, if we haven't been able to either improve quality of pictures so they can be used or bring in new pictures to the borough, develop new pictures to the borough. That's it for me, thank you chair, happy to take any questions. Sorry, I looked at its questions, Councillor SLAY first of all. Yeah, I support the strategy very much, and I support the site-by-site action plan proposals. Within the, within the list you've got in here, there are a large number of organisations, including organisations, you know, private organisations, armed co-arena, for instance, but what I don't see, and I'm just asking the question what the implications are, there's a lot of our sports facilities are controlled by parish councils, but they're not here. And I just wondered, is there a reason for that? And, you know, surely it would be our interest to understand what the provision is provided by the parish councils, in support of what provision we provide within the borough equally, just to make sure we do understand when demand increases, where opportunity arises. So, I know, you know, I have been a parish council, but I'm just trying to understand why they would not be included in this strategy and in the site-by-site implementation plan. That's a really good question. Parish councils were included in the consultation that KKP undertook, and that is, so they don't have the capacity to go out to see all the pictures and go and meet all of those picture owners, so they send out emails, and the sport England guidance is 65% return, so some of them are in there, but hidden under, so the onward club is a parish council, but it would come under a sports club because it's an onward club, so some of them will be hidden in there. That is something I can just check with KKP, but I'm 100% they were on the stakeholder list for engagement in terms of this. It's just might be that when they've done the filtering of the assessment report, it hasn't come out that they're a parish council owned facility, but I can double check that for you. They do. No problem. So that's one we need to check then. Okay, I had some other hands, so I know it counts the guys first, then it counts RGA, and then it counts the hawking. Thank you, check. Thank you, Sadie, really support of this strategy, and I think it's a good piece of work, very detailed report. On paragraph 3.14, page 97, it talks about a red bean union and cricket where current shortfalls are significant. Given that we've got some shortfalls, how do we going to monitor the demand, how the number is going to feed into that? From different, because the tables from pages in 103 is quite a lot of establishments are there, so how that's going to look like? Yeah, so in terms of how we monitor the demand is based on affiliation numbers, so we'll see as an example for cricket in 2017, let me just scroll all the way up. In 2017, we only had 158 teams, whereas in 2023, when it was done last year, because that was the first one, because it was a summer sport, we now have 217 teams, so you'll see we've had a 30% increase in those five years in terms of cricket. In terms of how we meet that, what we're doing with anyone who comes to us with a facility idea in terms of outdoor pitches, the question is, can we fit in a cricket square? So there is some competition with some of the NGBs, because cricket, you know, nice surface compared to rugby, and there are some challenges that we have to work through on that, but you can lay out pitches so that the cricket square is in run-off areas and not on playing fields, and then the field, so to speak, in cricket terms can go across the pitches, so that's one way we're looking at mitigating that. Education plays a big part in this, so what we did find in the assessment report that although education has a number of pitches, some are not up to quality, and some are not accessed by communities, so they have a real role to help mitigate the short for, particularly for rugby and cricket. We've got some great examples, you've got Tudor Grange, they have a cricket club that run out of the academy, and it's just using those contacts to try and bring other schools on board to open up their doors. Thank you, Madam Deputy Leader. Just following along from what you've just said, I used to play rugby and made some, and we shared the ground with the moat, which is actually where the Kent County cricket used to play, and yes, we used to have a few issues at the beginning of the season, when they didn't like us running across the square, but apart from that, I think that can work, where both sides use the ground. One comment and two questions, if you don't mind, please. The comment is more to do with the tables we've got in here. The way the formatting has been done, the table seems to be split into three different sections, so you can't see which comments line up with which, you can't see which comments line up with which club or which organisation, so I think it might be useful next time, maybe make it landscape and... A3 would be better. Yes, and probably A3 as well, just so we can see everything and we can line them up. And then, going on to page 108, the Land Rover Sports and Social Club. I'm not sure if you're aware about the proposed changes by Jaguar Land Rover, they're planning to make quite a few changes there. How will this affect our sort of sports pitch availability and how, you know, are we going to be struggling for numbers? So, that's why a particular fits in with the playing picture implementation strategy work, in terms of the hubs, so that's being dealt with separately, led by strategic land, but I do sit on that steering group. I can't really give you an update on that, but the officers are aware of JLR's intentions and what that might mean for playing pictures. I had, sorry, I had one more question if you don't mind. On page 97, you've also mentioned that tennis courts, that supply is insufficient. And one area where we've been trying for a long time now to get tennis courts repaired is in Alton Jubilipok in London. We have, you know, tennis courts there and it's probably one of the few wards that actually doesn't have a tennis court. And is there anything that can be done to get those tennis courts brought back into action, please? We do work closely with the LTA and Public Realm. They funded a number of our court resurfacing and gate access so that we can monitor usage, but that sits in Public Realm, so I'm not sure on the detail. The LTA don't have any funding at the moment for capital investment for tennis courts, but it is on our radar. We do appreciate there are a number of parks that either don't have or the courts are not in sufficient use or quality to be able to have access. So I can take that back to my Public Realm colleagues and let's find out for you. Councillor HAWKINS. Yes, thank you. And obviously with the Euros going on at the moment, England is still there. As you know, when the success nationally, more and more people will be on the streets in the parks lane, football, tennis, etc., cricket. And over time, things do change, so I welcome the strategy. But we have to make sure that we do adapt to our things moving forward, because it used to be, not money that I'm going to get a lot of ago, it used to be football in the men's football, boys' football in the winter, and men's are boys cricket in the summer. Now you can see that sea change, it's all ages, all sexes, and probably less football is such that he'll mention in the report, Hillfield Park, partly in my ward. You just have four pitches, now it's just down to one. Now that I suspect is down to probably fewer men's football teams playing the weekend, but I think you'll find out with the growth of women's football that would be more taken off. And again, it's a side step, whilst I'm on myself, the women's football is taking off such a lot. We've sponsored a player, women's player, it's a solilo-mores last season. So if you see that, our interest is there. Now they've moved out of the borough to play, I think, at the moment, but we see solilo-mores are doing well. And also the growth in women's rugby, and girls rugby, is taking off. So it's having all that sort of capacity to find out where we're doing it, that capacity, and also being identified when we know there might be a drop-off now and again as well. And we know that as teams, a little of them, mentioned Chelsea Town, they played just outside the borough, and I was sponsored a couple of games. And I'm a rugby fan, I don't really like football too much, but because they represent solely whole, we can support them. And with the T20 and the 100, more and more people playing cricket, and I know that both Blossom Field and Earls were cricket club, which actually is in Chesapeake Green, they want another pitch. There are two teams that want. Now I put them in touch with developers, and that's the link to sort of say, well, whether developers, whether by their own, they need to provide some for their new people, but also that it's moving in, but also they can have that social responsibility to actually provide for the greater good for people through Section 106, but probably not through Sill, but also that they can provide land for various clubs. And I think that's where as councillors and officers, and our guide is on the court for something else maybe, but really got again as the developers to provide, you know, to look for them to provide those sporting places. It might not be, it might be a rugby, a football and cricket pitch as well. And it needs to be adaptable because it affects everything, goes into that healthier lifestyle agenda, but it's also great for the leisure. So, I really welcome this report on the strategy. Thank you. Councillor McLACHLAN. Thank you, Deputy Leader. It does link in slightly to what Councillor Hawkins has said, but just to give you a fair warning, Gary, I am going to be pulling you in on this, even if you might feel this wasn't the agenda right, I'm here for. And I'll explain why. It's under 3.17. The objectives that are listed there to protect the existing supply of outdoor sport Parisian, obviously through the emerging local plan process at the draft stage, there were 27 pitches, I believe, that were lost. Off from where development was proposed. And there's a reason why, actually, the issue that that throws up links into what I feel needs to be incorporated in one of the objectives and it isn't explicitly. The closest I can see that it relates to this is second point under objective one, which is secure, affordable community access and tenure at sites for high quality, high quality, high quality development minded clubs. Now, it talks about affordable access there, and that seems to be talking about whether actually the clubs can afford to pay the maintenance, but actually the access element, and this relates to Blossomfield, because you're putting them in touch with developers, they need something which is accessible from the club house, they have the facilities there, and they're looking for something that is inaccessible. So I mean, the point there is that with the development of sites which were used as sports clubs, clubs are being moved further and further away. Now, the reason why sports are really important to communities is because they do tie people to place. They give people a sense of belonging, and that is how you build communities in a broader sense. The further you're moving people away, it isn't just the case of diminishing their attachment to place. It's also the accessibility. If you have to get a car somewhere, it means that there are members of the community who might not be able to actually play for that team. And I think that's one of the issues that we're seeing across the sports strategy is access to playing fields, getting harder and harder because it is moving further and further out. Is that something that has been identified and captured within the strategy? Gary, do you want to come in at this point? Yes, I can hear you and thank you, Deputy Leader. Really, I just wanted to say that, again, underlying the importance of this work for the local plan, this follows on from similar evidence that was produced for the local plan, and it supports the direction in the emerging local plan. And it comes back to the objectives that Sadie went through, Protecting Hands and Provide. It gives us the evidence to support that in local plan policy. So, for instance, on the sites where site allocations are in the local plan, where there are existing sports pitches, that's where it gives us the evidence to include in the policy that those need to be re-provided elsewhere. And that work is being done through the, as Sadie and Niroja said, through the playing pitch implementation strategy, looking at where some hubs can come together to make a more meaningful, sort of critical mass of clubs and facilities to come together. And as part of that work, we do look at what the catchment area is for the existing clubs that use the playing pitch facilities. So, that is something that is taken into account as part of that work. Sadie? Thank you. And just to add to what Gary was saying, that's not done in isolation with council officers. So, part of my role in that steering group is to feed back to the national governing bodies and support England. They then have the conversation with their clubs, and it's that two-way communication. So, we're not making decisions and saying this is what's going to happen. We're working with them in terms of does this work for your members, you know, in terms of what they're looking for? We have to manage expectations sometimes, because everyone wants a brand new club with state-of-the-art facilities. But this is where the NGBs play a really key role because they've got those relationships with those sports clubs, and they can bring them on their journey with us. And that is, it seems to be working really well through the implementation strategy. So, I think, we might get to watch the football tonight, but that's right. No, it's actually, this is potentially a little bit more for Gary as well, because obviously, policy P20 in the emerging local plan, and to a certain extent, policy P18, but policy P20 primarily, and element three under there, it says existing facilities that are valued to the community for recreation, play sports, and it said, will be protected unless one, it can be evidenced clearly that the open space or facilities are surplus to requirements and are no longer required to meet local need. Now, obviously, with a plan which is emerging, how much weight does that policy actually have in terms of refusing an application, which may be taking away a sports facility, because that obviously ties very, very heavily into the strategy. If we are seeing lots of applications coming forward, I think there's over 2,500 properties since May last year for applications in the Green Belt, and some of those do incorporate sports facilities. What weight does that policy within the local plan actually carry to be able to refuse an application, because my concern is that we're going to be losing some of these sports facilities whilst we're talking about this before the actual plan gets adopted. Deputy, I'm happy to pick that up. Thank you. In my view, it would carry a significant weight because that emerging policy is similar to what's in the adopted local plan for the borough, and it also follows the advice in NPPF as well, that existing open space, sports recreation buildings, etc, should not be built on unless an assessment has been undertaken, which clearly shows you open space buildings or land to be surplus to requirements. So it follows the NPP advice, and what is critically this is that we have this piece of local evidence that demonstrates that it wouldn't be surplus, and that underlines the importance of this work, and being capable of being used in individual applications as well as the development of policy. Okay, thank you, Gary. I think it does demonstrate the importance of having the strategy and having this strategy, because it is cross-cutting, it's not just something that sits within public health, it does affect obviously planning policy, and we definitely want to encourage more people to participate in sports, so being able to do that, and obviously the plan itself does show the importance of the quality of the offer. So I think it's important, so I'm hoping that everybody can support and we can approve the strategy. Good, and obviously we will then be looking in the future for how this is implemented and how the number of pictures can be improved, number increased. Okay, so thank you for all the, I'm sure a lot of work has gone into getting us to this point and determining where everything is. Obviously points have been raised that we'll need to be picked up outside of the meeting. Okay, thank you. So right, we move on then to agenda item nine. Now we've got the risk management information report here. Now we've got two elements to this, it's public and a private part, so clearly we just need to concentrate on the public part for the time being. So Mark is here to explain some of the changes that you've made since we were last looking at this. So over to you Mark. Thanks Deputy Leader, so this is the annual report for Cabinet on the Council's Corporate Risk Register. I've got a few introductory comments, and then if any members have any specific questions on the content of each race, we've got members of CLT here who will be able to respond. So in the last few months the Council has updated its risk management policy and we have a new framework in place which has involved moving to a new five by five matrix which enables a greater granularity in the risk scoring and a better way of showing movement in risk scoring. Previously we had a three by three which was somewhat limited. The new five by five is also compatible with a number of partner organisations out there in industry. We're all set in the process of redefining our risk appetite as a council which will help to improve decision making and when prioritising the response that we need to give to high level risks. On page 141 of the PAC provides a summary for Cabinet of the current corporate risks that we have in place. There are currently 11 and you know I'm police report that that has been reduced since last year's annual report down from 17. So we have been focusing on those risks in terms of how they're managed and how they're controlled. I would just draw your attention most importantly to the two end columns on that spreadsheet which provides the rationale for recording the risk in the first place and the latest update on how those risks are being managed and controlled by the risk owner. I think that's the important one for members to be aware of. So on this table there are two red risks relating to the MTFS delivery and the pressures within children's services and then we have four amber risks and five yellow rated risks and in the main report 3.6.3 to 3.6.9 provides some commentary relating to those risks but the main focus being the detail on the table and as you will be aware the corporate risk register is tabled frequently at audit committee and also it goes to resources scrutiny so there is a level of scrutiny and oversight around that and officers review this at CLT and DLT. Thank you. Thank you Mark. Members any questions for this part of the report? Councillor SRI. Really just a comment. As you know we updated the risk management policy during transit. I think it's better to be fair. I think it's much more user friendly to be honest with you and I think that we've had conversations about how it's been dealt with before and I think it is an improvement. Not that it was failing last time but in essence I think it does make some clear improvements and some of the risks that have been identified both the red risks and the amber risk particularly. I know we had some debates about cyber attack and I think that's very much on people's minds so I'm pleased that we've now got that in there as a clear risk so I think it's a good piece of work. Thank you Mark. Councillor KAIS. Thank you Chair. Definitely I support what our colleague Bob said about the I think it's a good practice for the industry as well to have 5x5 which I think makes it more clearer and easy to manage and monitor as well I think. In terms of the net score is that after the mitigation when the mitigation take place and then the net score. Yes it is the residual risk remaining. Thank you. Okay no I think everybody's supportive of the work that's been done obviously we discussed this last time and you've taken on boards a lot of the comments the cabinet said then so I think everybody's pleased with the new format so well done and we'll discuss the other section in private so thank you you might want to stay there actually. Okay okay so that concludes the public part of the meeting so I now beg to move that the press and public now be excluded from the meeting for the remainder of the business to be transacted on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in the local government act of 1972. Thank you.