The Overview and Scrutiny Committee of Barking and Dagenham Council met on Monday 12 January 2026 to scrutinise the draft budget strategy for 2026-27 to 2030-31 and proposed fees and charges for 2026. The committee discussed the council's challenging financial position, the impact of the provisional local government finance settlement, and potential council tax increases. Decisions were made to note the budget report and to proceed with the scrutiny of fees and charges, with further questions to be submitted in writing.

Budget Scrutiny

The committee received a report on the draft budget strategy for 2026-27 to 2030-31, which highlighted the unusually difficult financial circumstances facing the council. Richard Harbord, Strategic Director of Resources and Section 151 Officer, presented the report, noting that the late publication of the government's settlement and significant changes to funding formulas had made budget planning a struggle. Despite these challenges, the settlement was described as quite a good settlement for Barking and Dagenham, ranking as the fourth best among London boroughs. However, the council still faces a £9.6 million deficit for 2026-27, which needs to be addressed through savings or other measures, as drawing further from reserves would leave them below recommended levels.

A key point of discussion was the government's intention to increase council tax, with boroughs encouraged to raise it by up to 10% or just under 5%. The report indicated that 60% of the council's funding is expected to come from council tax within three years. Councillors debated the potential for a smaller council tax increase, with Councillor Phil Waker suggesting a 2% rise for year one to provide breathing space for service improvement and cost reduction. This was met with concerns from the Leader of the Council, Councillor Dominic Twomey, who highlighted that not taking the full allowable increase could lead to government penalties and a loss of approximately £900,000 per percentage point.

The report also detailed the council's reserves, noting that while they are considered low by auditors Grant Thornton, they are not desperate. The budget support reserve had increased to £32 million, and while this could be drawn upon, the preference was to avoid doing so if possible. Discussions also touched upon the significant growth in demand for services, particularly in adult and children's social care, and the inflationary pressures associated with these areas.

The committee engaged in a lengthy debate about the need for transformation within the council's services. Councillor Val Masson questioned whether the language of transformation had been used before and what impact it had. It was explained that transformation had been ongoing since 2016-17, saving tens of millions of pounds and helping to contain growth, particularly in adult social care. However, the council's lean structure meant that officers were often stretched, balancing business as usual with delivering savings and planning for future ones. The current breathing space provided by the settlement was seen as an opportunity to focus on more fundamental change.

Concerns were raised about the lack of detail in some productivity transformation proposals and the need for equality impact assessments. The performance of council assets and procurement practices were also highlighted as areas for improvement. The Strategic Director of Resources, Richard Harbord, acknowledged that procurement had not performed well and that a new head of procurement was starting in February, with a reorganisation planned.

Ultimately, no final decision was made on the budget strategy at this meeting; these discussions will feed into the final budget report to be presented to Cabinet and Assembly in February 2026.

Scrutiny of Fees and Charges 2026

The committee also began the scrutiny of proposed fees and charges for 2026. Neural Alam, Head of Corporate Finance, presented the report, explaining that fees and charges are reviewed annually to align with service needs and cost recovery. The proposed increases are generally in line with inflation (CPI at 3.8%), with some exceptions based on detailed cost analysis or benchmarking against neighbouring boroughs.

Several specific areas were discussed, including:

• Carer Passes: Councillor Phil Waker raised the possibility of not charging for carer passes, a practice adopted by some boroughs. The committee agreed to look into this further.
• Parking Charges: The committee noted that visitor parking permits had increased by 100% last year, and questioned whether further increases were necessary given the budget settlement. It was explained that parking fees had not increased for four years prior to last year, and the current report did not propose an increase for those services that had already seen significant rises.
• Street Trading Fees: An 87% increase was proposed for street trading fees, based on benchmarking with neighbouring boroughs to ensure cost recovery for services like waste collection and parking. Concerns were raised about comparing Barking and Dagenham with boroughs like Newham, which offers free permits. The committee sought clarification on whether this increase applied to small businesses with outdoor seating. It was clarified that the increase was specifically for parking market and market stalls.
• Cost Recovery and Inflation: Discussions highlighted that fees and charges are reviewed to recover costs, not to make a profit. The cumulative effect of inflation over several years was cited as a reason for some of the proposed increases, particularly where fees had been frozen for extended periods.

The committee agreed that any burning questions would be asked this evening, with the majority of further questions to be submitted in writing to officers for subsequent publication.

Work Programme

The committee noted the work programme, which included an upcoming meeting with the Metropolitan Police and a review of the EHCP process.

The meeting concluded at 8:58 pm.