The Overview and Scrutiny Committee met to discuss the council's Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) and the implications of proposed savings, as well as to review developer contributions. Key decisions included the agreement to scrutinise savings proposals and to continue to monitor the delivery of developer contributions, with a focus on improving transparency and community involvement.

Budget and Medium-Term Finance Strategy

The committee reviewed the council's financial position and the proposed savings to address a significant budget gap, exacerbated by a decade of reduced government funding and rising demand for services. Councillor Judith Kavanagh, Acting Cabinet Member for Finance, presented the report, highlighting the challenges in areas such as temporary accommodation, adult social care, and children's services. Despite these pressures, she expressed confidence in closing the budget gap for the upcoming financial year and achieving a secure financial position by 2027-28.

Trade union representatives, Simon Hanna (Unison), Susan Matthews (Unite), and Patricia Ennis (GMB), raised concerns about the reliance on Artificial Intelligence (AI) for savings, the effectiveness of consultants, and the lack of transparency regarding Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs). They also questioned the council's consultation processes and the accuracy of financial reporting.

Councillor Ben Curtis raised concerns about the reliance on Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) from the government and the fallback position if the anticipated amount is not received. Councillor Scott Ainslie echoed these concerns, highlighting the late publication of papers and the potential impact of job cuts and council tax increases on residents. Councillor Tim Windle questioned the process for applying for and repaying EFS, and the council's asset management strategy.

In response, officers explained the process for applying for EFS and the ongoing dialogue with the government. They also detailed the strategy for replenishing reserves to 10% of net revenue expenditure within three years. Discussions also covered the savings proposals for adult social care, with assurances that the focus would be on maximising independence and early intervention, and that individual care packages would be reviewed regularly. The committee also discussed the housing disrepair cases and the HRA's financial recovery plan.

Several recommendations were made, including ensuring EIAs are made public, investing in preventative measures, safeguarding reserves, and receiving quarterly updates on savings delivery, particularly concerning temporary accommodation, social care, and borrowing costs. There was also a call for greater detail in savings proposals to ensure clarity for councillors and the public.

Developer Contributions

The committee reviewed the effectiveness of developer contributions, including the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), Neighbourhood CIL (NCIL), and Section 106 obligations, in delivering necessary infrastructure and services. Councillor Danny Adilipour, Deputy Leader for Housing Investment and New Homes, presented the report, emphasising the importance of aligning these contributions with the council's growth plan and local plan.

Teo Adesina from Trash Gang Academy CIC spoke about the vital role of NCIL funding in supporting grassroots organisations that equip young people with skills, highlighting the positive impact on participants' self-belief and mental health. He urged for longer-term funding to ensure the continuity of such programmes.

Ted Inman from Southbank and Waterloo Neighbours expressed concerns about the lack of community engagement in the allocation of Section 106 and strategic CIL funds, noting that the current process prioritises affordable workspace over green space. He advocated for greater local input into mitigation priorities and investment decisions.

Questions were raised about preventing developers from using viability assessments to reduce obligations, the process for allocating funds to projects, and the reasons for the rise in unspent developer contributions. Rob Bristow, Director of Planning and Sustainability, explained the robust process for assessing viability and securing affordable housing, including late-stage viability reviews. Officers detailed the allocation process, guided by the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the Borough Plan, and acknowledged the challenges in forecasting and drawing down funds due to market uncertainties.

Concerns were also raised about the transparency of how developer contributions are spent, with a call for more detailed reporting, similar to practices in other councils like Cornwall. The committee discussed the distinction between CIL and NCIL, with NCIL requiring community engagement, and the potential for using unspent Section 106 money for revenue purposes, such as debt reduction.

The committee made recommendations to ensure financial viability assessments do not create loopholes for developers, that late-stage viability reviews are conducted, and that unspent Section 106 and CIL funds are allocated to services in urgent need. They also called for greater encouragement of community involvement in decisions regarding NCIL allocation and spending, and for greater continuity of funding for grassroots organisations. A key recommendation was for increased transparency in reporting on the delivery of projects funded by developer contributions, detailing the specific planning applications and the amount spent in the local area.

Work Programme

The committee reviewed its work programme, noting upcoming meetings on the Safer Lambeth Partnership, temporary accommodation procurement strategy, environmental protection, and the selective licensing scheme. Members were invited to suggest items for future agendas.