Agenda item

To present to the committee the revised budget estimates for 2021/22 and the original estimates for 2022/23.

The Accountancy Manager introduced the report and explained that it had already been to Housing Committee on the 7 December 2021. She further explained that since that report there had only been one adjustment which was to include the role for a Resident Involvement Officer for a period of 2 years.

The Accountancy Manager then drew the Committees attention to a few key points within the report which included:

·       The proposed increase of Social Rents by 4.1% - This was in line with National Rent Guidance and the Budget Strategy approved by Council. A full list of the charges was included in Appendix A.

·       The service charges for communal areas and Independent Living were estimated to rise by more than the proposed increase. The decision was made to wait until the figure was known before passing these charges onto tenants which could result in higher charges next year.

·       Shared Ownership rents were not included in the report due to the charges being set out in each individual lease not set by the Council, however these were due to increase in line with retail prices. 

·       Table 1, on page 155 of the document pack, sets out the individual changes to the HRA. The changes included in table 1 were largely short term and overall had an effect of an additional £100k away from the predicted budget.

·       They would be looking to transfer just over £1 mill from HRA General Reserves in order to balance the budget.

·       Table 3, page 159, sets out the financial position of the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP)  for the period 2021-2026. This showed in 2025/26 the forecasted reserves were lower than the minimum recommended balance which was largely due to the inclusion of the retrofit works agreed by Housing Committee in 2021.

·       Graph 1, page 160, showed the forecast of the HRA General Reserves over the next 30 years should things stay as they were. This graph enabled them to see how sustainable their decisions would be and showed there was time to put in a measured approach with regards to making savings for the HRA.

·       Page 161 identified the risks and uncertainties, the biggest of those being cost inflation which would have a big impact on the Retrofit and New Build programmes.

·       Page 161, section 10, sets out the borrowing position which included borrowing for the Retrofit and the New Build Programmes.

·       Page 162 sets out the Capital Programme which included Major Works, New Homes and Regeneration Programme, Independent Living Modernisation and the Land Appropriation in May Lane, Dursley.

The Accountancy Manager gave the following answers in response to questions asked:

·       The 3% inflation figures were produced for the Housing Committee and have since increased. If they continued to increase, further funding would need to be allocated or the projects re-evaluated to see what could be delivered.

·       The existing budgets for Services that had been brought in house had been re-allocated however, the expectation was that those savings would be included once they were in place. 

It was agreed to get back to Councillor Davies with an estimate of the number of new houses completed by Stroud District Council next year.

Councillor Hurst questioned whether the New Build Programme reflected the age demographic and what types of houses were being built. The Accountancy Manger explained that each individual scheme recognised the housing needs of the area and details of these were reported to the Housing Committee.

Councillor Housden questioned why £1.5 mill was set aside for the former Ship Inn site in 2 years time provided that there had been no time scales or plans for the site. The Accountancy Manager confirmed the Canal Side site was included as per the existing programme. She further explained it was likely that things could change but each site was included in the budget around the time that they were expected to be brought into the programme.

Councillor Housden further questioned whether the £1.5 mill set aside for the Canal side Site could be invested to balancing the HRA budget instead. The Accountancy Manager explained that the one-off payment of £1.5 mill was borrowed income and would be funded through future rental income from the site in order to be repaid. In addition, she explained that the £1 mill needed to balance the HRA was an annual figure and would need to be repeated each year.

Councillor Ross proposed and Councillor Brine seconded.

Councillor Robinson commended the new homes being built in Nailsworth.

Councillors debated the topic of building Social Housing in Stonehouse specifically around the Canal Site in Stonehouse.

Councillor Ross commended the work being done with regards to building new social housing and for shared ownership homes and the work being completed on the relevant task and finish groups.

After being put to a vote, the Motion carried with 8 votes for, 3 votes against and 2 abstentions.