Report attached.

The Strategic Director of Resources reported that £10m of the £15m of planned savings had now been achieved. £2.7m of savings were rated as amber with the remainder rated red i.e. not likely to be achieved with the timescale. Officers wished to report to the Board on progress with savings on a quarterly basis.

It was possible that other departments could make further savings to assist areas which had unavoidably overspent due to demand etc and this would be addressed with individual directors. All areas were however under financial pressure.

Savings implemented were ultimately suggested by individual service areas. It was clarified that the extra highways funding recently received from Central Government was for additional maintenance only. Officers accepted that the division between amber and red rated savings was quite subjective and the rating may be based on the view of officers. More detail of actual savings against those forecast could be given in future reports. A parking review being undertaken by Cabinet would look at the impact of current parking charges.

Green waste permits were renewed in March and it was not possible to offer e.g. a six month permit as the Council had to pay the relevant contractor for the full year. Councillor Stanton would forward to the Strategic Director correspondence relating to the collection of sharps bins.

There were numerous instances of implementing learning from other Councils. For example a model of ward-led enablement used by Essex was being implemented by the Havering Integrated Care Board. This aimed to provide a reablement service on hospital wards to get people out of bed and moving around as soon as possible. An AI project used by Kingston to support social workers doing assessments was also being introduced to allow Havering staff to be more productive.

The proposed savings in Early Help Provision could not be implemented due to the outcome of the recent OFSTED report. There was however unlikely to be a large spend in this area. The OFSTED improvement plan and funding had been agreed by Council.

Officers did not feel that the savings would negatively impact on service delivery. The impact of not making the planned savings would need to be discussed with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).

The savings from libraries had been reprofiled to around £150k in the current year. Delivery and implementation times for savings could be shown in future reports. Savings from the Better Living programme and reduction in the use of agency social workers had been rated amber as they had been part-delivered.

The business rate pool with Thurrock and Barking & Dagenham was not a fixed arrangement but officers were advising Cabinet to continue with this arrangement next year. The Strategic Director did not feel that joining the London Business Rates Pool would be cost effective.

The recent CIPFA review of the Council’s financial position had been received but had been strictly embargoed by Central Government. The report was therefore unable to be shared with Members at this stage. The Council Chief Executive was continuing to ask MHCLG to allow the report to be shared.

It was clarified that Community Infratructure Levy (CIL) funding could only be used for capital expenditure. Neighbourood CIL money could however be used for wider service delivery.

Officers accepted that the Council was likely to go over the limits of this year’s capitalisation directive. Any savings not achieved would be considered as part of next year’s capitalisation. It was accepted that this was not an ideal situation but officers confirmed that there was sufficient money from the capitalisation directive to fund the worst case scenario.

The Onesource organisation had been established to bring services together and some Onesource shared services did still remain. Issues such as austerity and a lack of standardisation had been challenges for Onesource. It had been hoped to recruit more partners to Onesource but a lack of commonality of IT systems had made this difficult.

It was confirmed that interest had been included in the £54m capitalisation. The Council was in dialogue with MHCLG and there was tight monitoring of the budget each month.

It was suggested that the Board recommend to Cabinet that more accurate data be presented on the impact of parking price increases on the level of permits purchased. It was noted however that Cabinet was undertaking a six-month review of parking charges. Outcomes from this review would be brought back to the Board.

The Board noted the progress towards delivering the 2024/25 savings as set out in the report and appendices and AGREED the following comments and recommendations:

-       An update on progress with savings delivery be given to the Board on a quarterly basis. (service)

-       That more accurate data is received and presented around the impact of parking price increases on the level of permits purchased (Cabinet)

-       That the outcomes of the Cabinet review of parking charges are brought back to the O & S Board for scrutiny. (Cabinet)

-       That a review be undertaken of amber-rated savings, particularly those where only part-savings are anticipated (Cabinet)

-       Any draft saving promoted must have a plan of introduction, indicating whether the saving could be achieved in full or will be phased in (Cabinet)

-       Any saving rated red should be presented with a plan for achieving movement to green (Cabinet)