Agenda and minutes

Apologies for Absence were received from Councillor Jones and Councillor Trenchard.

To consider the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 February 2025.

It was RESOLVED:

that the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 February 2025 be signed as a true record.

It was RESOLVED:

that the Order of Business be confirmed as printed on the Agenda.

There were no Declarations of Interest.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Martin Cook

This report gives details of the forecast outturn position for 2024/25 for:

1.    The General Fund Revenue Budget, General Balances, and the Council’s Reserves.

2.    The Housing Revenue Account.

3.    The Shared Revenues Partnership.

4.    The Capital Programme, for this and future years.

5.    Treasury Management.

103.1. Councillor M Cook introduced the report noting that there was an adverse variance on the General Fund against the 2024/25 budget, but the Housing Revenue Account and SRP were forecasting a better than budget year-end position. Councillor Cook highlighted the decline in Government funding in Chart 1 and the challenges for councils from a decade of austerity, with a cumulative loss of income of £119million, and the need to identify savings to cover the gap in funding. Section 12 of the report indicated a greater accuracy in the forecasting of capital spend.

103.2. Councillor Cook highlighted the proposed write offs in Section 19 of the report that were primarily as a result of businesses using loopholes in the law to avoid paying business rates, which was a nationwide issue for councils. Bolton Council had taken legal proceedings against one of the companies, 3^rd Sector Assist Limited, only to precipitate the winding up of that company, highlighting that taking action could incur additional cost with no guarantee of recovering the debt. Councillor Cook added that it was necessary for financial accounting purposes to write off debts when it was unlikely that the debt could be recovered; however, the debt could be written back on if circumstances changed and there was an opportunity to recover it. The proposed write offs totalled over £700k, with the Council liable for 40% and the remaining debt shared between SCC and Central Government. The volatile nature of business rate collection emphasised the need for reserves within the Medium Term Financial Plan to cover major unexpected variances.

103.3. Councillor Fisher commented that the biggest change in the General Fund position this quarter seemed to be attributed to capital financing costs and asked if this linked to the loans recently taken out.
The Section 151 Officer, Ian Blofield, confirmed that the change was mainly related to capital financing charges; the Council borrowed at threshold levels and pooled resources rather than linking the funding to individual capital projects to ensure that the Council did not borrow more than it needed. Where large investments were required, this would increase the need for additional borrowing.

103.4. Councillor Fisher asked whether the anticipated capital receipts would cover all of the 2 year loan or just the interest costs. Councillor Fisher noted from the General Fund summary and Liability Benchmark graph that there appeared to be a funding gap of £60-80million over the next 3-4 years and so further loans would be required, and asked whether this would require the sale of further capital assets to cover the loan interest costs.

103.5. The Section 151 Officer commented that the Medium Term Financial Plan set out the predicted investment needs and anticipated use of capital receipts, and there were adequate resources to repay the anticipated level of debt. The Liability Benchmark graph indicated that this was a viable financial situation and as many of the loans taken out by the Council were annuity loans, with the principal investment being paid back as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Jane Riley

This report reviews the fees charged for permits within the Ipswich Residents Parking Scheme and makes recommendations for changes. 

104.1. Councillor Riley introduced the report that sought to change the pricing structure of resident parking permits based on the length of vehicles as there was a limited amount of space available across the parking bays in the 5 Residents Parking Zones and most vehicle models had become greater in length. The proposed scheme was based on the vehicle length criteria used by Norwich City Council with examples of the vehicle length categories set out in Appendix 3 of the report. Some exemptions would apply, such as Blue Badge holders, and any vehicle over 6 metres in length would be ineligible for a permit. Public notice of the proposals would be given with a statutory 21-day consultation period.

104.2. In accordance with Part 4, Section 4, Paragraph 3.9 of the Constitution, the following questions were asked:

Question 1 – Councillor T Lockington

Given that the Residents Parking Zone arrangements are not intended to be a fund raiser for the Council but self-funding, and given that the increase from £60 to £62 (Table 1 on page 60) for the small car rate already involves an inflation uplift, and small family cars such as a Ford Fiesta will attract an additional 25% charge on top of this, to reassure residents that this policy is not an excessive uplift, would it not be more appropriate to reduce the tariff for small cars by 25%, centre the proposed £62 inflation uplifted charge on medium cars and apply the 25% uplift to large (longer) cars?

104.3. Councillor Riley reported that the scheme was proposed to address the issues and concerns of residents associated with the limited amount of on-street parking and the issue of having more vehicles on the road with many of those being longer than they have historically been. By implementing the scheme whereby residents who had larger vehicles would pay more for taking up more of the on-street parking space, it would cost the Council more than it did currently to manage and enforce the Residents Parking Schemes. This meant that Councillor Lockington’s proposal to reduce the cost for smaller vehicles would effectively result in a decrease of income to the Council, whereas this proposal was calculated to enable the Council to recover all its costs from administering the Residents Parking Schemes.

Question 2 – Councillor I Lockington

With regards to page 61-62, Option A, Table 2: The Visitors Permit proposed fees will make it more difficult for residents who can buy these. The resident may not know precisely what size of car their guests/workmen arrive in. The three different prices will mean residents will probably have to buy three different sets of Permits and try to work out which Permit they need to put on which car. I fear this will be confusing for some of our residents and lead to them being penalised financially through Parking Enforcement Notices. Is that really what you are aiming for?

104.4. Councillor Riley reported that currently residents could buy visitor permits in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Martin Cook

In September 2024, the savings programme identified in the Budget Delivery Plan report was approved. This report details the changes that need to be made to the Discretionary Business Rate Relief Policy to deliver the expected saving of £47,000 per year through a reduction in discretionary rate relief awards to applicable organisations. 

The Council has discretionary relief powers (under section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 as amended) to update its policy on Discretionary Business Rate Relief to realise the savings identified.

This report recommends that Executive approves an amended Discretionary Business Rate Relief policy and delegates authority to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Portfolio Holder and Leader to agree future changes to the Discretionary Business Rate Relief policies for the life of the 2023 Rating List.

105.1. Councillor M Cook introduced the report highlighting that under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 all local authorities were required to have a Discretionary Rate Relief Policy that provided for up to 100% relief for certain categories of businesses/organisations. One of the savings options identified in the Budget Delivery Plan adopted in September 2024 was to reduce the level of relief provided by £47k pa. Currently 68 organisations received business rates relief, with an average benefit of £691 pa. Paragraph 2.3 of the report set out how the proposed savings would be achieved as given the current volatility around business rates collection and recent write offs, it was no longer sustainable to offer the current level of relief. The Council’s policy had been more generous previously and the proposed changes brought it in line with the relief offered by other local authorities. The updated Discretionary Business Rate Relief Policy for 2025/26 was attached at Appendix 1 of the report and its adoption would enable annual billing to proceed on that basis.

105.2. Councillor Fisher commented that most of the relief was offered to voluntary sector organisations but noted that any business could apply and asked if this happened. Councillor Fisher asked how the policy criteria of ‘The Interest of Council Tax Payers’ was applied, i.e. how could it be demonstrated that offering say a 10% rate relief to a charity would represent good value to the taxpayer.

105.3. Councillor M Cook commented that most of the organisations that benefitted were voluntary organisations or national charities and it was rare for businesses to make an application. When an application was received, Officers would make an assessment against all of the criteria to ensure that any recommendation was in line with the Policy.

It was RESOLVED:

a)             That Executive approves the updated Discretionary Business Rate Relief Policy as set out in Appendix 1 of the report for the 2025/26 financial year.

Reason: To enable the realisation of savings whilst continuing to provide support to applicable organisations in Ipswich.

b)            That Executive delegates authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Resources and the Leader of the Council, to agree future changes to the Discretionary Business Rate Relief policies for the life of the 2023 Rating List.

Reason: To enable the policies to be maintained during the life of the rating list in order to provide support to ratepayers in Ipswich.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Philip Smart

In March 2023, Executive provided a time limited authority to the Director with responsibility for the Council’s vehicles to make decisions on the purchase of vehicles through Crown Commercial Services Frameworks. This authority expires on 31 March 2025. Executive is asked to consider options for April 2025 onwards.

106.1. Councillor P Smart introduced the report which sought to extend the current practice of Senior Officers exercising their delegated authority for the procurement of vehicles in consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Environment & Transport and Resources; previously authorisation had been granted for periods of 3 years and 2 years, and this report sought authorisation for a further 3 years.

106.2. Councillor Fisher noted the progress made with 91% of the Council’s fleet producing zero emissions and asked whether any of the electric vehicles would need to be replaced soon, highlighting the need to consider resale prices which could be comparatively lower as electric vehicles depreciated quite quickly.

106.3. The Head of Waste and Fleet commented that the current cycle of procuring vehicles was looking to replace the remaining diesel vehicles, i.e. vans used by the Maintenance & Contracts Team and Refuse Vehicles, some of which might not be electric vehicles, but would offer ultra-low diesel emissions. No work had been done to consider replacement of electric fleet and associated depreciation values as the electric vehicles were still performing well.

106.4. Councillor M Cook commented that there had been reports of very high mileage being achieved by electric vehicles and the Council’s fleet did not travel long distances; additionally, service costs were lower for electric cars as less components tended to go wrong/wear out. Consequently, whilst the Council’s electric vehicles were still fit for purpose and servicing the needs of the Council, there was no need to consider replacing them at this stage.

It was RESOLVED:

That Executive authorises a time limited delegated authority to the Assistant Director with responsibility for the Council’s vehicle fleet to make decisions on the purchase of vehicles through the use of Public Sector Procurement Frameworks. This authority to be subject to:

a)             Delegation being time limited and expiring on 31 March 2028.

b)            Each vehicle purchase decision being made in consultation with, and with the agreement of, the Council’s Director of Operations and Place, the Council’s Section 151 Officer and the Portfolio Holders for Resources and Environment & Transport.

c)             There being adequate financial provision within the relevant approved capital budget for the likely financial consequences of any decision.

Reason: To make the most economically advantageous use of the approved capital budget for the purchase of vehicles.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor John Cook

This report sets out the recommendations made by the Strategic Overview and Scrutiny Committee through its Task and Finish Group on Area Committees. This Task and Finish Group was proposed in August 2023 and ran until November 2024.

107.1. Councillor J Cook introduced the report and highlighted that things had moved on since this review as the last round of Area Committees were now taking place; however, it had still been a useful piece of work, and the recommendations would be taken forward into the Community Engagement Strategy.

107.2. Councillor MacDonald thanked Councillors and Officers from the Task & Finish Group for this thorough piece of work.

It was RESOLVED:

That Executive note the recommendations put forward by Strategic Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which will be considered in the delivery of the Community Engagement Strategy.

Reason: In order to provide a formal response to the Strategic Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommendations.

To consider excluding the public (including the Press) from the meeting during consideration of the following items under Regulation 21 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 as it is likely that if members of the public were present during these items there would be disclosure to them of exempt information falling within paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

It was RESOLVED:

that the public (including the Press) be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items under Regulation 21 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 as it was likely that if members of the public were present during these items there would be disclosure to them of exempt information falling within paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Neil MacDonald