Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Browne, McDonald and Pearce

The Chairperson will announce any late items which do not appear on the main agenda but which he has agreed should be considered by reason of special circumstances to be specified in the report.

There were none.

Members are invited to disclose any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Significant Interests in accordance with the Member Code of Conduct. Guidance on this is set out in agenda item 4.

Disclosable pecuniary interests (DPI)

There were none.

Other significant Interests (OSI)

There were none.

Other Interests

There were none.

To approve the record of the meetings held on 2 October 2025 and 23 October 2025.

The record of the meetings held on 2 October 2025 and 23 October 2025 were agreed and signed by the Chairperson as correct.

This annual report provides an account of the role of the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration. It details their ambitions for their areas of responsibility, how they have and will undertake political challenge and leadership and what their priorities and ambitions are for the year ahead.

Discussion:

The Portfolio Holder introduced the report, he commented that his work had primarily focused on frontline delivery, waste, Medway Norse, the local plan, climate change and public transport and active travel.

The following issues were discussed:

Electric Vehicles (EV) Charging – it was asked how many EV chargers would be installed using the £2.1m grant given to the Council and would the electricity grid cope with the additional demand. The Portfolio Holder stated that he could not provide a specific figure as the funding would also cover associated costs of installation, so it was dependent upon the costs of each project, however the grid would be able to cope with the additional electric chargers.

The Committee discussed EV charging and the Portfolio Holder acknowledged that not being able to run cables across pavements remained a difficulty. The required approach would need to consider solutions street by street. He added that it was an issue which affected many authorities across the country and the Council would take lessons from the work of others when developing their own programme.

It was asked whether there was enough focus on fast EV chargers, the Portfolio Holder stated that this would be for the Procurement Board to consider the most effective use of the monies available.

Household Waste – further information was requested regarding the new waste fleets environmental impact. The Portfolio Holder stated that the new waste fleet was much quieter and it reflected the speed of changing technology. He added that a new waste strategy was under development, however it would not affect weekly collection, which would continue until Local Government Reform took place.

A Member commented that many of Medway’s streets were not clean, reporting street cleaning was archaic and street cleaning disjointed. He asked how might this be improved. The Portfolio Holder stated that this had been an issue for as long as he had lived in Medway.

The Chief Information Officer added that the way reporting of litter to the Council was managed was under review as part of Medway 2.0. This review was scheduled to be completed by March 2026.

It was asked whether hourly appointments for the household waste centres was under consideration to provide an improved service. The Chief Information Officer stated that development of the service to include more appointments  was under active consideration as part of a proposed Medway 2.0 Task Group. The Portfolio Holder commented that an hourly appointment service would be a great development in his view and build on the excellent service already provided by the team.

Members commented that that the household waste centres were performing excellently, the Portfolio Holder undertook to pass on his thanks to the centres on behalf of the Members.

Bus Corridors – it was asked how bus corridors were chosen and their effectiveness measured. The Portfolio Holder stated that the Council worked in close collaboration with the bus companies, with meetings taking place monthly. The Bus Improvement Plan and Transport Plan for Medway would reflect  ...  view the full minutes text for item 483.

The One Medway Council Plan (OMCP) 2024/28 sets out the Council’s priorities and the performance indicators used to monitor performance. This report and appendices summarise how we performed in Quarter 2 (Q2) 2025/26 on the delivery of these priorities. This report also presents the Q2 2025/26 review of strategic risks which fall under the remit of this committee.

Discussion:

The Chief Information Officer introduced the report which provided performance and risk summary for round 2 for indicators under the remit of this Committee. In addition, proposals for the future presentation of reports were set out at appendix 3 to the report for comment.

The following issues were discussed:

Phone Calls – a Member noted the reduction in phone calls to the Council and commented that this did not necessarily reflect a better service. The Chief Operating Officer stated that the reduction in call volume reflected the work of the Council to improve its digital offering, there had been a significant increase in digital traffic and transactions and as a consequence less people contacted the Council by telephone. The Council had not restricted access to telephone contact, but the improved digital service had presented people with more options.

The Member stated that that the contact hub had not dealt with the concerns raised by a constituent effectively and he was concerned  that there was an assumption that a lower number of calls received was better for the Council. The Chief Operating Officer stated that the public accessing information from the Council digitally rather than via the telephone was more efficient and cost effective for the Council. Both options would continue to be provided but the public was increasingly choosing to access information digitally. He added that if the Member was aware of any specific issues with the service provided he should inform management who would investigate.

A Member commented that CABS provided a good service. The Chief Information Officer reiterated that the objective was not to force the public to use a particular service, rather to provide an efficient accessible range of services to the public.

Decision:

a)     The Committee noted the progress of the performance indicators used to monitor progress of the Council’s priorities, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report.

b)     The Committee noted the Strategic Risk Summary as set out in Appendix 2 to the report.

c)     The Committee noted and commented on, the example of a possible future reporting style, shown in Appendix 3.

This report presents the results of the second round of the Council’s revenue budget monitoring process for 2025/26. The Council’s summary position is presented in section 5, with sections 5 and 6 providing the detail for each service area.

Discussion:

The Head of Revenue Accounts introduced the report. He highlighted the round two monitoring projected an overspend of 9.48m, which represented an improvement of £1m from the round 1. The areas under the remit of the Committee had an underspend of £1.1m.

The following issues were discussed:

S114 Notice – a Member noted that the projected overspend represented nearly all of the general reserve, he asked whether it was possible that the Chef Operating Officer would be required to issue a S114 report. The Chief Operating Officer stated that the overspend at round 2 was generally higher than the final outturn due to management action to reduce spending, so there was a justifiable expectation that the overspend would fall during the year and the Council would have sufficient reserves in the event of an overspend. He added that a S114 report was a tool for Section 151 officers should they believe the administration was not fully taking account of the situation but he remained of the opinion that the administration recognised the financial situation and was taking action in response.

It was asked if the Chief Operating Officer expected the Council to have an overspend at the end of the financial year. The Chief Operating Officer stated that there was a significant risk that there would be an overspend against the budget. However, the Council had general reserves it could use to meet the gap, it also had earmarked reserves of £30m some of which could be reclassified if required, and the Council could request further assistance from central government in the form of Exceptional Financial Support (EFS).

In response to a question whether the Chief Operating Officer would be support of an increase in Council Tax for the next financial year, the Chief Operating Officer stated that he would advise Council Tax be raised at the maximum possible level below a the requirement to hold a referendum.

Universal Credit – a Member asked if the £350,000 overspend related to the shortfall in benefit subsidy would end when all claimants had moved to Universal Credit. The Chief Operating Officer stated that some claimants would never be moved over to Universal Credit, including recipients in non-registered supported accommodation placements which meant that the Council would never fully recover the cost of housing benefit paid, through the subsidy.

The Chief Operating Officer added that there was significant pressure this year on reactive budgets, such as social care and temporary accommodation. This additional pressure had been reflected in the budget for 2026-27.

Legal Services – further information was requested on the causes of the projected overspend in Legal Services. The Chief Operating Officer stated that the projection was a result of an increase in children’s care cases and some remaining vacancies in the division requiring the use of temporary staff.

Software Licensing Budgets -  a Member asked whether the projected overspend on licensing software related to additional licenses or increased cost of licenses and if the Council could be assured it received  ...  view the full minutes text for item 485.

This report presents the results of the second round of the Council’s capital budget monitoring process for 2025/26.

Discussion:

The Head of Corporate Accounts introduced the report highlighting that the budget in relation to projects under the remit of this Committee was relatively small and remained within budget.

The following issues were discussed:

Overspend – a Member commented that the overspend in both capital and revenue budgets had shown the Council had been too optimistic in its assumptions. He asked what the causes of this were and how would the Council avoid a repetition of this in the future. The Head of Corporate Accounts stated that capital schemes were subject to unintended additional costs and price fluctuations such as the cost of raw materials.

The Chief Operating Officer added that when a capital scheme was considered, the Council analysed the business case and a contingency cost was put in place, however, this contingency was not always sufficient to cover the additional costs. The Council could budget for a larger contingency, but this could be prohibitive in terms of the Council undertaking any projects.

In relation to revenue spend, the overspend was largely on reactive services where the Council had a statutory responsibility to meet demand and as such, costs were out of the Council’s control. For example the overspend on the adult social care budget was in part due to the impact of the pressure on the NHS to discharge patients into care more quickly. In addition, temporary accommodation numbers had risen significantly this year following a long period of stability.

Interest Costs - a Member asked for further information regarding financing costs of the capital spend. The Chief Operating Officer stated that the majority of borrowing was undertaken to support the capital programme, he explained that the Council had pursued short term borrowing to take advantage of opportunities as interest rates fell, however interest rates had not fallen as expected which created additional pressure on budgets.

ICT – a Member asked if there was a plan to support continued ICT development. The Chief Information Officer stated that there was a 5 year capital strategy plan for ICT to support development, infrastructure and refresh of equipment.

Decision:

The Committee noted the results of the second round of capital budget monitoring for 2025/26.

This report sets out the Draft Capital and Revenue Budgets for 2026/27. In accordance with the Constitution, Cabinet is required to develop ‘initial budget proposals’ approximately three months before finalising the budget and setting Council Tax levels at the end of February 2026. The Draft Budget is based on the principles set out in the Medium Term Financial Outlook 2025-2030 (MTFO) considered by the Cabinet on 26 August 2025. 

Discussion:

The Head of Revenue Accounts introduced the report which presented the draft capital and revenue budget for 2026-27. The report had previously been considered by cabinet on 18 November 2025. The budget showed projected revenue growth of £33m and outlined the ambition to have no requirement to request Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) from central government. At this stage in the there was a £25.8m gap in the budget between expected income and projected spend.

The following issues were discussed:

Staff Pay – a Member asked whether it was policy for staff to receive year on year pay increases. The Head of Revenue Accounts stated that there was no policy to provide staff with a pay increase each year, however it was the stated ambition of the administration to be an employer of choice, the Council needed to recruit and retain staff effectively and the proposed pay increase was in line with inflation

EHCP – a Member expressed concern at the rising cost of EHCP assessments, he asked whether the Council budget projections were reliable. The Head of Revenue Accounts stated that he could not speak to the assumptions within the budget regarding specific service areas. The Democratic Services Officer stated that this query could be referred to the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee the following week as part of its consideration of the 2026-27 draft budget.

Financing Budget -  a Member asked for further information regarding the finance and interest budget, the Chief Operating Officer stated the increase in budget costs reflected the need to finance borrowing for Care Home project and the Council’s general need to borrow to have day to day cash available. The budget would be kept under review as interest rates changed during the year.

Decision:

a)     The Committee noted that Cabinet has instructed officers to continue to work with Portfolio Holders in formulating robust proposals to reduce the budget deficit for 2026/27 and to liaise with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to secure support through the Exceptional Financial Support scheme, should it be necessary.

b)     The Committee commented on the proposals outlined in the Draft Capital and Revenue Budgets 2026/27 and forwarded proposals to the individual overview and scrutiny committees.

This item advises Members of the current work programme and allows the Committee to adjust it in the light of latest priorities, issues and circumstances. It gives Members the opportunity to shape and direct the Committee’s activities over the year.

Discussion:

The Democratic Services Officer introduced the report, he highlighted the change to work programme in the report.

Decision:

a)     The Committee agreed the provisional work programme at Appendix 1 to the report.

b)     The Committee noted the work programmes of the other Overview and Scrutiny Committees at Appendix 2 to the report.