Issue - meetings

Councillor Pounds left the meeting before the consideration of this item and did not return.

 

Matter for Decision

The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) is one of two long-term strategic financial planning documents produced each year for housing landlord services provided by Cambridge City Council.

 

The HRA MTFS provides an opportunity to review the assumptions incorporated as part of the longer-term financial planning process, recommending any changes in response to new legislative requirements, variations in external national and local economic factors and amendments to service delivery methods, allowing incorporation into budgets and financial forecasts at the earliest opportunity.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Approved the Housing Revenue Account Medium Term Financial Strategy, to include all proposals for changes in:

a.    Financial assumptions as detailed in Appendix C of the document.

b.    2024/25 and future year revenue budgets, resulting from changes in financial assumptions and the financial consequences of changes in these and the need to respond to unavoidable pressures and meet new service demands, as introduced in Section 8, detailed in Appendix E and summarised in Appendix G of the document.

    ii.         Approve that delegated authority be given to the Director of Communities and Assistant Director of Development to be in a position to confirm that the authority can renew its investment partner status with Homes England.

   iii.         To recommend to Council to approve proposals for changes in existing housing capital budgets, as introduced in Section 9 and detailed in Appendix F of the document, with the resulting position summarised in Appendix H.

  iv.         To recommend to Council to approve proposals for new housing capital budgets, as introduced in Sections 6 and 7 and detailed in Appendix E of the document, with the resulting position summarised in Appendix H.

    v.         To recommend to Council to approve the revised funding mix for the delivery of the Housing Capital Programme, recognising the latest assumptions for the use of Grant, Right to Buy Receipts, HRA Resources, Major Repairs Allowance and HRA borrowing, as summarised in Appendix H.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Assistant Head of Finance and Business Manager.

 

The Committee were reminded that an Equality Impact Assessment had been published separately to accompany this report.

 

The Assistant Head of Finance and Business Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         If the Council didn’t receive the level of grant funding set out in the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Medium Term Finance Strategy (MTFS), then the Council would need to review the redevelopment programme.

    ii.         It was hoped that clarity around grant funding would be announced as part of the Government’s Autumn Statement.

   iii.         The redevelopment schemes which had been approved by the Executive Councillor for Housing were within the levels of borrowing that the Council could afford. However, risks would need to be considered for any future schemes being brought forward from January 2025 onwards if the level of grant funding had not been confirmed.

  iv.         The HRA was well managed and sustainable at the moment. However, aspirations for the new build programme or improvements to existing housing stock above EPCC standard would need to be reviewed should grant funding not be forthcoming.  

    v.         An external opinion on the risks of future borrowing to fund future redevelopment was scheduled to be undertaken in 2025.

  vi.         Confirmed that the HRA MTFS was based on several assumptions which could change either for the better or worse. This was why the HRA was reviewed twice a year where revisions could be made to assumptions and estimates.

 vii.         In response to comments about the tenant satisfaction survey; advised that there was benchmark data however officers needed further time to look at the methodologies of the surveys as there was a distortion in responses given depending on whether they were completed by telephone or online.      

 

The Committee resolved by 9 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions to endorse recommendations 1 and 2.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions to endorse recommendations 3 to 5.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.