The Finance and Growth Overview and Scrutiny Sub-Committee met on Monday 20 July 2026 to discuss the Dollis Valley Regeneration Programme and the council's financial outturn for the previous year. The committee considered recommendations to the Cabinet regarding the careful scrutiny of the Dollis Valley report and exploring options to improve the housing mix.

Dollis Valley Regeneration Programme

The committee received a report on Phases 4 and 5 of the Dollis Valley Regeneration Programme, which was due for consideration by the Cabinet the following evening. The report detailed the ongoing financial challenges affecting the scheme, including an £18 million deficit identified by consultants Redloft. Discussions focused on the viability of the scheme, the eligibility for Greater London Authority (GLA) grant funding, and the proposed tenure mix.

Concerns were raised by Councillor Peter Zinkin regarding the council's statutory duty to protect the public interest when exposing taxpayer money to potential developer losses. Officers responded by expressing confidence in Vistry, the parent company of Countryside Properties UK Limited, citing their financial stability and borrowing capacity. They also confirmed that Vistry had brought in more cash in 2025 than the previous year.

A significant portion of the discussion revolved around the proposed tenure mix for Phases 4 and 5. Residents' preferred options were not fully met, with the council aiming to balance stakeholder feedback, scheme viability, and funding requirements. The GLA grant funding is crucial for the scheme's viability, and eligibility is dependent on delivering additionality of affordable housing.

Councillor Zinkin questioned how internal correspondence indicating a preset outcome weeks before community meetings satisfied the Nolan principles of open-minded engagement. Officers explained that the process involved exploring various options and that the current proposal was deemed the only financially viable one that would allow the regeneration to proceed while preserving an acceptable level of affordable housing.

A supplementary question from residents highlighted concerns about the HRA impact of certain housing mixes and whether all avenues had been explored with the GLA. Officers confirmed that discussions with the GLA regarding option D+ had occurred, but the required grant level was deemed not to be value for money.

Following the discussion, Councillor Ezra Cohen proposed that the committee recommend to the Cabinet:

1. That the Cabinet be very careful when scrutinising the report and ensure it is legally proof against judicial review.
2. That the Cabinet explore every possible option to improve the housing mix, acknowledging the potential guilt felt by some members regarding the original expectations of homeowners.

Councillor Richard Roberts inquired about the feasibility of increasing density to make the scheme viable. Officers explained that the site's location on former sewage works land and the land's inability to take greater weight limited the scope for increased density.

The committee noted that if the GLA grant did not materialise, the scheme would be stalled, with potential options including hoarding the site or demolishing existing buildings.

Financial Reports

The committee also reviewed the council's financial outturn for the previous financial year (2025/26) and the first quarter of the current year (2026/27).

Key Financial Challenges and Risks:

• Temporary Accommodation (TA): Remains a significant financial challenge. While numbers fell in Q1 due to the opening of Collendale Gardens, the underlying trend is upwards, with demand expected to climb back to around 3,167 households by March 2027.
• Adult Social Care: Currently forecasting a balanced position, but highly demand-led, with a 1% swing in activity worth around £2 million.
• Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG): Forecasting an in-year overspend of £13.3 million, leading to a year-end DSG deficit of around £9.4 million. This reflects national pressures on specialist educational support and is partly attributed to Barnet's reputation for good schools attracting parents with SEND needs.

Borrowing and Debt:

• The council is authorised to borrow up to £79 million, with a forecast of £73 million.
• The revenue impact of borrowing for Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) is £4 million per year for 20 years, with interest rates between 4.38% and 5-6%.
• Concerns were raised about borrowing for cash flow purposes at current interest rates.
• A significant amount of debt, some dating back 20 years, was noted for write-off. Officers explained this was due to a balance between the administrative effort of writing off old debt and recovering current debt.
• A Section 104 agreement with Thames Water, relating to sewerage adoption, was clarified.
• Issues with backdated invoicing due to the new Oracle system were discussed, with a need for workarounds and potential off-Oracle solutions for payment plans and dunning letters.
• The committee suggested that Cabinet receive a detailed explanation or a separate report on how the Adult Social Care department is addressing invoicing issues.
• The committee also agreed to explore the broader topic of council invoicing and debt collection.
• Interest accumulated on loans to Brent Cross for Sheffield Hallam commercial space (£7.6 million) was noted but not appearing in the list of debtors as it was not yet due.

Savings and Financial Control:

• The council has made considerable savings, but the focus is shifting from squeezing the current model to redesigning services to get ahead of demand.
• Emphasis is being placed on preventative measures, productivity gains through automation (including AI), and data analysis to predict demand.
• Hiring practices are being reviewed to reflect the need for new skills in prevention and redesign.
• The average stay in temporary accommodation before moving to permanent housing was noted as nearly three years, with interim accommodation stays averaging seven and a half months.

Task and Finish Groups and Cabinet Forward Plan:

• The committee noted that there were no new Task and Finish Group updates.
• Members were advised to approach the formation of Task and Finish Groups at their peril due to limited resources and the need for tight briefs and short durations.
• The Cabinet Forward Plan for 2026 was presented, and the committee was invited to identify any items they wished to request for pre-decision scrutiny. The committee agreed to consider this further for their future work plan.

The meeting concluded with a recommendation to Cabinet that the description in the report regarding invoicing issues could not be allowed to stand and that a detailed explanation or separate report was needed. The committee also recommended exploring all options to improve the housing mix in the Dollis Valley scheme.