The Resources and Performance Cabinet Panel met to discuss the county's financial performance, approve a new corporate plan, and agree to lease arrangements for waste transfer stations. The panel recommended that the cabinet approve the capital reprogramming of £21.2 million, endorse the new corporate plan, and agree to enter into lease or licence agreements for waste transfer stations.

Finance Budget Monitor

Scott Walker presented the first financial monitor report for the 2025/26 financial year, projecting a £4.2 million overspend against the £1.2 billion revenue budget, before the use of any contingency funds. The panel discussed the Finance Budget Monitor Quarter 1 2025-26 report, which included the revenue budget, capital programme and schools budget, as well as appendices on the council’s debt position and treasury management.

Key points from the report included:

• The largest pressures were in the resources department, due to savings that had not materialised, including the purchase of an office building in Apsley, which was taken off the market.
• Adults services had a small overspend due to demand pressures, particularly in adult disability services.
• Community protection had seen seasonally high operational call outs over the summer.
• The forecast included delivery of £40 million of a £42 million savings programme.
• There was a forecast £13.8 million saving on the capital programme, due to lower loans to Hearts Living¹ and the Apsley office purchase not occurring.
• The schools budget was projecting a £52 million deficit, in line with the approved budget.
• Debt had increased by £13.4 million to £88.8 million, mainly due to an increase in invoices with health bodies.

Councillor John Graham noted an error in the report, with a table heading stating a '24 25 target' when it should have read '25 26'. He also raised concerns about pressures in adult care, the high needs school budget, slippage in the capital budget, and the increase in debt.

Councillor Chris Lucas, Executive member for Resources and Performance, assured the panel that the council was constantly lobbying the government on funding matters, including high needs funding. He also acknowledged the issue of slippage in the capital budget and the need for strict financial management.

Scott Walker confirmed the error in the savings table and said that the upward trend in social care was being managed. Scott Crudgington added that the resources department was looking to clear out as much of the overspend as possible, but would likely need an allocation from the contingency sum.

Councillor Ian Albert highlighted the importance of the cross-party budget working group and asked about capacity issues in delivering the capital programme. He also questioned whether the council was likely to come within its overall budget, not just the contingency.

Councillor Peter Taylor asked about the timeline for the net zero exercise and when the savings would be realised.

Councillor Dr Ben Crystall asked about debt figures beyond nine months and the £1.1 million overspend in the community protection budget.

Councillor Tim Williams offered to help investigate the debt management.

Councillor Richard Roberts thanked officers for holding the overspend to £4 million and welcomed the levelling off of the number of children in care.

The panel recommended that the cabinet approve the capital reprogramming of £21.2 million.

Approval of Hertfordshire County Council's Corporate Plan for 2025-2028

The panel discussed the approval of Hertfordshire County Council's Corporate Plan for 2025-2028, with Councillor Steve Jarvis, Leader of the Council, outlining the plan's key objectives. The plan's overriding objective is to build a sustainable, inclusive and thriving Hertfordshire, with priority areas including:

• Helping children and young people to thrive.
• Fixing roads and buses.
• Growing a more sustainable Hertfordshire.
• Supporting those most in need.
• Delivering more with existing resources.

Councillor Alexander Curtis raised concerns about the lack of emphasis on value for money for taxpayers and the absence of specific targets in the plan. He also felt there was too much focus on alternatives to cars and nothing on holding utility companies to account for roadworks.

Councillor Steve Jarvis responded that the plan aimed to maximise efficiency and deliver value for money. He also said that the council was lobbying for more significant penalties against utilities that failed to comply with permit terms.

Councillor Peter Taylor sought clarity on whether a franchise model for bus services was more likely with devolution in the county.

Councillor Richard Roberts said that the plan felt like a Ming vase , carefully managed until decisions about local government reorganisation were made. He also said that the plan did not reflect the cultural, social, and economic changes in the country.

Councillor John Graham said he was surprised that there were no specific financial indications in the report.

Councillor Dr Ben Crystall said that he was optimistic that there was a will and commitment to achieve the differences outlined in the plan.

Councillor Ian Albert said that it was difficult to assess whether the plan was achievable and that it was unclear what the balance of priorities was between the different objectives.

Councillor Steve Jarvis responded that the plan set out the objectives the council would like to achieve and that the council would then have to budget and use its resources to try and achieve them.

The panel recommended that the cabinet endorse the council's new corporate plan for 2025-2028, subject to any minor amendments.

Agreement of the Proposed Lease/Licence Arrangements Required to Support the Waste Transfer Station Operational Contract

The panel considered a report on the agreement of the proposed lease or licence arrangements required to support the waste transfer station operational contract. The report recommended that delegated authority be granted to enter into legal documents to support the contract.

Sas Pleasure explained that the current waste contract was leased to FCC Recycling Limited, and the new contract had been awarded to Veolia. New lease arrangements were required, with two sites owned by the county council (Eastern Transfer Station and Waterdale Transfer Station) being leased directly to Veolia. A third site, Hitchin Transfer Station, was owned by North Herts District Council, and would be leased directly to Veolia by the district council.

Councillor Ian Albert declared an interest as the Northern Transfer Station in Hitchin was in his division. He said that the site was inadequate, with lorries going through residential roads and rubbish being left in the open air.

Sas Pleasure said that the report concerned property arrangements for the new lease licensing for the two sites owned by the county council, and that she would pass on Councillor Albert's comments about Hitchin to the waste team.

The panel recommended that the cabinet agree to enter into the lease or licence arrangements relating to the new waste services and haulage contract.