The Overview and Scrutiny Committee of Barking and Dagenham Council met on Monday 12 January 2026 to scrutinise the draft budget strategy for 2026-27 to 2030-31 and the proposed fees and charges for 2026. Key discussions revolved around the council's financial position, including a projected budget gap of £21.8 million for 2026-27, and the impact of the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement, which indicated a significantly higher increase in Core Spending Power for Barking and Dagenham compared to the London average. The committee also reviewed proposed increases to various fees and charges, with a focus on cost recovery and benchmarking against neighbouring boroughs.

Budget Scrutiny

The committee received a report on the draft budget strategy for 2026-27 to 2030-31, which highlighted a significant budget gap. Richard Harbord, Strategic Director of Resources and Section 151 Officer, presented the report, describing the budget as unusually difficult due to the late settlement from the government and changes to the fair funding formula. He noted that while the settlement was better than anticipated for Barking and Dagenham, it was still challenging, with a projected deficit of £9.6 million for 2026-27.

A key point of discussion was the government's intention to increase council tax, with some boroughs encouraged to raise it by up to 10% and others by nearly 5%. The report indicated that the government aims for 60% of council funding to come from council tax within three years.

Councillors debated the use of reserves to bridge the budget gap, with concerns raised about reserves falling below recommended levels. Alternatives discussed included absorbing inflationary increases, which was deemed undesirable due to potential impacts on children's and adult services, particularly as placement costs had seen an average inflation of 15%.

Councillor Phil Waker suggested a different approach for the first year of the three-year settlement, proposing a 2% council tax increase instead of the full 4.99% to provide a break for residents and allow for a review of service delivery for better value. This was met with discussion about the government's penalisation of councils that do not take full council tax increases, and the financial implications of not raising the full amount.

The issue of council tax collection rates was also raised, with a noted decrease. Councillor Mukhtar Yusuf, stuck in traffic due to heavy traffic, joined the discussion and supported the idea of providing relief to residents, suggesting an increase only on the adult social care precept.

Councillor Val Masson questioned the effectiveness of past transformation efforts, asking if similar language had been used in previous budget recommendations and what impact it had. It was explained that transformation had been a focus since austerity measures began, aiming for efficiency and effectiveness rather than salami-slicing savings, which often meant job losses. The concept of breathing space provided by the current settlement was highlighted as an opportunity to focus on transformational change.

Concerns were raised about the lack of detail in some appendix items regarding productivity transformation and the need for clarity on the impact on services and staff. The issue of asset management and procurement was also brought up as an area for deeper scrutiny.

Richard Harbord, the Section 151 Officer, reiterated the need for a proper change programme affecting the whole council, noting the difficulty in funding invest-to-save schemes due to the council's lack of capital receipts. He expressed a vision of getting through the next three years without major service cuts and being in a strong position for future years, acknowledging that current service financing levels are not sustainable.

Councillor Ingrid Robinson raised questions about resident consultation on changes and the council tax support scheme, suggesting it might need to be reviewed. She also expressed concerns about contracts entered into as part of transformation, highlighting the difficulty in exiting them if they prove unsuccessful.

The committee noted that no final decisions on council tax had been made, with consultation results to be considered, followed by discussions in the Labour group. The leader, Councillor Dominic Twomey, clarified that the council had not built for profit but for residents, addressing a housing crisis and reducing temporary accommodation issues. He also highlighted the success of sub-market rent properties in housing hundreds of people from waiting lists.

The committee also discussed the scrutiny of fees and charges for 2026. Neural Alam presented the report, outlining proposed increases based on service needs and cost recovery. Councillor Phil Waker raised the issue of carer passes, suggesting a review of charging policies. Councillor Ingrid Robinson questioned the significant increase in street trading fees, particularly for parking markets, and whether it would impact market vibrancy. Councillor Mukhtar Yusuf inquired about the process for justifying fee increases, particularly in relation to inflation rates.

Fees and Charges Scrutiny

The committee reviewed the proposed fees and charges for 2026, which are intended to take effect from 1 April 2026. The report detailed proposed increases across various directorates, with the majority aligned with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) of 3.8%.

Key areas of discussion included:

• Care and Support Services: Charges for directly provided services have been increased by CPI to ensure full cost recovery and remain in line with the local care market.
• Localities: Fees for room hire at several centres have been reviewed to ensure full cost recovery, including for energy usage, and have generally been increased by CPI. Library services have removed borrower charges like late fines but retain administrative charges for replacement cards and photocopying.
• Temporary Accommodation: Hostel rent charges are proposed to increase by 4.8% to align with the proposed increases in rent applied to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA).
• Enforcement: Many fees are prescribed by statute and remain unchanged. Non-statutory fees for businesses have been uplifted by CPI, with exceptions including safety at sports grounds and the Dog Warden Service, which has seen an 18% increase for full cost recovery.
• Parking: Fees for residents' permits will not increase in 2026, with a bi-annual review cycle adopted. The Diesel surcharge has been increased by CPI. Business and trade permits have been redesigned to reflect vehicle emissions, with the introduction of six-monthly, quarterly, and weekly permits. One-hour parking in parks has been withdrawn, with one-hour parking now free of charge.
• Street Trading and Barking Market: Street trading fees for the first two square metres have increased by 87% to £200 per square metre, with subsequent square metres uplifted by 34%. These changes are based on benchmarking and aim to recover costs related to parking, waste management, and administration. Mobile catering van fees have increased by 30%, street trading administration fees by 17%, and street trading licence copies by 6%.
• CCTV: Fees have been uplifted by CPI.

The committee noted that no decisions had been officially taken on the budget, with further discussions to occur at the assembly. The work programme was also noted, with the Metropolitan Police scheduled to attend the next meeting.

The meeting concluded at 8:58 pm.