Agenda item

After setting the Budget at the Full Council meeting on 6 March 2025, it was agreed that the Cabinet approved the one-off bids of £2,057,260 for 2025/26 to be funded from the:

·        £1,557,260 of additional funding in the final settlement announced by the Welsh Government on 20 February 2025.

·        £500,000 from the Council Tax Premium for the purpose of temporary accommodation for the Homeless.

Following the Welsh Government's recent announcement that there will be additional funding for the field of care, subject to the details and conditions of this grant, it was agreed to use the source to fund the bids in the  care field.

The report was submitted by Cllr Nia Jeffreys.

DECISION

After setting the Budget at the Full Council meeting on 6 March 2025, it had been agreed that the Cabinet approved the one-off bids of £2,057,260 for 2025/26 to be funded from the:

£1,557,260 of additional funding in the final settlement announced by the Welsh Government on 20 February 2025.

£500,000 from the Council Tax Premium for the purpose of temporary accommodation for the Homeless.

Following the Welsh Government's recent announcement that there would be additional funding for the field of care, subject to the details and conditions of this grant, it had been agreed to use the source to fund the bids in the care field.

DISCUSSION

It was noted that the bids were inevitable but unfortunately the Council was currently unable to support developmental or transformational bids. The report was submitted stating that the Council's transformation fund was normally used to fund the one-off bids but there was no money left in this fund to fund any bids this year. It was reported that the Welsh Government had recently allocated additional funding which was available to contribute towards the costs of the one-off bids. It was acknowledged that this funding would be useful but it was expressed that the Welsh Government had not adequately funded Cyngor Gwynedd in the first place.

It was noted that the bids were requests for revenue funding but it was temporary revenue funding, and it was hoped that the temporary demand during the year would either disappear or decrease. 

Reference was made to the table in part 4.2 of the report which listed the bids, totalling just over £2 million. Attention was drawn to the costliest bids, namely Education Transport, explaining that this was mainly due to the increase in fuel and vehicle maintenance costs and the increase in the numbers requiring transport to the schools. It was hoped that the cost would be reduced next year following a review in the field.

It was explained that the bid for homelessness emergency accommodation costs was half a million and that there was also a bid for £115,000 for additional workers as a result of the admission of Asylum Seekers without parents as part of the National Transfer Scheme, which was a sad but very worthy case.

It was reported that options to fund the bids had been considered but there was insufficient revenue funding and that the Council's corporate reserves had been significantly reduced and that they needed to be protected.  Although a Departmental fund had been appropriate for the Housing and Property Department's bid, it was noted that appropriate Departmental funds did not exist for the other bids. As a result of this, it was suggested that ¾ of the bids should be funded through the additional funding from the Government and the other ¼ to be funded from the only appropriate Departmental fund left which was the Council Tax Premium fund.

Observations arising from the discussion:

Regarding the Education Transport bid, an observation was made that if the Council was unwilling to pay and support the bid then this meant that children did not have access to education. It was acknowledged that there was overspending here but that it may be a matter of underfunding the service. It was believed that spending this money was not an option. It was hoped that the Department would not be in this position next year and that other options were currently being considered in order to make things more efficient and get the best value for money.

Support for all the bids was expressed by a Member but he expressed that he did not support the use of the Housing Action Plan to fund the Homelessness emergency accommodation costs. There was a concern that taking this money out of the Housing Action Plan was going to mean that the Housing Action Plan could not deliver as well and it was questioned what would then be cut out of the Housing Action Plan. It was added that it was not a financial fund for the purpose of underfunding, noting that homelessness prevention was a statutory service. It was believed that the Housing Department was being treated differently expressing that the Department had succeeded in reducing the costs of Homelessness through preventive work. For the above reasons, the Member decided to abstain his vote.

There was a concern there would be additional costs in the field of Homelessness in the near future as a result of the Government's publication of the white paper. The Cabinet Member noted that he would be writing to the minister and that Heads of Housing Departments in Wales had written to the Government to express their concerns about the content of the white paper.

It was agreed with the comments on the white paper stating that the Council was not aware of the current financial implications of the white paper. 

Sympathy was expressed with the Member's viewpoint recognising that this was not the ideal solution but that the situation was a difficult one and the Government's additional funds were insufficient to fund all the one-off bids.

It was added that when the Housing Action Plan would be reviewed, consideration could then be given to what to take out. It was also suggested that there may be options in the future to repay this money back to the Housing Action Plan fund.