To consider approval of the 2025/26 Quarter 1 Finance Update – Capital.

A report was presented that set out a summary of the current capital financial position for the Council at the end of the first quarter of 2025/26 forecasting to the year end for Members’ consideration.

During his introduction of the report, the Portfolio Holder for Finance highlighted the key issues as follows:

Revenue Outturn

• The Q1 forecast revenue outturn for 2025/26 was an overspend of £280,000 at the present time.  Steps were being taken to manage these pressures, and a further report would cover these when the quarter two position had been assessed.

• Income forecasts remained broadly in line with full year budgets following Q1 meetings.  Forecasts for Planning Application fees and Car Parking charges remained under review and would be reflected appropriately in Q2.

• The Council’s 2025/26 net budget for investment income was £2.149m, the forecast outturn for investment income was £2.955m, contributing to a possible overachievement of £806k.

• The Government announced during 2025/26 that it would provide £5m of additional funding to support Councils significantly impacted by Internal Drainage Board levies.  East Lindsey District Council was awarded £1.164m for 2025/26 which was included within the Outturn figures. 

Capital

For Capital, Table 1 of Appendix A provided details of all capital schemes and their forecast position.  The total Capital Programme for 2025/26 was

approved at £43.465m and forecast expenditure for 2025/26 was £39.795m an underspend of £4.984m against a revised budget of £44.779m.  Further to this, the report presented detailed adjustments to the programme of £1.314m detailed in Table 3 of Appendix A. 

It was highlighted to Members that Section B of Table 3 required Council’s consideration in line with the Constitution, those aspects to be considered related to;

• UKSPF grant of £531k received now confirmed from Combined Mayoral Authority via North East Lincolnshire Council.
• UKSPF Rural grant £538k received now confirmed from Combined Mayoral Authority via North East Lincolnshire Council.
• Spilsby Session House £1.006m additional funding received from Heritage at Risk to bolster this scheme.

The full background to the report was detailed at Sections 1 and 2, page 60 of the Agenda refers.

Following which the recommendation was duly Proposed and Seconded.

Members were invited to put their comments and questions forward and during discussion the following queries and comments were made:

A Member referred to Table 3 – Changes to Approved Capital Budgets, page 65 of the Agenda refers and in relation to the 3G Football Pitch was disappointed that the funding had been removed without any reinvestment into sports provision in Louth, particularly as free and accessible physical activities was urgently needed in the area, which was vital for the health and wellbeing of the residents.

The Leader of the East Lindsey Independent Group echoed her concerns with regards to the 3G pitch, Table 1 – Capital Programme 2025/26, page 63 of the Agenda refers and queried why the Council was abandoning what could be a vital sporting legacy for Louth, particularly as the town lacked adequate football facilities.

In response, the Portfolio Holder for Finance acknowledged the concerns raised, however advised that there were compelling reasons behind the decisions made at the time.  However, reinvestment in Louth remained a priority for the Council and it was committed to supporting projects that were both beneficial to the community and financially viable, and such proposals would always be given due consideration.

With regard to the Car Park Solar Panels, Table 1: ‘Capital Programme 2025/26’, page 63 of the Agenda refers.  A Member stated that this project was a key priority for the Labour Group and was also considered essential for the Council to achieve its net zero targets.  However, given that the project had been under consideration for some time, a question was raised regarding the reasons for the delay in its implementation.

In response, the Portfolio Holder for Finance advised Members that there was a plan in place for the installation of the solar panels and was confident that this remained on track.

A Member queried why expenditure was being reported for Kingfisher Caravan Park as a financially independent organisation, (Table 1), page 63 of the Agenda refers  In relation to the Kingfisher enhancements and lawnmower entry, it was further queried what the rationale was behind these investments and what return the Council expected from this.  It was further considered that the term ‘enhancement’ was too broad and lacked specificity.

In response, the Leader of the Council highlighted to Members that while Invest East Lindsey operated from the Kingfisher Caravan Park, the site itself was owned by East Lindsey District Council.  Therefore, the proposed enhancements related specifically to the Council’s ownership and responsibilities for the site.

A further comment was made that the entry in Table 1 for ‘Food Waste’, page 63 of the Agenda refers was vague and queried whether this related to the government’s caddy scheme and highlighted that the lack of clarity was concerning.

In response, the Portfolio Holder for Finance advised Members that he had spoken with the Portfolio Holder for Operational Services and was assured that everything relating to the food waste collection was in order, and there were no significant concerns at present.

The Decarbonisation of Assets (Table 1, page 63 of the Agenda refers) was highlighted and whilst it was considered that it was good to see a budget allocated, with no clear plan or justification outlined it was queried whether this was financially sound and how long it would take to recoup the investment.

In response, the Portfolio Holder for Finance advised Members that a plan had been established, and the Council was adhering to it.  Both himself and the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Leisure and Culture and Carbon Reduction were strong advocates for this initiative and remained committed to its progress.

A Member commented on the £1.5m allocation for the Broadway and Colonnade Car Park (Table 1), page 64 of the Agenda refers and queried the justification of this should it not generate additional income and considered that the investment would be better used on the adjacent unused land.

In response, the Leader of the Council advised Members that the Sutton on Sea car park had long been an aspiration and was included in the original business plan and added that this development represented the culmination of sustained work and planning and would enhance the facilities available at the Colonnade, delivering on a long-standing objective.

Reference was made to Table 4 – ‘Capital 5 Year Programme’, page 66 of the Agenda refers.  A query was raised why the Swimming Pool Support Fund (£222k) was listed under capital when it seemed more appropriate for revenue.

The Leader of the East Lindsey Independent Group stated that she would like to see capital investment directed towards Louth Industrial Estate, particularly due to the growth pressures the Council was facing.

In response, the Leader of the Council advised Members that the Council was currently in discussions with Lincolnshire County Council about how this could be moved forward, including potential funding options.  This initiative was being supported through the Invest East Lindsey Fund, which was encouraging news and showed that progress was being made as swiftly as possible.

The Leader of the East Lindsey Independent Group highlighted her disappointment with regards to the Decommitment of ICT investment, (Table 3), page 65 of the Agenda refers and it was considered that the Council should be investing in modern technologies otherwise it risked falling behind.

In response, the Portfolio Holder for Finance stated that the Council fully recognised the importance of technology and was investing significantly in areas such as artificial intelligence, ensuring it was well-prepared for the future.

A Member referred to the £7k allocated for portable CCTV (Table 1), page 67 of the Agenda refers and queried the intended use of this equipment and whether this could be used to monitor fly-tipping and similar issues.

In response, the Portfolio Holder for Finance advised Members that further to a conversation with the Portfolio Holder for Operational Services, he could confirm that tackling fly-tipping was one of the primary purposes behind the deployment of CCTV.

RESOLVED:

That amendments to the Capital Programme as detailed in Appendix A – Table 3 – Section B of the report referred be approved.