Cabinet Members will be asked to make any declarations of interest in respect of items on this agenda. 

To sign and confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 12 January 2026.

To receive questions from the public in accordance with the Constitution.

Questions, of no longer than 50 words, can be submitted to the Democratic Support Unit, Plymouth City Council, Ballard House, Plymouth, PL1 3BJ, or email to democraticservices@plymouth.gov.uk. Any questions must be received at least five clear working days before the date of the meeting.

To receive reports on business which, in the opinion of the Chair, should be brought forward for urgent consideration.

Purpose of report

Cabinet considered its formal response to the 19 budget scrutiny recommendations made by Scrutiny Management Board following sessions on 21, 22 and 28 January 2026.

Decision

Cabinet:

1. approved the responses to the budget scrutiny recommendations as set out in Appendix A to the report.

2. noted its thanks to the Scrutiny Management Board for the budget scrutiny undertaken.

Reasons for decision

1.    The Constitution requires Cabinet to respond to scrutiny recommendations

2.    Recognises the Board's constructive engagement in the budget setting process

Alternative options considered and rejected

None - The Constitution requires Cabinet to respond to scrutiny recommendations as part of the budget setting process. Failure to respond would undermine the scrutiny function and the principles of good governance.

Declarations of interest

None declared in respect of this item.

Purpose of Report

Under the Council’s Constitution, the Council is required to set a balanced Revenue and Capital Budget and set the Council Tax for each financial year. This report:

·         Provided the context for budget setting, both in terms of the Council’s strategic objectives for the city and the local government landscape nationally

·         Sets out the Service Director for Finance’s (Section 151 Officer) budget robustness statement as required by law

·         Summarised financial risks and associated mitigations

·         Sets out revenue budget planning assumptions in respect of income, approved savings plans, resource requirements

·         Sets out the Capital budget, Capital Financing Strategy and the Treasury Management Strategy for 2026/27

·         Sets out the Medium-Term Financial Plan for the period 2026/27 – 2030/31

·         Sets out indicative Council Tax levels for 2026/27, prior to approval of Fire Precept

·         Sets out proposed Fees and Charges for 2026/27 for Cabinet Approval

·         Set outs the Tamar Bridge & Torpoint Ferry Joint Committee 2026/27 Revenue Budget and Capital Programme and the 2026/27 draft Business Plan

·         Sets out Cabinet Savings Proposals for approval

Decision

Cabinet agreed to:

1. Note the Financial Risks as set out in Appendix 3.

2. Note the section from the Council’s Section 151 Officer (Chief Finance Officer) on the robustness of the budget estimates and the adequacy of the level of reserves.

3. Note that the Fire Precept will not be confirmed until after the Cabinet meeting and delegate to the Section 151 Officer to make final amendments to Council Tax Resolution prior to Full Council.

4. Recommends the following to Full Council, subject to amendments by the Section 151 Officer in consultation with the Leader reflecting any final technical adjustments and changes upon receipt of the Final Local Government Finance Settlement.

i) The Revenue Budget 2026/27:

 £329.275m

ii) The drawdown of a maximum of £3.618m of flexible capital receipts, as set out in the report

iii) The Capital Budget 2026/27 £113.938m and five-year programme £319.725m

iv) The Capital Financing Strategy 2026/27

v) The Treasury Management Strategy 2026/27 (incorporating the Non-Treasury Management Strategy and the Minimum Revenue Provision Statement)

vi) The Medium-Term Financial Plan for the period 2026/27 to 2030/31

vii) The Tamar Bridge & Torpoint Ferry Joint Committee 2026/27 Revenue Budget and Capital Programme and the 2026/27 draft Business Plan, as referenced in Appendix 16, and the longer-term forecast to 2029/30 is noted.

5. Approve the partial reversal of up to £31m of the council’s Interest Rate Swap to provide a net£9.7m one-off benefit to the council’s revenue budget position in 2026/27, noting the overall financial impact and alternative options set out in Section 20 of the report.

6. Approve Fees and Charges Setting 2026/27 (Appendix 15)

7. Approve the Cabinet Savings Proposals 2026/27 (Appendix 5)

Reason:

Setting a balanced budget is a statutory requirement. The obligation to make a lawful budget each year is shared equally by each individual Member, discharged through Council. Options for achieving a balanced budget have been considered in the preparation of the proposed budget set out in this report. Using part  ...  view the full decision text for item 8.

Purpose of Report

The report recommended extending Plymouth Active Leisure's (PAL) existing contract beyond its current end date of March 2032 and providing further financial investment to support its ambitious new strategic plan, which envisions a £160 million investment in sport and physical activity across Plymouth over the medium term, generating greater social value, improved health outcomes, and new income streams for Plymouth City Council.

Decision

Cabinet:

1. Approved a cashflow loan of up to £975,000 to Plymouth Active Leisure (PAL).
2. Approved the reprofiling of two existing loans to PAL to increase the repayment term by three years, including a utility costs loan of £565,983 and a start-up loan of £365,000, totalling £930,983 plus accrued interest.
3. Approved an extension of 10 years to the existing contract with PAL to conclude in March 2042, including the provision of a break clause in 2035/36.
4. Agreed to support feasibility studies and the submission of capital funding business cases through the Council's capital governance process for enhancements to facilities.
5. Noted the following contract amendments: (a) the drafting of new Key Performance Indicators as set out in Appendix B; and (b) a requirement for an annual performance update to the Housing Scrutiny Panel.
6. Noted the positive impact of the Agency Model, as approved by Cabinet on 10 March 2025, and the generation of VAT savings, which have been included in the PAL financial model.

Reasons for Decision

1.    The support from PCC is to cover the working capital deficit built up across the current contract period to date, which was largely a result of start- up costs and the impact of COVID: restoring working capital balances will provide PAL with a sustainable platform to grow and thrive

2.    Extending the contract will enable PAL to repay outstanding loan debts over a longer period, provide operational stability, and allow PAL to continue to align its services with PCC’s wider corporate priorities and those priorities of the City

3.    Extending the contract provides operational stability, whilst a break clause, provides a mechanism for managing the financial risk for the authority.

4.    Noting the feedback from the Scrutiny Committee held on 10 December 2025 to enhance the oversight and risk management of the contract and to ensure robust monitoring of KPIs, financial and contract performance

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

1.    Cease the Service (reject)- Leisure provision is discretionary, but the service delivered by PAL is vital for sustaining physical activity, generating significant social and economic value, and supporting Council objectives. Ending the service would risk reduced participation and jeopardize long-term Sport England funding, making this option untenable.

2.    Establish a Fully Independent Trust (reject)- Creating an independent charitable trust was explored for tax benefits, but HMRC VAT changes and post-COVID financial instability have made the model unviable. Transferring operations would replicate existing challenges, reduce Council control, increase risk, and incur high set-up costs, so the option has been rejected.

3.    Bring the Service Fully In-House –(reject)Returning the service to full Council control would incur substantial additional costs, including  ...  view the full decision text for item 9.

Purpose of Report

The report sets out the procurement options considered and recommendations for the future commissioning and management of contracted Home to School Transport (HTST) services over the next eight years.

Decision

Cabinet Agreed to adopt an internally managed Open Framework as the procurement route for all contracted Home to School Transport services, including Social Care transport routes commissioned through the Home to School Transport team, for the next eight years.

Reasons for Decision

1.    This approach builds on the previous Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) model, providing the most robust balance of cost efficiency, operational efficiency, supplier flexibility, long?term resilience, and compliance with the Procurement Act 2023. It also removes the need for repeated due?diligence exercises required by Contract Standing Orders, as suppliers are vetted once at framework admission. Through scheduled reopenings, the Local Authority can maintain competitive tension and support local market development, while mini?competitions ensure competitive pricing and quality standards throughout the 8-year term

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

1.    The Traditional Closed Framework was explored and ruled out. This approach means we cannotrefresh suppliers mid?term, which weakens competition and risks price inflation as the framework ages.There is also a need to re?procure sooner than an Open Framework.

2.    The Outsourced Open Framework option has been explored and ruled out. This introduces avoidable delay and additional cost through the initial procurement of the framework operator and embeds ongoing management fees without a commensurate improvement in outcomes over an internally managed model. It also reduces the Local Authority’s direct control over call?off design and supplier development, which is central to tailoring solutions for local needs and ensuring continuous improvement. This model creates long?term dependency and exit risks, whereas an internally managed Open Framework maintains institutional knowledge, preserves agility, and delivers stronger overall value for money for the Council’s mainly sub?£50k route portfolio.

3.    The Single Supplier Contract option was excluded based on previous experience of this Contracting model which caused high dependency and resilience risks and the loss of competitive tension during the contract term.

4.    The Multiple Supplier (Lotted) Contract was not considered suitable because of its substantial administrative workload and lower efficiency compared to using lots within an Open Framework.

5.    Multiple Spot Contracts were dismissed due to the unsustainable administrative burden created by Contract Standing Orders, repeated due?diligence requirements, and the loss of economies of scale.

6.    If there is a change in circumstances and the recommended procurement route cannot be undertake nor no longer represents best value for the Council, any subsequent procurement route will be undertaken will be in accordance with the Council’s Contract Standing Orders and Procurement Law