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.

Councillor Evans OBE (Leader of the Council) introduced the Cabinet Response to Budget Scrutiny Recommendations report and discussed:

a)    The Cabinet had considered the 19 recommendations arising from the Scrutiny Management Board’s Budget Scrutiny sessions held on 21, 22 and 28 January 2026;

b)    The Leader confirmed that the Cabinet was minded to accept the majority of recommendations, noting that only one presented a difficulty;

c)    The Leader invited Cabinet Members to comment on recommendations relevant to their portfolios;

d)    Recommendation 1: Fostering Recruitment Effectiveness was accepted;

e)    Recommendation 2: Children’s Social Care Market Regulation Advocacy was accepted. Councillor Laing (Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Children’s Social Care, Culture and Communications) welcomed the reference to exploring profit capping or windfall taxation on high?charging providers and highlighted that withdrawal of local authorities from the provider market over many years had resulted in councils being placed in a vulnerable purchaser position;

f)     Recommendation 3: DSG (Dedicated Schools Grant) Deficit was accepted. The Leader noted that Plymouth was not the only authority facing this issue and highlighted concerns about how DSG deficits might be treated in future local government reorganisation negotiations;

g)    Recommendation 4: SEND (Special Educations Needs and Disabilities) Sufficiency Strategy Review was accepted;

h)    Recommendation 5: EHCP (Educations Health and Care Plan) Language in Budget Documentation was accepted;

i)     Recommendation 6: Children’s Homes Investment, Value for Money and Expansion Potential was accepted;

j)     Recommendation 7: Alternative Accommodation Models for Children in Care was rejected. Councillor Laing explained that the term alternative accommodation models was ambiguous and appeared to refer to repurposing office or municipal buildings. It was emphasised that the workstream was titled Family Homes for Plymouth Children, and that providing genuine family homes, not institutional or office?based accommodation, was essential. For this reason, the recommendation was rejected;

k)    Recommendation 8: Agency Spend Analysis was accepted;

l)     Recommendation 9: Railways and Integrated Transport Connectivity was accepted. Councillor Stephens noted that the Team Plymouth programme already included a transport strand and that work was supported by Peninsula Transport. A future briefing to the Scrutiny Management Board was welcomed;

m)  Recommendation 10: Early Scrutiny Engagement on Major Projects was accepted. Councillor Lowry stated that early scrutiny of large, highly visible projects, such as the Civic Centre, was beneficial, and welcomed engagement between Scrutiny and Cabinet;

n)    Recommendation 11: Corporate Asset Management Strategy was accepted. Councillor Penberthy clarified that the strategy would be high?level and principle?based. An accompanying action plan with timelines would follow the strategy, and Scrutiny would be engaged in the development of the action plan;

o)    Recommendation 12: NHS Integrated Care Funding Assurance was accepted. Councillor Penberthy explained that this related to fair shares funding, including allocations for community builders and disabled facilities grants, and emphasised that earlier certainty would improve planning. The Leader noted the uncertainty regarding the future configuration of ICBs and the risk of decisions being delayed by administrative issues;

p)    Recommendation 13: Customer Experience Strategy: Pre?Decision Scrutiny was accepted. Councillor Taylor expressed support for pre?decision scrutiny as part of the development of a large programme of work;

q)    Recommendation 14: Cabinet Member Risks and Mitigations was accepted. Councillor Lowry noted that risk registers were already produced regularly for Cabinet and Scrutiny. Additional detail would be provided to the Scrutiny Management Board;

r)    Recommendation 15: Further Risk Information for Budget Scrutiny was accepted. Councillor Lowry noted that risk registers were already produced regularly for Cabinet and Scrutiny. Additional detail would be provided to the Scrutiny Management Board;

s)     Recommendation 16: Food Waste Participation and Engagement Measures was ‘partially accepted’. Councillor Briars-Delve explained that much of the proposed engagement activity, including door?to?door support and recycling officers, was already funded and in place as part of the Street Services restructure. Clarification was provided that while initial distribution of food?waste liners would occur, providing ongoing free liners was not considered good value for money given alternative low?cost local availability. Ring?fencing savings for reinvestment was not deliverable at this stage, as participation levels and tonnage outcomes were not yet known;

t)     Recommendation 17: Flood Risk Management was accepted. Councillor Briars-Delve (Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change) clarified that extensive partnership engagement with South West Water, the Environment Agency and others was already in place. Examples included the multi?million?pound Trefusis Park scheme and the Phase 2 Integrated Urban Drainage Modelling programme. The Leader referenced anticipated growth in the city centre and the importance of mitigating increased surface?water runoff. More information would be shared with Scrutiny but much of the work was longstanding;

u)    Recommendation 18: Property Regeneration Fund Portfolio Oversight was accepted. Councillor Lowry welcomed further scrutiny involvement but noted that the portfolio contained significant commercial information. Therefore, elements would need to be considered in Part II settings to protect commercial sensitivity;

v)    Recommendation 19: Final Settlement Budget Impact reporting was accepted. The Section 151 Officer agreed to provide a written briefing to the Scrutiny Management Board upon receipt of the Final Local Government Finance Settlement. It was noted that the settlement was expected imminently, and while the provisional settlement had been received late, future years would benefit from the new three?year funding settlement structure.

Cabinet agreed:

1. To approve the responses to the Budget Scrutiny Recommendations;

2. To note its thanks to the Scrutiny Management Board for the Budget Scrutiny undertaken.