(a)

the Medium Term Financial Strategy was recommend by Cabinet on 31 October 2017 and subsequently approved by Council on 20 November 2017; the strategy addressed the funding gap as of that date for the following three financial years;

(b)

the budget gap reported to Council in November 2017 had been £4.766m; the latest position reflected new savings and efficiencies identified to date, new and emerging pressures, the latest information arising from the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement and the Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement.

(c)

whether the provision for extra care facilities (£4m) would be sufficient for future demands;

(d)

the lack of public/stakeholder responses to the budget engagement exercise and the cost of undertaking such engagement;

(e)

the Council’s approach to the increase in interest rates and the effect this would have on future borrowing;

(f)

how would the £1m of additional monies generated through the Business Rates Retention pilot be used to support the further growth of businesses in the City;

(g)

the impact on next year’s budget if the ‘one-off’ savings were not achieved (ie the savings identified in fleet and garage of £0.607m had not been achieved, would this saving be carried forward);

(h)

a clear understanding of how and where the transformation of services were taking place and where services were either being reduced or removed;

(i)

the use of Section 106 monies in order to support the revenue budget and the risk that this action represented to the Council;

(j)

what measures could be taken to address the legacy pension costs of £1.4m which had been inherited as part of the setting up as Plymouth as an Unitary Authority (since the Education Services Grant had been phased out);

(k)

the use of Bailiffs to recover debt;

(l)

whether the precept for Adult Social Care would remain at 3%;

(m)

concerns relating to the long term use and level of agency staff;

(n)

whether the feasibility of using the Council’s ‘other provisions and reserves’ had been investigated, if a balanced budget could not be achieved;

(o)

concerns relating to the Council’s impact on the environment;

(p)

whether the impact of Brexit had been considered and what measures were being undertaken to secure Government funding (£3bn) for investment in preparations for Brexit;

(q)

reassurance that the issues encountered with last year’s election would not be replicated at the Local Elections in May and that sufficient funding had been allocated to achieve this;

(r)

how the stretch savings target of £0.5m for the service centre would be achieved (concerns that the quality of service would be significantly reduced).

(s)

the total investment for the Hoe Foreshore and surrounding areas;

(t)

how authorities within the Devon Business  Rates Pool would stimulate growth and what role the South West Devon Joint Local Plan and the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership would have in driving growth in the area;

(u)

the provision within the Capital Programme for shop fronts (accessibility concerns for users with disabilities);

(v)

whether there was additional capacity built into the Capital Programme in order to further support schemes;

(w)

whether Councillors could be provided with an update on the Planning Inspectorate examination of the Plymouth and South West Devon Local Plan;

(x)

the provision of a detailed breakdown of the budget for street scene and parks;

(y)

whether there had been an increase in the recycling rate within the City due to the introduction of the alternative weekly bin collections;

(z)

what measures had been put in place to mitigate the budget pressure (£0.632m), due to the drop in value of recyclates which had led to a significant increase in the gate fee at the MRF;

(aa)

whether consideration had been given to providing a contingency within the budget for the results of the gully survey.

(bb)

the pathway for the parent and child around statementing;

(cc)

placement stability and the numbers of children and young people in care;

(dd)

whether the budget would support the step change needed in raising attainment within schools;

(ee)

how the demand around special educational needs and disability were being managed;

(ff)

the provision of special schools and whether children were being educated at home because of lack of places or educated outside of the city and the costs involved;

(gg)

caseload management and whether agency staff were being used to address the high volume of caseloads and the wellbeing of current staff;

(hh)

the National Funding Formula and that Plymouth was disadvantaged by the lack of funding and what was being done to address the unfairness within this city;

(ii)

whether there was a cohort of young people suffering with mental health issues and was this having an impact on their education;

(jj)

the number of children currently living in bed and breakfast accommodation and support given to those children in allocated schools that were not within the locality of the bed and breakfast;

(kk)

the Autism Action Plan and how schools were monitoring the levels of the autistic spectrum; 

(ll)

whether the commissioning plans meet the demands of an ageing population;

(mm)

the future of public health and how this service would be funded in the future;

(nn)

the impact of delayed transfers of care (DTC) on the council and the risks around not achieving DTC targets;

(oo)

whether there was a delay in people accessing mental health services and how the service was dealing with the increase in variety of mental health issues;

(pp)

understanding how many referrals under the Mental Capacity Act and the support services in place when released back home;

(qq)

being more resourceful on how services are to be delivered with less money and whether there was a Brexit plan in place;

(rr)

dementia diagnosis and whether there were enough specialist beds and nurses to care for people with more challenging behaviours;

 (ss)

what was in place to monitor people with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder;

(tt)

the placement of young people in a house of multiple occupation and the safeguarding of those young people;

(uu)

an explanation of the overspend of £600k in this financial year and assurances on how this overspend would be reduced for future years;

(vv)

the number of homeless people within the city and whether there was any specialist provision for the homeless.