To receive apologies for absence.

No apologies for absence had been received.

To receive details of members nominated to attend the meeting in place of a member of the board.

There had been no named substitutes.

To receive declarations of interests from members of the board in respect of items on the agenda.

Cllr Ben Proctor (Chair) pointed out he was a city councillor and represented Hereford City Council on its Stronger Towns Board, which administered some capital funding.

Cllr Frank Cornthwaite highlighted a potential interest in small business rates, as a part director of a business affected by them.

Cllr Toni Fagan pointed out she was a trustee for Llanwarne Village Hall, which was in receipt of the Capital Spaces Grant.

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 23 January 2026.

The minutes of the previous meeting were received.

Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 23 January 2026 be confirmed as a correct record and be signed by the Chairperson.

To receive any written questions from members of the public.

No questions had been received from members of the public.

To receive any written questions from councillors.

No questions had been received from councillors.

To review performance for Quarter 3 (Q3) 2025/26 and to report the performance position across all Directorates for this period.

**CORRECTION - Please note the supplementary document attached to this agenda item, which contains a corrected version of the RAG colouring within the table at para 18 of the  Q3 Performance Report**

The Chair invited comments and discussion from the committee in relation to the report. The key points of the discussion are detailed below:

1.           Members questioned why rough sleeping numbers regularly breached the target and whether the target itself remained realistic. Officers explained that the nationally defined measure included people on private and council land, including some non?engaging individuals, and that while daily outreach continued, engagement could not be compelled. It was suggested that local projections or targets should be reviewed to better reflect circumstances.

2.           Clarification was provided on counting arrangements, including daily welfare checks, weekly internal counts and the annual national snapshot, and members were assured that all rough sleepers were treated as the council’s responsibility regardless of land ownership.

3.           Members raised concerns about delays to alternative provision for children and SEND services. Officers explained these were due to site issues, changes in central government decisions and capacity constraints, but confirmed capital investment to improve in?county provision. A new sufficiency plan was being developed to support future planning. Officers agreed to review whether the amber RAG rating remained appropriate.

4.           It was confirmed that a special free school project had been paused following withdrawal of Department for Education funding. Members queried the consistency and application of RAG ratings; officers explained the governance process but acknowledged that clearer guidance could improve consistency.

5.           Concerns were raised about report presentation, including unclear chart legends and the use of Q1 data for Q3 waste ratings. Cabinet members acknowledged reporting delays and the need for clearer narrative, particularly in light of forthcoming food and garden waste services. It was noted that food waste collection was a statutory requirement, with unresolved revenue funding issues and limited environmental benefit locally, but unavoidable implementation.

6.           Members discussed wetlands delivery, Section 106 delays, contractor performance issues, and care accommodation planning. Officers confirmed mitigation and staffing arrangements, agreed to investigate specific schemes raised, and outlined a revised focus on smaller in?county provision for adults with complex needs.

7.           Officers confirmed that an outcomes framework would be introduced in 2026/27, and that “top 10” indicators were locally agreed following the removal of national requirements. The use of projections rather than explicit targets for performance assessment was explained, with agreement that clearer labelling would improve transparency.

To report the forecast position for 2025/26 at Quarter 3 (December 2025), including explanation and analysis of the drivers for the material budget variances, and to outline current and planned recovery activity to reduce the forecast overspend.

The Cabinet Member Finance and Corporate Services provided a brief overview of the report. The Director of Finance, attending cabinet members and directors were also present to respond to questions from the committee; The key points of the discussion are detailed below:

1. Members asked whether cost pressures in Adult Social Care and homelessness were routinely underestimated and whether an “optimism bias” should be applied to budgeting. Officers responded that budgets were developed jointly with service leads using the best available evidence at the time, including client numbers and activity forecasts, but future changes in demand and care complexity could not be precisely predicted. They emphasised that reports were intended to be transparent rather than optimistic and already highlighted known pressures and mitigation plans.

2. Members questioned why Adult Social Care continued to overspend year on year. Officers explained this was driven by an ageing population with increasingly complex needs, hospital pressures affecting discharge, severe flu impacts, capacity constraints in home care, and rising package costs due largely to national wage policy. Work was underway to improve discharge pathways, expand reablement, strengthen partnerships with providers, and reduce reliance on spot purchasing.

3. Members asked what action was being taken to address homelessness and the loss of private landlords. Officers outlined investment in temporary accommodation, targeted homelessness prevention work, and proactive engagement with landlords through briefings, regulation support, and partnership approaches. They acknowledged that wider national legislation and market conditions were the primary drivers of landlords leaving the sector and that the council could not resolve these issues alone. Members raised concerns regarding the apparent absence of a robust action plan to help support and increase the number of landlords in the county.

4. Members sought clarity on the long?term plan for managing Adult Social Care costs. Officers described a focus on major transformation programmes centred on prevention, demand management, assistive technology, and alternative care models, alongside longer?term partnership contracts with providers. They stressed there was no single solution and that managing demand was as critical as managing expenditure.

5. Members asked whether Cabinet was confident that delivery plans adequately responded to recurring overspends. Cabinet representatives confirmed that overspends were robustly challenged in detail, that forecasting accuracy was improving, and that emerging tools such as AI?supported modelling were strengthening projections. While dissatisfaction with recurring overspends was openly acknowledged, members were assured that all feasible options were tested regularly.

6. Members questioned whether agreed savings remained achievable. Officers reported that approximately 40% of total savings had been delivered by Q3, with a further majority of legacy savings already achieved. Some savings had been delayed due to timing or operational factors, such as academic?year delivery, but were still expected to be realised, with overall performance described as positive but cautious due to volatility.

7. Members asked how additional income from treasury management was governed and allocated. Officers explained that this income was reported through the central budget line and was offset against other financial pressures such as borrowing costs and MRP. It was not separately allocated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To consider the work programme for the board.

The meeting was extended by ten minutes to allow discussion of the work programme.

1.           Members emphasised the importance of the new performance framework being implemented and scrutinised during the current financial year, and sought clarity on how this would be scheduled.

2.           While improvements in corporate risk management were acknowledged, members noted that scrutiny committees did not routinely review corporate or directorate risk registers, identifying this as a potential gap. The role of Scrutiny Management Board in coordinating consistent scrutiny, including recommending regular risk reviews across committees, was discussed.

3.           Concerns were reiterated about the timeliness of financial scrutiny. Members proposed revisiting the establishment of a working group to review financial performance reports quarterly as they are published, to strengthen oversight.

4.           Members discussed different approaches to developing the work programme, balancing the benefits of dedicated informal sessions against the need for transparency and public engagement.

Resolved: That a Scrutiny Management Board work programming session be scheduled at the earliest convenient opportunity.

Friday 3 July 2026, 10am

Friday 3 July 2026, 10am