The section 114 notice possibility . . .

[DRiddle]

This is also reportedly gathering some traction within HBC. A section 114 notice is serious business. It's a bit like a Priest reading the last rites to some poor soul at deaths door.

Northamptonshire Council issued two before they went under. Typically it means an authority has to cut ALL, and i mean ALL, unnecessary spending. Here is the detail of the specifics of Northamptonshire when they got into their mess.

What does the Section 114 notice mean?
The notice means that no new expenditure is permitted, with the exception of safeguarding vulnerable people and statutory services. We will continue to honour existing commitments and contracts.

The notice refers to 2018/19 and follows the earlier Section 114 notice issued in February 2018 relating to the financial year 2017/18.

The new notice has been issued in light of the severe financial challenge continuing to face the authority and the significant risk that it will not be in a position to deliver a balanced budget by the end of the current financial year. This is an emergency situation where a response is required by legislation.

The Chief Executive Approval Panel introduced after the initial Section 114 notice was issued will continue to meet to authorise expenditure.

This will ensure that council workers carry out their duties in line with contractual obligations and to acceptable standards, while being aware of the financial situation. Any spending that is not essential or which can be postponed should not take place and essential spend will be monitored.

Money will only be spent as required under statute to safeguard the vulnerable residents of the county or meet our existing contract obligations.

What spending will be allowed?
The only allowable expenditure permitted under the emergency protocol will include the following categories:

existing staff payroll and pension costs
expenditure on goods and services which have already been received
expenditure required to deliver the council's provision of statutory services at a minimum possible level
urgent expenditure required to safeguard the vulnerable citizens of the county
expenditure required through existing legal agreements and contracts
expenditure funded through ring-fenced grants
expenditure necessary to achieve value for money and / or mitigate additional in year costs

Even i, am big critic of certain aspects of HBC, accept that a big part of this is due to cuts in government funding. . . BUT. . . given that HBC was £6 million out with their projections recently, that hardly bodes well for digging themselves out of this. Particularly under the current leadership at the top end.

I'll give this a few weeks, months at the most before talk of a 114 notice makes it's way into the public domain.

I've been saying for 5 years that Akers-Belcher would bring down the council. I meant bring down the LABOUR council, however, he may well just surpass even my expectations and play his part in bringing down the ACTUAL council.

[UnknownUser]

The 2019/20 budget is the "most challenging the council has ever faced" as it seeks to address a projected deficit of nearly £6m - an increase from the £1.4m shortfall previously predicted.

Savings have yet to be identified but chiefs are blaming factors outside the council's control including nine successive years of austerity, inflation and increasing social care pressures.

[DRiddle]

Apologies, £1.4 million out on a projected shortfall of £6 million. Either way, a section 114 notice from what i hear is more than a distinct possibility. It's highly probable.

[UnknownUser]

A very sad state of affairs currently throughout the country a lot are going through the same with the majority of councils being County Councils under Conservative control which possibly could dispel the alleged myth that Labour held councils are underfunded, theyre are howver two Labour councils facing the same predicament Hartlepool of which you have highlighted in the OP anbd the other being Birmingham City Council.

Hartlepool Borough Council (Labour) (Unitary Authority with the powers and functions of a non-metropolitan county and district council combined)
Birmingham City Council (Labour) (City Council responsible for running nearly all local services, with the exception of those run by joint boards)

Torbay Council (Conservative) (Unitary Authority with the powers and functions of a non-metropolitan county and district council combined)

Northamptonshire County Council (Conservative)
Somerset County Council (Conservative)
East Sussex County Council (Conservative)
Lancashire County Council (Conservative)
Suffolk County Council (Conservative)
Surrey County Council (Conservative)
West Sussex County Council (Conservative)
Oxfordshire County Council (Conservative)

Ultimately it's us which suffer, because of the services which we are provided, the ones we notice first of all such as bins, gritting, et cetera, the frontline services as they are called, however the deeper impacts it makes on childrens services, adults services, lack of libraries, community centres, all roads lead to increased ASB,crime, deprivation, et cetera.

[DRiddle]

I don't think anyone would disagree with what you've posted above. However, what sticks in the throat of many who post on here is concerning our specific council significant sums of money COULD have been saved but were not.

I've lost count of the number of times so called opposition councillors have begged the Labour group to stop councillors ward budgets and instead allocate the money to protect front line services. Likewise with the 'Cafe in the Crem', Labour insisted on flogging a dead horse and lost thousands more. There's a long list of perceived wastage that goes back years. People may well say "ah yes but that's small change in the grand scheme of things" but it adds up and contributes to the mess the council is heading towards. WHEN the section 114 notice kicks in (not IF) belts will be tightened. They SHOULD have been tightened properly years ago to fend of the storm that was always brewing under this government.

People can say what they like about me on this message board, it's water off a ducks back. Rather than just being a faceless key board warrior i've been in there at the sharp end of this and tried hard to draw attention to the shambles that more and more people are now realising was always there.

https://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/hartlepool-councillor-claims-authority-has-wasted-millions-1-7720716

The current labour group leader, if allowed to continue, will bring down the Labour Council. He may well be at the wheel as the council sinks altogether.

[UnknownUser]

In the mail article you linked.

"Developer contributions attached to planning consents including around £800,000 from housing at Wynyard."

WTF.

[Lucy Lass-Tick]

In the mail article you linked.

"Developer contributions attached to planning consents including around £800,000 from housing at Wynyard."

WTF.

'Under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, contributions can be sought from developers towards the costs of providing community and social infrastructure, the need for which has arisen as a result of a new development taking place. This funding is commonly known as 'Section 106'.

Taken from this link: https://www.eastcambs.gov.uk/finance/section-106-grant-funding

How & why this can be waived and whether such an action can be justified, however, is another matter ...

[fred c]

In the mail article you linked.

"Developer contributions attached to planning consents including around £800,000 from housing at Wynyard."

WTF.

'Under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, contributions can be sought from developers towards the costs of providing community and social infrastructure, the need for which has arisen as a result of a new development taking place. This funding is commonly known as 'Section 106'.

Taken from this link: https://www.eastcambs.gov.uk/finance/section-106-grant-funding

How & why this can be waived and whether such an action can be justified, however, is another matter ...

From memory waiving the £800k was against the advice of the senior planning officer at the time......There other instances of 106 money being waived so it wasn't an isolated case.

[rabbit]

I don't know anything either way but found this document

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/907/planning_obligations_spd_nov_2015.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjK1a6S4-reAhUqAcAKHU-PDnsQFjAAegQIABAB&usg=AOvVaw2foWhD0d0eWkdu_KT0lhWK

Which shows that HBC has a requirement that developers have to make a contribution of 18 percent
( In lieu of actually building affordable homes).
800,000 pounds seems a lot, but for 15 homes works out at a new home purchase price each of about 300,000 pounds which is to be expected for Wynyard.

[rabbit]

Apparently there is an industry out there enabling building companies to try to dodge such contributions.

https://www.s106management.co.uk

[Inspector Knacker]

From memory waiving the £800k was against the advice of the senior planning officer at the time......There other instances of 106 money being waived so it wasn't an isolated case.

But why would anyone waive that amount of money. That defies logic.

[rabbit]

Because 18 percent off the builder's profits could make the project unviable and not go ahead.

[fred c]

Because 18 percent off the builder's profits could make the project unviable and not go ahead.

I seriously doubt that, they would just bump up the house prices.....House builders are a bit like bookmakers, you never see a poor one.

[rabbit]

So you are saying building firms don't go bust?

[fred c]

The building developer at Wynyard hasn't gone bust