Agenda and draft minutes

Please note that this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method. Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting. Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on. 

By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair referred Members present to agenda item 1 as sown on the agenda in respect of filming at this meeting, and Members noted the information contained therein.

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no items of urgent business.

None.

None.

To agree the minutes of the previous meetings held on 27^th November 2025 and 10^th December 2025 as an accurate record.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 27^th November 2025 an 10^th December 2025 were agreed as an accurate record.

To receive and note the minutes of the following Scrutiny Panels and to approve any recommendations contained within:

· Adults and Health Scrutiny Panel – 13^th November 2025

· Culture, Community Safety & Environment Panel – 13^th November 2025

· Housing, Development & Planning Scrutiny Panel – 17^th November 2025

· Children & Young People’s Scrutiny Panel – 18^th November 2025

To follow – Housing, Development & Planning Scrutiny Panel (HRA) – 15^th December 2025

RESOLVED

That the Committee received and noted the minutes of the following Scrutiny Panels, and approved any recommendations contained within:

· Adults and Health Scrutiny Panel – 13^th November 2025

· Culture, Community Safety & Environment Panel – 13^th November 2025

· Housing, Development & Planning Scrutiny Panel – 17^th November 2025

·       Housing, Development & Planning Scrutiny Panel – 15^th December 2025

· Children & Young People’s Scrutiny Panel – 18^th November 2025

To receive and make comments on the Treasury Management Strategy Statement 2026/27.

Report to follow.

The Panel received a copy of the draft Treasury Management Strategy Statement (TMSS) 2026/27. The Council has adopted the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s Treasury Management in the Public Services: Code of Practice (CIPFA Code) which requires the Council to approve a Treasury Management Strategy before the start of each financial year. The draft TMSS was presented to OSC for scrutiny. Any comments made OSC would be taken into account by Audit Committee and, where appropriate, reflected in the final TMSS presented to Council on 2 March 2026.  The TMSS and covering report were introduced by Sam Masters, Head of Treasury & Banking, as set out in the addendum report pack at pages 17-58. The Corporate Director of Finance and Resources, the Director of Finance and the Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Resources were all present for this agenda item. The following arose as part of the discussion on this item:

1. The Chair queried the extent to which the level of proposed borrowing was sustainable. It was acknowledged that Housing Revenue Account (HRA) borrowing and borrowing in the General Fund (GF) were separate, and that a significant portion of the borrowing in the GF related to Exceptional Financial Support (EFS). The Chair sought assurances around the extent to which Table 1 and Table 8 in the report gave conflicting information, with Table 8 appearing to indicate that the ratio of increased borrowing costs were broadly flat in relation to net revenue. In response, officers advised that in real terms, as revenue increased, that by 2031 20% of the £400m revenue budget would equate to £80m. It was acknowledged that this was a huge amount of money that would be spent on servicing debt, rather than on providing services. Officers acknowledged that the information presented in the table could be misleading
2. The Corporate Director of Finance commented that this was the first year that the report had separated out the financing costs within the HRA, GF and EFS. It was acknowledged that as a totality the level of debt was unsustainable and was higher than most neighbouring boroughs. The Corporate Director commented that it was important to understand that the three areas of debt were all slightly different. It was commented that the level of debt was increasing faster on the HRA than the GF, particularly as a lot of work had been done in looking at the viability of capital projects in the General Fund. Whilst the HRA had higher levels of spend, this also generated additional revenue through additional rental income. It was commented that reliance on EFS was the only option at present, but that the Council had to do everything it could to reduce reliance on EFS over the next two to three years. It was set out that ultimately £500m of EFS over five years was not sustainable, but that it was important to understand that this was a working assumption at this point.
3. The Chair commented that Table 9 showed that the ratio  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

To ratify the recommendations arising from the Scrutiny Panels in relation to the 2026/27 Draft Budget and MTFS 2026/31.

Cllr Connor opened the discussion on the draft 2026/27 Budget and 2026/27–2030/31 MTFS by asking for questions from the Committee:

• Referring to page 79 of the main agenda pack, Cllr Small requested clarification that 10% of the Council’s income came from Council Tax. Cllr Carlin clarified that this was not accurate and that the figures would be corrected in the forthcoming Budget reports to Cabinet and Full Council.
• Cllr Connor requested further explanation about how the forecast budget gap and capital borrowing would be addressed by the Council. Taryn Eves explained that Table 6 illustrated the position in November 2025 based on corporate assumptions but that further work had been conducted since then and the full draft budget, including updated assumptions, was in the process of being finalised. She reiterated that the Council was doing everything it could to minimise the reliance on Exceptional Financial Support (EFS), including spending controls and restrictions, but that 72% of the Council’s budget was spent on statutory services and the demand and cost of these were continuing to rise. This situation was unsustainable and so more radical changes would be required over the next two years, such as on prevention and initiatives with temporary accommodation including acquisitions to reduce reliance on bed & breakfast accommodation. Further details would be provided in the next budget report to Cabinet and Full Council.
• Cllr White referred to the structural problem with funding the Council’s services but expressed concern that some of the pressures currently being experienced were a consequence of previous cuts to services. He suggested that it may not always be the right thing to do to minimise reliance on EFS if there may be opportunities to invest-to-save that may benefit the Council’s finances in the longer term. Cllr Carlin acknowledged that wholesale transformation of the Council would be the only way out of the current situation and that this needed to include growth as well as cuts, including by maximising income from the Council’s assets and transforming the way that services were delivered over the medium-term. She agreed that short-term cuts should not be made if they would lead to additional long-term costs.
• Cllr White commented that feedback from residents often included negativity about the general maintenance of the Borough and that the savings made in recent years may have had knock-on effects to the state of mind of residents. Cllr Carlin pointed out that Haringey was one of the few Boroughs that still had a commitment to clear dumping within 24-48 hours of it being reported. She added that it was essential to reduce spend in some areas but also to have a long-term plan. Taryn Eves commented that the funding envelopes from government for the next three years was now known and, while it may not be as much as was hoped, this did provide some certainty and would assist with the thinking about the approach over this period. She added that conversations were needed with government about the root causes of the excessive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

Verbal Update from the Director of Finance.

The Committee received a verbal update on the Local Government Settlement for 2026/27 from the Section 151 Officer and Corporate Director of Finance and Resources, Taryn Eves. A summary of the key points is set out below:

• The previous update to OSC was in November, since then Corporate Finance had continued to work through all of the various parts of the budget in order to produce  a draft budget to present to Cabinet on 10^th February.
• In November a budget gap position of £57m was forecast. This was before any outcomes of funding reform were known, and was based on the latest estimate of pressures at the time, as well as an assumption that all new savings would go ahead as proposed.
• The provisional settlement was published on 17^th December, based on the outcome of funding reforms. The final settlement was expected mid-February.
• Core Spending Power (CSP) was set to increase by £49.7M over the next three years. CSP was made up of Council Tax and government grants. The largest proportion of that increase over the next three years was from Council Tax increases, which were assumed at 4.99% by the government. The draft budget report had already made an assumption of a 4.99% increase in Council Tax. This effectively negated £31.9m of the £49.7m increase in CSP.
• The published increase in grants was £17.8m over the next three years, of which just under £8m was in 2026/27.
• The Corporate Director of Finance and Resources advised that it was worth noting that the CSP assumed that Haringey’s Council Tax collection would be £151m. The internal estimate was that the figure would be £145m. The discrepancy was largely down to a number of assumptions made around collection rates and the Council Tax base. The Council had higher levels of Council Tax discount and exemption that the government had assumed. The Council Tax Reduction Scheme in Haringey was around £35m a year, and of that £17m was statutory and £17-18m was discretionary.
• In relation to the £17.8m increase in grants over three years from their published figures, when you compare what LBH was going to get against the assumptions made in the draft budget, the total benefit to Haringey was £12.4m. Of that £12.4m, £2.3m related to grants in Children’s Services, so the actual figure was a £10.1m increase in grant funding.
• The Corporate Director of Finance and Resources advised that her service had also been looking at budget pressures, keeping these under review in-year and regularly reviewing the under-spend position. The budget papers to Cabinet in February would be using the figures at Period 8, which was later in the year than was used for the budget setting process last year.
• The most up-to-date figure for the total budget pressures was just over £41m, and this was largely in line with what was reported in November. The biggest change was in non-service budgets, such as interest costs and Minimum Revenue Position. Corporate Finance had undertaken some financial modelling in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

· 12^th Feb 2026 (7pm)

· 11^th Mar 2026 (7pm)

· 12^th Feb 2026 (7pm)

· 11^th Mar 2026 (7pm)