Questions by Members:

Answers:

What is the total amount of ringfenced funding? What are the specific purposes for which these funds are being allocated? And are the associated projects or initiatives expected to be delivered as planned?

(Councillor M Stephenson) It is assumed that the reference to ring fenced funding relates to where a decision has been made to allocate a budget via the budget setting process, financial performance reports or separate decisions during the year. With this in mind, the associated decisions would have set out the basis / purpose of the funding (and / or further delegations agreed) and the items would subsequently be included within the budget with progress reported within the regular financial performance reports that would provide commentary around the delivery of the projects / initiatives as necessary. Was there any particular ring-fenced funding the Committee would like more information on?

Is there a document you can provide with all the ringfenced budgets?

(Richard Barrett) I am amenable to engaging in a discussion outside the meeting to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the intended outcomes.

What is the financial impact should the cost of the Waste Contract exceed initial expectations?

(Councillor M Stephenson) As set out in the May 2025 Cabinet report, it was highlighted that the proposed approach would be based on the use of one-off funding, supported by savings and efficiencies within the overall GF revenue budget as necessary. This remains the planned approach with no direct impact on the provision of existing services.

Can you provide clarification on the source of any additional funding required and the anticipated budgetary position in such circumstances?

(Councillor M Stephenson) Following on the above, and as set out within the outturn report for 2024/25, £2.417m has already been set aside to support the cost of the contract. In accordance with the proposed use of one-off money set out above, it is proposed to utilise a limited number of currently uncommitted one-off budgets to meet the initial three-year cost of the contract.

Is there a contingency plan is in place to address any potential overspend associated with the Carnarvon Terrace project?

(Councillor M Stephenson) As set out within previous reports, such risks have been highlighted and discussed and included within risk management plans and a contingency sum has been allocated to the project from within the overall agreed budget.

The consideration of this key issue will also be revisited within the associated report following the completion of the procurement process, which is planned to be presented to Cabinet in early 2026.

Can you provide assurance that, should any such overspend occur, this Committee would be formally notified?

(Councillor M Stephenson) Such issue would form part of Cabinet reports as necessary and therefore available to all Members. They would also be included within the regular financial performance reports as necessary, that already form part of the Committee’s work programme.

I would appreciate clarification regarding the £45,000 allocated for the creation of a fixed-term Refugee Support Officer position. Specifically, is this funding sourced from the Government? Additionally, could you confirm the duration of the fixed-term appointment? I am also interested in understanding the core purpose of this role and the specific needs it is intended to address within the current context.

Is this talking about illegal immigrants?

Do we know who these people are? Have we been informed by the Government that they are arriving and do we offer them housing?

(Councillor M Stephenson) This is regarding refugees and once they have been granted the right to remain. It was about dealing with people who have been given asylum status and working with them, which we felt we were not doing well enough?

No, this is not about dispersing illegal immigrants. It pertains to supporting those who have been granted the right to remain, facilitating their transition and integration through the next stages of resettlement.

I do not believe these questions are directly relevant to the agenda item currently under discussion. Therefore, I would kindly ask that they be submitted outside of the Committee for consideration through the appropriate channels.

Do Colchester and Braintree have a Refugee Support Officer and the same Government funding?

(Councillor M Stephenson) I don’t know. I will endeavour to find out that information and it will be added to the written response.

Homelessness costs have doubled, what do you attribute that to?

(Councillor M Stephenson) This is a nationwide issue and not unique to Tendring. However, our associated costs have not risen to the same extent as in some other areas, largely due to proactive initiatives such as the Spendells project and the fact that we do not currently have any individuals experiencing homelessness accommodated in hotels. Nationally, homelessness figures continue to rise. In response, the Portfolio Holder responsible for Housing and I are working closely with an Officer Working Party to explore and implement strategies aimed at reducing costs and improving outcomes.

What are the percentage of voids we have where we can house these people?

(Councillor M Stephenson) Under 2%, which is our goal.

Could you please confirm whether the increase in asylum seekers is contributing to the reported figures?

It was previously noted at a meeting that there is a correlation between homelessness and unemployment. In light of this, could you clarify why the homelessness figure is continuing to rise and resulting in increased costs for the Council?

(Councillor M Stephenson) Asylum seekers represent a very small proportion of those reflected in our data. Approximately 75% of individuals currently in temporary accommodation are there due to factors such as antisocial behaviour, issues with landlords, and family disputes. The remaining 25% encompasses a wide range of other causes—around 20 distinct categories—with asylum seekers ranking among the least prevalent. While this may be a more prominent issue in other areas, it is not currently a significant concern within Tendring.

A report from the Officer Working Party addressing temporary accommodation is scheduled to be presented to Cabinet in January. This report is expected to provide comprehensive responses to many of the questions currently being raised.

With reference to the 2% of void properties within the District, could you advise on what measures might be taken to mitigate the associated costs? To what extent is this issue influenced by a shortage of rental properties? Additionally, could you provide clarity on the current number of vacant homes in the area?

(Councillor M Stephenson) The issue at hand relates to both homelessness and the housing waiting list. Introducing a policy that prioritises individuals experiencing homelessness for placement into void properties would present several challenges. Many of these properties are currently undergoing refurbishment, which is a time-consuming process, and others are classified as long-term voids that we are actively working to address. If we were to allocate voids directly to those in temporary accommodation, it could inadvertently create a perception that bypassing the housing waiting list is a viable route to securing a council property. This could, in turn, lead to an increase in demand for temporary accommodation, further exacerbating the pressures on our housing services.