The Joint Committee considered a report by the Finance Manager (NDC) (circulated previously) regarding the 2023/24 Building Control Partnership Trading Account for Quarter 4.

The Finance Manager gave the Committee the following summary:

·       Page 13 of the agenda showed the table detailing the figures for the Partnership Trading Account.

·       Column one of the trading account table, showed the annual budget for each Authority.

·       Column two of the table showed the forecasted outturn for the year 2023/24 based on the total variance as at quarter 4. This was circa £52,000 down on the 2023/24 budget.  However, the income had increased during the last quarter.

·       At the bottom of column two a percentage split was shown for the income for the two Authorities, which was currently showing a split of 65.14% for North Devon Council and 34.86% for Mid-Devon. This was against the original split of 60:40.

·       Column three of the table set out the percentage split of expenditure and income between the two authorities in greater detail.

·       Column four of the table showed the chargeable and non-chargeable costs for North Devon Council.

·      Column five of the table showed the chargeable and non-chargeable costs for Mid Devon District Council.

In response to questions, the Finance Manager together with the Building Control Manager advised the following:

·       There was a need to break even over the three year period on the chargeable elements of the service. There was a slight deficit in the outturn.  Following the receipt of the final figures for Quarter 1 of 2024/25, the trading account could then be produced.

·       Under the new Regulations, the Building Control Partnership as the regulatory body could not provide subsidiary services.  The new regulations were very clear in relation to responsibilities which should create a more level playing field.

·       The Partnership’s market share was very good and remained high. The issue was the volume and types of work given the current economic conditions. 

·       Fees could only be charged to recover costs based on a bespoke quotation which included what would be involved in terms of complexity, type of job, competency required and time.  There was a sliding scale for housing development from a single individual plot to larger developments.  The fees were charges within the bandings for the region.  The Partnership struggled to compete with external providers as were not on a level playing field as external providers could also provide a warranty.

·       It was considered unlikely that the new Government would change the new regulations.  There may be a change to reporting of key performance indicators.

The Director of Resources and Deputy Chief Executive advised that columns 4 and 5 where shown for the chargeable activities; there had been previously been a surplus in these figures in prior years. There had been challenges with the recruitment of staff, however progress was now being made to reduce the reliance on agency staff, which would result in a reduction in staffing costs. Income had increased by circa £33,000 in the final quarter.  The trading account moving forward would hopefully show a more positive position.

RESOLVED, that the report be noted.