Rushcliffe Borough Council is forecasting a £1.056 million underspend in its revenue budget for 2026/27, with £20,000 proposed to cover the costs of reviewing whether West Bridgford should have its own town council.
The council’s latest financial and performance report, covering the first six months of the financial year, shows that higher investment income, savings from contracts and unspent contingency funding have contributed to the projected underspend.
The figures will be considered by the council’s Corporate Overview Group on Tuesday 17 November.
The report proposes setting aside £20,000 for the Community Governance Review into the possible creation of a West Bridgford Town Council, following a petition from residents.
The review was agreed in September 2026 and is expected to take 12 months. It will examine the potential creation of a new local council, with costs arising from consultation, governance arrangements, elections and implementation.
Council officers say the full financial implications of the review remain uncertain and will be monitored as the process develops.
The proposed £20,000 allocation is intended to meet costs associated with conducting the review. It is not a budget for establishing or operating a town council, and no decision has yet been made on whether one will be created.
The council is also proposing to use £590,000 of its projected revenue underspend to strengthen reserves for local government reorganisation.
The authority established a reserve for the transition in 2024/25, which stood at £1.199 million on 1 April 2026.
The Government paused local government reorganisation in September before withdrawing its original decision in October. A revised decision is expected in early 2027, with the date for new councils to take over services moved from April 2028 to April 2029.
The previous proposals would have divided Rushcliffe between two new unitary authorities. The council says it remains unclear whether that arrangement will proceed or whether the whole borough will become part of one authority.
The uncertainty makes it difficult to establish the eventual costs of restructuring services, transferring responsibilities and preparing for the new arrangements.
The council has already identified £137,000 from its reorganisation reserve for additional staffing costs and an initial £5,000 for judicial review costs.
A further £300,000 of the projected underspend is earmarked for town improvements, while £150,000 would be carried forward for work on the Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan.
Other proposed allocations include £133,000 for a Building Control reserve and the £20,000 provision for the West Bridgford governance review.
The council’s projected revenue efficiency has increased from £379,000 at the end of the first quarter to £1.056 million at the halfway point.
The largest contributor is an additional £734,000 in investment interest income, compared with £205,000 forecast at the previous quarter.
A further £280,000 comes from unallocated contingency funding, while a renegotiated glass recycling contract is expected to generate an additional £135,000.
Changes to the Toothill School Leisure Facilities contract have produced a projected £110,000 saving.
However, these gains are being offset by additional spending pressures.
The council is forecasting £163,000 in additional costs within its Chief Executive directorate, including changes to senior management posts and associated recruitment expenditure.
Higher fuel costs are also affecting the budget. The council switched back from hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) to conventional diesel in mid-October because of the price difference between the fuels.
Officers say the change has reduced the projected additional fuel cost from £146,000 to £94,000, although it will increase fleet emissions compared with continued use of HVO.
There are also income shortfalls in several council services, including £79,000 from garden waste collections, £60,000 from Edwalton Golf Course and £61,000 from planning applications.
The report identifies a further £45,000 budget pressure relating to Bridgford Hall, which remains vacant while awaiting a new tenant.
Separately, the council’s capital programme is forecasting expenditure of £8.222 million against a revised budget of £10.822 million, leaving a projected £2.6 million underspend.
Much of this relates to projects being delayed or expenditure carried forward into 2027/28, rather than permanent savings.
The largest individual difference is £775,000 allocated to the Radcliffe-on-Trent Masterplan that has not yet been committed.
Other changes include £225,000 for empty homes compulsory purchase orders that is not expected to be required this year, £187,500 for football facilities grants being largely carried forward and £147,500 in vehicle acquisition expenditure that may move into the next financial year.
The council is also forecasting a £2,900 underspend on its Special Expenses budget, which covers services funded through separate local charges.
In West Bridgford, an additional £7,000 in tennis membership income at Bridgford Park is helping offset a £6,800 shortfall against the income target for Sharphill Community Hall.
The report says there has been strong interest in hiring the new community facility, but that it will take time for this to translate into income.
Other performance figures show that 147 affordable homes have been delivered against a target of 80 at the halfway point, while recycling performance is slightly below target at 46.4 per cent against 47 per cent.
Council car parks recorded 609,900 users, more than 67,000 above the comparable period last year, with parking income increasing by more than £56,000 to £692,874.
Despite the favourable overall financial forecast, officers warn that inflation, staffing pressures, rising demand for services and uncertainty around local government reorganisation could affect the final position.
The Corporate Overview Group is being asked to scrutinise the projected revenue and capital underspends, the proposed allocation of funds and the council’s performance indicators.
The figures remain forecasts, and the proposed allocations do not themselves establish the final expenditure for the financial year.
