Erratum Document Pack (Bookmarked)
West Dunbartonshire Council · 17 December 2025
Back to West Dunbartonshire Council — 17 December 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Erratum Notice West Dunbartonshire Council Date: Wednesday, 17 December 2025 Time: 16:00 Format: Hybrid Meeting Contact: Carol-Ann Burns, Senior Democratic Services Officer Email: carol-ann.burns@west-dunbarton.gov.uk committee.admin@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Dear Member I refer to the papers for the above meeting which were issued on 4 December 2025 and now enclose revised versions of the undernoted reports relating to Items 10 and 14. These replace the versions issued previously. Yours faithfully PETER HESSETT Chief Executive Note referred to:- 10 FINANCIAL UPDATE 115 – 170 Submit revised report by the Chief Officer – Resources providing an update on the financial challenges facing the Council, the estimated 2026/27 to 2030/31 revenue budget gaps and presenting the first tranche of savings options for Members’ consideration to help the Council deliver a balanced 2026/27 budget. Members are advised that this report has been amended to add a new recommendation and new paragraph 4.10 which will require a Council decision. 14/
Page 2
14 GRUGGIES BURN FLOOD ALLEVIATION SCHEME 259 – 268A Submit revised report by the Chief Officer – Roads and Neighbourhood providing an update on the progress in delivering the Gruggies Burn Flood Alleviation Scheme, advising of the associated costs, and confirming the Scottish Government funding position. Members are advised that this report is a revised version which has been amended to update the full project life financial implications of the options for Council consideration and to add a further option. The updated full project life costs have resulted in a change to the Officer recommendation, primarily given the significant impact on the general fund budget gap Distribution:- Provost Karen Murray Conaghan Councillor June McKay Councillor James Bollan Councillor John Millar Councillor Kevin Crawford Councillor Lawrence O’Neill Councillor Ian Dickson Councillor Lauren Oxley Councillor Diane Docherty Councillor Chris Pollock Councillor Fiona Hennebry Councillor Martin Rooney Councillor Gurpreet Singh Johal Councillor William Rooney Councillor Daniel Lennie Councillor Gordon Scanlan Councillor David McBride Councillor Hazel Sorrell Councillor Jonathan McColl Councillor Clare Steel Councillor Michelle McGinty Councillor Sophie Traynor Chief Executive Chief Officers Date of issue: 11 December 2025
Page 3
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Chief Officer - Resources Council: 17 December 2025 Subject: Financial Update 1. PURPOSE 1.1 To provide an update on the financial challenges facing the Council, the estimated 2026/27 – 2030/31 revenue budget gaps and present the first tranche of saving options for members consideration to help the Council deliver a balanced 2026/27 budget. 1.2 This update has been prepared using three different scenarios, best case, worst case and mid-range. Relatively small variations in assumptions can lead to fairly significant changes in the outcome. Throughout the report the primary focus is on the mid-range, however, where appropriate reference is made to best case and worst-case assumptions. 2. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 Members are asked to: I. approve £0.168m per annum to enhance the Council’s cyber security protection as set out in paragraph 4.10 II. note the Council’s estimated 2026/27 revenue budget gap has increased from £8.882m as at October 2025 to £9.243m III. approve the £0.199m, rising to £0.322m by 2027/28, of saving options requiring political consideration to contribute toward agreeing a balanced 2026/27 budget and assist with future projected budget gaps IV. note the £1.371m of management adjustments which will contribute to agreeing a balanced 2026/27 budget and assist with future projected budget gaps. 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 On 5 March 2025, the Council agreed a balanced 2025/26 revenue budget, a revised capital budget and revenue estimates for 2026/27-2029/30. That budget report also highlighted estimated future year budget gaps based on a range of assumptions including future Scottish Government funding, inflation and future interest rates. The consequences of the decisions taken by Council on 5 March to agree a balanced 2025/26 budget reduced the cumulative estimated future budget gap and further reports to Council on 18 June 2025 and 29 October 2025 provided further updates on the financial challenges faced by the Council and updated the estimated budget gaps as ITEM 10 (Revised Version) Page 115
Page 4
set out in Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1 – Future Year Estimated Budget Gaps 29 October 2025 Council Report Budget Gap 2026/27 £000 2027/28 £000 2028/29 £000 2029/30 £000 2030/31 £000 Best Case 7,905 16,870 31,939 41,058 49,691 Mid-Range 8,882 18,824 34,870 44,966 54,376 Worst Case 13,360 29,070 49,984 65,055 79,752 4. MAIN ISSUES 4.1 I have revisited the key assumptions and cost pressures detailed in the 29 October 2025 Council report. This is summarised in the paragraphs below. Scottish Government Finance Settlement 4.2 In my 29 October 2025 report I retained my assumption regarding the Council’s financial settlement of: Best Case - Flat Cash Mid-Range – Flat Cash Worst Case - 1.0% reduction 4.3 The Scottish Government have advised of an intention to provide 3-year revenue and 5-year capital grant figures although there is no clarity yet over the level of detail that will be provided. This is a welcome development and should help increase certainty over future budget assumption and estimates. However, the UK Autumn Budget was delayed until 26 November 2025 which considered tax and spending UK wide. As a consequence of this delay the Scottish Government announced the Scottish Budget will be presented on 13 January 2026 with the Council getting sight of their individual settlements soon after. These timescales will be problematic as officers require sufficient time to examine the detailed impact of the settlement to inform the Council’s consideration of the 2027/28 budget at its meeting on 4 March 2026. There has been no material changes since October which have resulted in a change to the assumptions set out in paragraph 4.2. Extended Producer Responsibility 4.4 Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is an environmental policy approach that holds producers accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products, including the post-consumer phase. Under EPR, manufacturers are required to take responsibility for the collection, recycling, and safe disposal of their products once they are no longer in use. The key idea behind EPR is to shift the financial and/or physical responsibility for waste management from taxpayers to producers. This creates an incentive for companies to design Page 116
Page 5
products that are easier to recycle, more durable, and have less environmental impact. 4.5 From 2025, some organisations and businesses have to pay a fee for the packaging they supply to or import into the UK market. The income generated is distributed by the UK Government to councils to cover net costs of collecting, managing, recycling and disposing of household packaging waste. In 2025/26 all councils received a basic payment based on: publicly available and existing data, Office of National Statistics data data about tonnages, operations and unit costs gathered from a representative sample of councils across the UK. From 2026/27 the basic payment and any adjustments will be based on data councils submit to the Scheme Administrator. 4.6 The Council’s indicative 2025/26 allocation was £1.487m (as reported to Council on 5 March 2025). This was increased by £0.186m during 2025/26 to provide a total of £1.673m in 2025/26. 4.7 As part of the 2025/26 budget setting 50% of the initial indicative 2025/26 funding was allocated to costs specifically relating to waste service improvement and a 2025/26 base budget adjustment for the other 50% (£0.743m) was processed to ensure there was a committed budget to absorb future associated costs. During 2025/26 that committed budget was allocated to a range of emerging cost increases relating to waste service improvements including vehicle hire, skip hire, bin replacements, relevant staff costs, and fleet maintenance, and more generally to fund a range of recycling initiatives. 4.8 The Council have been notified their 2026/27 allocation is £2.398m an increase of £0.911m on the original allocation of £1.487m (which is what is currently built into the budget). The Chief Officer Roads and Neighbourhoods and Chief Officer Resources have conducted a review of emerging costs within the provision of recycling services and identified £0.405m of new 2026/27 pressures which break down as follows: £0.240m increase in cost of the Council’s recycling contract £0.060m increase in cost of civic waste site management costs to prioritise recycling £0.045m increase in the cost of fuel to undertake waste collections (total pressure apportioned between recycling costs and residual waste - £0.045m related to the recycling costs) £0.030m increase in cost of the Council’s co-mingled recycling contract £0.016m increase in 2025/26 recurring hire costs due to inflation £0.014m increase in 2025/26 recurring staff costs due to pay awards. 4.9 In addition, the service requires £0.250m of one-off expenditure in 2026/27 to part fund the purchase of food waste vehicles which is expenditure consistent Page 117
Page 6
with the intention of EPR to reduce environmental impact. This £0.250m has been added as a recurring cost pressure as it is likely there will be additional costs in future years relating to recycling. Finally, £0.250m will be used for the existing costs summarised in Exhibit 2 which are specifically focused on waste service improvements. Exhibit 2: Existing costs relating to waste service improvement activity £,000 Maintenance charge for recycling vehicles and equipment 95 Recycling materials and bins 80 Depot costs for recycling vehicles 50 Printing / advertising costs 25 Total 250 Increase Council Cyber Security Protection 4.10 The Council continues to invest in Cyber security year on year; however, the Cyber threat is growing, and the general opinion from industry experts is that councils should consider it a case of ‘when’ not ‘if’ a cyber-attack occurs. A successful attack on the Council would severely impact our ability to deliver key services to the citizens of West Dunbartonshire. Learning taken from cyber-attacks on public sector bodies such as Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Redcar and Hackney Councils in 2020 and more recent attacks on Scottish local authorities in Dumfries and Galloway, the Western Isles, Edinburgh City, West Lothian and an attack on Glasgow City Council which resulted in payments and pensions services being offline for citizens and partner councils. In addition, in recent months there have been high profile and extremely damaging attacks on large retail organisations such as Marks and Spencer, the Co-Op group. Therefore, it is recommended Council approve additional investment of £168,272 per annum to provide for enhanced cyber security protection for our employees, data, and critical services that citizens rely on day to day. If approved the contract shall be for a period of three years, The product will be procured through the BT SWAN 2.0 Value Added Services Framework. Tendering Committee approval was granted for the purchase of Value-Added Services through this Framework to a value of £690,000 including VAT at the Tendering Committee held on 15 November 2023. Base Budget Adjustments 4.11 There are no changes to the Council’s base budget since the 29 October report to Council. Cost Pressures Page 118
Page 7
4.12 Generally, services work on the basis of having to contain any cost pressures within current resources, however, there are cost pressures which are unavoidable and need to be factored into future budget processes. In addition to the new cost pressures relating to waste delivery (refer to paragraph 4.8) there are three new cost pressures in excess of £0.100m. 4.13 Cost Pressure 1 – Review of Commercial Rental Income A full review of the Council’s property portfolio has been carried out due to a number of strategic asset disposals being implemented to reduce long-term liabilities and align with best value principles. While these disposals were necessary, they have resulted in the permanent loss of rental streams that previously supported the Council’s revenue position. Compounding this, the Scottish commercial property market remains highly competitive and volatile. To secure occupancy and prevent prolonged vacancies, the Council has had to agree revised rental levels and, in some cases, offer rent-free periods as essential incentives. These measures are a direct response to market conditions and the need to maintain tenant engagement in an environment where councils across Scotland are struggling to retain and attract tenants. Achievable rents are currently under sustained downward pressure, and the scope to recover lost income in the short term is extremely limited and not considered a temporary fluctuation but a structural shift in the rental landscape. The cumulative impact of these factors impacts on the overall rental income the Council can generate with current projections requiring budgeted income to reduce by £0.250m. 4.14 Cost Pressure 2 – Unfunded Pension Costs A £3.455m budget is set aside for the payment of unfunded pension costs to the Strathclyde Pension Fund. This primarily relates to costs associated with pension increases and compensation payments to pensioners who are in receipt of compensatory added years through redundancy/efficiency taken in previous years. A £0.200m cost pressure for 2025/26 was added in October 2024 to provide for a £0.100m increase in 2024/25 and an anticipated £0.100m in 2025/26. However, the 2025/26 reprofiled payment has highlighted an increase from 2024/25 of £0.200m resulting in a 2025/26 overspend of £0.100m. If compensatory added years continues to increase at this level an additional £0.100m is required in the budget going forward. This will continue to be reviewed to monitor future budget pressures in line with approved redundancies / severance which are increasing the compensatory added years payments required for the unfunded pension scheme. 4.15 Cost Pressure 3 – Adjustment to Benefit from Reduction in Strathclyde Pension Fund Contribution. Following the last triennial valuation of the Strathclyde Pension Fund there was an announcement that employers’ contributions would be reduced from 19.3% to 6.5% for two financial years (2024/25 and 2025/26). Initial estimates of the overall saving for the Council were £21.328m which Council agreed to Page 119
Page 8
smooth over 4 years at £5.332m a year. This estimate was based on all employees and did not take into consideration those employees who had opted out the pension fund as it was not possible to extract this information from the system. Furthermore, the HSCP share of the saving was a proxy based on the proportion of the staff cost budget rather than actual member data. Therefore, there was always going to be a difference between the estimated overall benefit and the actual benefit. Until the actual contribution was confirmed we couldn’t calculate the difference between the estimate and the actual. This has now been done based on 2024/25 actuals and is summarised in Exhibit 3. Exhibit 3 – Summary of Pension Contribution Benefit 2024/25 (£,000) 2025/26 (£,000) 2026/27 (£,000) 2027/28 (£,000) Brought Forward 0 4,361 9,058 3,726 Saving 9,693 10,030 0 0 Utilised in Year (5,332) (5,332) (5,332) (3,726) Carried Forward 4,361 9,058 3,726 0 4.16 Exhibit 3 shows that the amount that can be applied to the budget gap in 2027/28 (year 4 of the agreed smoothing period) has reduced by £1.606m from £5.332m to £3.726m. 4.17 Other Cost Pressures under £100k In addition to the larger cost pressures detailed above there are four which are under £100k in value. £55k due to a reduction in cremation income which is considered to be irrecoverable at the current time £20k to reflect the national review of Chief Executive pay £15k for the temporary provision of system support in connection with the replacement of the Council's Finance Ledger System, reducing to £7k in 2027/28 then no longer required £9k to right size the COSLA membership fees budget and reflect the increases agreed for a three-year period 2026/27 – 2028/29 Sales, Fees and Charges 4.18 The Council’s financial planning assumes a 5% annual increase in sales, fees and charges (SFC). This assumption is built into the 2026/27 and future budget gaps. When agreeing the budget on 4 March 2026 the Council may wish to consider an option to increase fees and charges by a different percentage and may also consider fees for specific areas as part of saving options where a different approach to the annual 5% may be considered. Revised Mid-Range Estimated Budget Gap 4.19 Exhibit 4 sets out the revised cumulative estimated budget gap in the mid- range in 2026/27 – 2030/31. It illustrates that, prior to any measures to Page 120
Page 9
balance the budget, the Council is faced with a budget gap of £9.243m in 2026/27 rising cumulatively to £54.738m in 2030/31. Exhibit 4 – Revised Mid-Range Estimated Budget Gaps (Cumulative) Para 2026/27 (£000) 2027/28 (£000) 2028/29 (£000) 2029/30 (£000) 2030/31 (£000) Budget Gap 29 October 2025 3.1 8,882 18,824 34,870 44,966 54,376 EPR Funding 4.8 (911) (911) (911) (911) (911) EPR Recurring Cost Pressures 4.8 405 405 405 405 405 EPR One Off Capital Funded from Revenue in 26/27 and future recurring pressures 4.9 250 250 250 250 250 Cyber Security (subject to Council approval) 4.10 168 168 168 168 168 Commercial rental income 4.13 250 250 250 250 250 Unfunded pension costs 4.14 100 100 100 100 100 Pension contribution benefit 4.16 0 1,606 0 0 0 Other cost pressures under £0.100m 4.17 99 95 92 96 100 Revised Estimated Budget Gap 9,243 20,787 35,224 45,324 54,738 Measures to Balance the Budget 4.20 Between May and December 2025 officers have been developing a range of saving options to help address the budget gap. They are categorised as either: Political options – options which require elected member approval Management adjustments – options which can be implemented as part of normal business, have no frontline service impact and the only staff impact can be managed through existing vacancies 4.21 A first tranche of saving options has been finalised. The political options are presented to Council for approval and the management adjustments are presented for noting. The savings options identified to date propose a potential reduction to the Council’s establishment of 1.5 FTE assuming they are all accepted by Council. They are summarised in Exhibit 5. Page 121
Page 10
Exhibit 5 – December 2025 Saving Options (Cumulative) 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 (and future years) Category No Saving (£,000) FTE Saving (£,000) FTE Saving (£,000) FTE Political 5 199 0.5 322 0.5 315 0.5 Mgt Adjustments 6 1,371 1.0 1,371 1.0 1,371 1.0 Total 11 1,570 1.5 1,693 1.5 1,686 1.5 4.22 A more detailed breakdown of these saving options is provided in appendix 1 and 2 with appendices 3 and 4 providing the detail of each saving option including the risk/impact associated with them. 4.23 The Chief Executive is authorised to progress voluntary severance and early retirement offers, where appropriate, to support the 2026/27 budget savings exercise. Where appropriate targeted discussions will commence in service areas following the Council decision. 4.24 Exhibit 6 sets out the revised 2026/27-2030/31 cumulative budget gap after taking account of the proposed measures to balance the budget. This reduces the estimated 2026/27 budget gap to £7.504m however this would be on the basis all attached measures to balance the budget are approved and that the key assumptions made when estimating the 2026/27 budget gap are accurate. Exhibit 6 Updated Mid-Range Estimated Budget Gaps (Cumulative) after Measures to Balance the Budget Para 2026/27 (£000) 2027/28 (£000) 2028/29 (£000) 2029/30 (£000) 2030/31 (£000) Revised Estimated Budget Gap before Measures to Balance Budget 4.19 9,243 20,787 35,224 45,324 54,738 Political Saving Options 4.21 (199) (322) (322) (322) (322) Management Adjustments 4.21 (1,371) (1,371) (1,371) (1,371) (1,371) Revised Estimated Budget Gap After Measures to Balance Budget 7,673 19,094 33,531 43,631 53,045 4.25 It is clear from Exhibit 6 that further work is required to develop options to bridge the remaining estimated budget gap and officers will bring forward a second tranche of saving options as part of the budget report to be considered by Council when setting the 2026/27 budget. Page 122
Page 11
Other Issues 4.26 Health and Social Care Partnership The Council, at the budget meeting on 5 March 2025, agreed an HSCP requisition of £93.442m. There is a working assumption that the future allocation to the HSCP is on the basis of ‘flat cash’ plus the appropriate share of the Health & Social Care funding commitments made by the Scottish Government. However, this is only an assumption and the HSCP requisition will be a matter for Council to consider as part of the budget process. 4.27 Council Tax The estimated budget gap makes no assumption over future Council Tax increases as setting Council Tax is subject to a political decision when agreeing the budget in March 2026. However, by means of illustration a 10% Council Tax increase would generate an additional £4.540m and increase the weekly bill for a Band D taxpayer by £3.00 (assuming they are liable for the full Council Tax charge). 4.28 Council Tax Reform The Scottish Government are progressing a programme of Council Tax reform as the current system, is widely considered outdated. Reform proposals being considered include updating property valuations to reflect current market values; introducing new Council Tax bands; implementing mitigation measures such as transitional relief, deferral schemes, and expanding the Council Tax Reduction (CTR) scheme. The public consultation, launched on 27 October 2025, will run for 14 weeks until 30 January 2026. It includes an online questionnaire, town hall events across Scotland, and targeted key stakeholder and expert consultation. Responses will be analysed and presented to COSLA Leaders for approval of any substantive changes proposed by the Scottish Government however scrutiny will not be complete before the pre-election period commences. 5. PEOPLE IMPLICATIONS 5.1 The potential staffing implications are shown within the savings options appended to this report and will be subject to consultation processes where appropriate and managed in accordance with the Council’s Switch Policy (Organisational Change). 6. FINANCIAL AND PROCUREMENT IMPLICATIONS 6.1 The report sets out the estimated revenue budget gaps in 2026/27-2030/31. The financial implications arising from the ongoing budget process are detailed in the report and appendices. There are no direct procurement implications arising from this report. 7. RISK ANALYSIS Page 123
Page 12
7.1 None directly from this report but any proposals to address the estimated budget gap will need to consider risk. 8. EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) 8.1 All individual savings options have been screened and where relevant, impact assessed. Individual EIAs are appended to the report at Appendix 5. 9. CONSULTATION 9.1 The views of all Chief Officers have been requested on this report and feedback incorporated herein. 10. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT 10.1 Proper budgetary control and sound financial practice are cornerstones of good governance and support Council and officers to pursue the strategic priorities of the Council’s Strategic Plan. 10.2 The General Services revenue budget contributes to all categories by providing funding in specific areas to help the Council achieve and develop these priorities. Laurence Slavin Chief Officer - Resources Date: 17 December 2025 Person to Contact: Laurence Slavin, Chief Officer - Resources E-mail: laurence.slavin@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendices: Appendix 1 – Summary of Political Saving Options Appendix 2 – Summary of Management Adjustments Appendix 3 – Detailed Political Saving Options Appendix 4 – Detailed Management Adjustments Appendix 5 – Equality Impact Assessments for All Saving Options Background Papers: Budget Report to Council - 5 March 2025 Financial Update Report to Council – 18 June 2025 Financial Update Report to Council – 29 October 2025 Page 124
Page 13
Appendix 1 – Summary of Political Saving Options 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 Ref: CO Saving Option Saving (£,000) FTE Saving (£,000) FTE Saving (£,000) FTE 2627 EDU01 GH ASN School Transport 53 0 53 0 53 0 2627 HE01 PB Cessation of Rotation of Temporary Accommodation 10 0 10 0 10 0 2627 PT05 VR ICT SOM Compliance 31 0.5 31 0.5 31 0.5 2627 RN02 GM CCTV upgrade at Depots 80 0 192 0 192 0 2627 RN03 GM Gully Motor Purchase 25 0 36 0 29 0 TOTAL 199 0.5 322 0.5 315 0.5 Page 125
Page 14
Appendix 2 – Summary of Management Adjustments 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 Ref: CO Saving Option Saving (£,000) FTE Saving (£,000) FTE Saving (£,000) FTE 2627 EDU02 GH School Fridges 6 0 6 0 6 0 2627 PT04 VR CAS Team Leader 49 1 49 1 49 1 2627 RES06 LS Council Tax Debt & His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs Pilot 100 0 100 0 100 0 2627 RES07 LS Review of NDR budgets across the asset portfolio 930 0 930 0 930 0 2627 RES09 LS Review Portable Appliance Testing Costs 36 0 36 0 36 0 2627 RES11 LS Council Tax Income 250 0 250 0 250 0 TOTAL 1,371 1 1,371 1 1,371 1 Page 126
Page 15
Appendix 3 – Detailed Political Saving Options 2026/27 SAVING OPTION Chief Officer: Gillian Hamilton Saving Ref: 2627 EDU01 Saving Title ASN School Transport Summary of Savings Proposal Children with additional support needs are transported to the Lomond Base in Balloch Campus and the Rainbow Base in Faifley Campus using private taxi contracts. The cost of using taxi services has increased significantly in recent years. It is proposed the Council purchases three minibuses and recruits four drivers to transport children who are able to share larger vehicles to these locations. This has been successful for other schools, with the purchase of five minibuses and recruitment of six drivers for use by children attending Renton Leven Base and Riverside School. This would generate a revenue saving of £53k net of driver salary, loan charges and ongoing maintenance costs. Where the needs of individual children prevents them from sharing a larger vehicle, local taxi provision would still be utilised through the existing ASN transport budget. Is there a Capital Requirement? Yes - capital investment of £128k required to purchase the minibuses with loan charges of £3,300 per annum for 7 years. Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: Bringing the service in-house could increase the risk to service provision, as resilience would not be catered for by the marketplace. Strategic Risk: N/A People Risk: There are no direct FTE or people risks with this proposal. Reputational Risk: Any change could be disruptive for children and families. This will be mitigated by ensuring clear and timely communication with those and the retention of budget for private transport for those children whose needs require it. Saving (Cumulative) 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 53 0 53 0 53 0 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: N/A Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1359 Page 127
Page 16
2026/27 SAVING OPTION Chief Officer Peter Barry Saving Ref: 2627 HE01 Saving Title Cease Rotation of Temporary Accommodation Summary of Savings Proposal The Council currently provides basic furnishings to approximately 250 temporary accommodation units, with a budget of £1,000 per home. The service rotates temporary accommodation, with the aim of ensuring that by 2027/28, no home is used for that purpose for a period greater than three years. As part of this, plans were made to relocate 10 temporary accommodation homes in 2026/27. Under this option, the rotation work would cease, reducing planned expenditure by an estimated £10k in 2026/27 and future years if planned activity in future years is also ceased. Operational reasons may require some units to be retired during the course of 2026/27; however, this would be treated as a cost pressure within the wider homelessness budget. Is there a capital requirement? No Impact and Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: A similar saving option was accepted in 2025/26, with 17 planned retirals ceased, this will potentially result in 27 properties being used as temporary accommodation. People Risk: There are no people risks identified with this option. Strategic Risk Register: The proposed saving option does not impact on any of the Council’s identified strategic risks. Reputational Risk: The proposal may be viewed negatively by neighbouring tenants and residents through the continued use of a nearby home as temporary accommodation. This will be mitigated by management of temporary accommodation with concerns resolved timeously. Saving (Cumulative) 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 10 0 10 0 10 0 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: N/A Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1307 Page 128
Page 17
2026/27 SAVING OPTION Chief Officer: Victoria Rogers Saving Ref: 2627 PT05 Saving Title ICT Standard Operating Model Compliance Summary of Savings Proposal A review of People & Technology was undertaken to ensure compliance with the Council’s Standard Operating Model. This identified an opportunity to remove 0.5 FTE G8 1st Line Supervisor, with the line management of the existing G6 role currently managed by this postholder to be realigned under ICT G10 Applications/Device Section Lead. Is there a Capital Requirement? No Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: The proposed removal of a 0.5 FTE Grade 8 Device Management role presents no risk to service delivery as there is no reduction in the overall capacity of the Device Support Team. This change will positively impact the service by eliminating role overlap and clarifying the remit of device management. It will streamline the allocation and monitoring of device support across council service areas and partners, enhancing the support service. Strategic Risk Register: No impact risk on any existing strategic risk. People Risk: There will be a reduction in resource of 0.5 x G8 FTE (17.5 hours). Reputational Risk: N/A. Saving (Cumulative) 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 31 0.5 31 0.5 31 0.5 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: NIL Note that the FTE Impact is an estimate – if the saving option is approved then the Chief Officer will assess the most effective way of delivering the saving target. Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1313 Page 129
Page 18
2026/27 SAVING OPTION Chief Officer: Gail Macfarlane Saving Ref: 2627 RN02 Saving Title CCTV upgrade at Depots Summary of Savings Proposal The Council have a security system in place to prevent theft or damage on site. This security costs £270k annually, split between General Services (£195k) and Housing Revenue Account (£85k). There are additional security costs incurred at wider authority buildings Under this proposal, the security would be upgraded and improved CCTV infrastructure would be installed at depots. Is there a Capital Requirement? Yes The saving requires an upgrade of CCTV infrastructure, with indicative costs of £50k across two depots. This will be funded through the year one saving and does not require a capital budget to be made available. Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: The depots will have real-time CCTV surveillance, monitored through sensors located at key positions. Operationally, teams will need to ensure alarm is set and gates are locked. Strategic Risk Register: N/A People Risk: N/A Reputational Risk: The CCTV system has been designed to avoid theft/damage. Insurance have been consulted. Saving (Cumulative) 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 80 0 192 0 192 0 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: N/A Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1360 Page 130
Page 19
2026/27 SAVING OPTION Chief Officer: Gail Macfarlane Saving Ref: 2627 RN03 Saving Title Gully Motor Purchase Summary of Savings Proposal The Council hires a gully motor vehicle to undertake routine gully cleaning routes and ad hoc cleaning of hotspots as the Council’s vehicle is beyond its lifespan and cannot be repaired. The annual cost of hiring a vehicle is £44k. Under this proposal, the Council would invest in a new gully motor at an anticipated cost of £275k. Due to lead in time to procure the motor, if agreement is given in December 2025, the vehicle will likely be available for us from Summer 2026. Is there a Capital Requirement? Yes Market testing suggests a purchase cost of £275k, with a borrowing costs of £8k over 10 years. This would net against the total revenue saving of £44k per annum Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: N/A Strategic Risk Register: N/A People Risk: N/A Reputational Risk: N/A Saving (Cumulative) 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 25 0 36 0 36 0 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: N/A Note that the FTE Impact is an estimate – if the saving option is approved then the Chief Officer will assess the most effective way of delivering the saving target. Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1356 Page 131
Page 20
Appendix 4 – Detailed Management Adjustments 2026/27 MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT Chief Officer: Gillian Hamilton Saving Ref: 2627 EDU02 Saving Title School Milk Fridges Summary of Savings Proposal Fridges used in primary schools to keep pupils’ milk chilled are currently rented at a cost of £6,480 per year. In some schools, the existing refrigeration in the school kitchen would have sufficient space to hold the milk, and so it is proposed that all rentals cease with additional equipment purchased if required. Is there a Capital Requirement? No. The capital investment of approximately £6k required for any purchased fridges can be met from each establishment’s existing capital items budget. Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: None Strategic Risk: None People Risk: None Reputational Risk: None Saving (Cumulative) 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 6 0 6 0 6 0 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: 0 Note that the FTE Impact is an estimate – if the saving option is approved then the Chief Officer will assess the most effective way of delivering the saving target. Equality Impact Assessment Completed: EIA No: 1358 Page 132
Page 21
2026/27 MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT Chief Officer: Victoria Rogers Saving Ref: 2627 PT04 Saving Title Delete CAS Team Leader post Summary of Savings Proposal The Corporate Administration Support (CAS) team provides essential administrative services across all council service areas, excluding schools and the Health and Social Care Partnership. The CAS model centralised administrative functions to drive efficiency and consistency. As part of planned workforce changes, one Team Leader retired in August 2025. It is proposed this post is not replaced and is formally deleted in 2026/27. This approach delivers partial in-year savings in 2025/26 with full-year savings realised from 2026/27. Is there a Capital Requirement? No Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: The deletion of one Team Leader post will not result in a direct reduction in the range of tasks delivered by CAS. A modest impact on timeliness and oversight may arise due to an increased span of control across the remaining Team Leaders. To mitigate this, internal workflows will be reviewed, and digital tools such as Automation and streamlined reporting will be further leveraged. This retains operational front line capacity and minimises disruption to core support services. Strategic Risk Register: No potential impact on areas of strategic risks. People Risk: This proposal reflects an age retirement in August 2025. Therefore no requirement for redeployment or redundancy. Reputational Risk: While the Team Leader role contributes to quality control, service liaison and staff support, the functions will not cease and there is confidence that with appropriate adjustment and monitoring, the service can continue to meet expectations. Saving (Cumulative) 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 49 1 49 1 49 1 FTE Impact delivered via vacancies: 1 Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1300 Page 133
Page 22
2026/27 MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT Chief Officer: Laurence Slavin Saving Ref: 2627 RES06 Saving Title Council Tax Debt & HMRC Pilot Summary of Savings Proposal The Council is one of twelve local authorities in Scotland participating in the Council Tax Data Sharing Pilot with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), supported by the Scottish Government. The pilot allows local authorities to share information on unpaid Council Tax accounts, with HMRC then providing access to taxpayer employment records — a data set previously unavailable to councils. The access will enable the Council to initiate earnings arrestment recovery actions more efficiently, particularly for current taxpayers with unpaid arrears and individuals who have moved out of the area but remain liable for historical debt. National modelling by the Scottish Government anticipates £20 million in additional recoveries across Scotland if this pilot is implemented nationally. Based on West Dunbartonshire’s population and Council Tax arrears profile, an assumption of £100,000 per annum in additional Council Tax income could be achieved. Is there a Capital Requirement? No Impact and Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: The pilot will be delivered using existing resources and established procedures and is not expected to reduce or remove any existing service functions. However, as this exercise adds to workload, there is a modest risk other reactive tasks may be slightly delayed during periods of peak demand. People Risk: There is no direct FTE reduction associated with this saving. Strategic Risk Register: N/A Reputational Risk: Minimal - use of employment data to recover tax from individuals with a confirmed ability to pay is consistent with fair and ethical debt recovery. Saving (Cumulative) 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 100 0 100 0 100 0 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: N/A Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1366 Page 134
Page 23
2026/27 MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT Chief Officer: Laurence Slavin Saving Ref: 2627 RES07 Saving Title Review of National Domestic Rate Budgets Summary of Savings Proposal A comprehensive review of Non-Domestic Rates (NDR) budgets across the Council’s entire asset portfolio has been undertaken. This involved analysis of rateable values for all operational and non-operational properties, verification of budget allocations against current liability, and assessment of opportunities to appeal or revalue properties where current rates may not accurately reflect use, occupation status, or condition. Significant progress has been made in identifying properties where savings can be achieved through reclassification, appeals, and rationalisation of the asset base with initial findings confirming savings of approximately £100k. The review has been expanded to include additional properties and more complex appeals, with early indications suggesting that total recurring savings could reach approximately £930k. This is a substantial and ongoing piece of work that requires collaboration across Asset Management, Finance, and services, alongside liaison with external valuation and rating specialists. Is there a Capital Requirement? No Impact and Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: N/A People Risk: N/A Strategic Risk Register: The work aligns closely with the Council’s strategic objective to optimise use of assets and manage financial pressures. Reputational Risk: Minimal - unsuccessful appeals or delays in delivering projected savings could create scrutiny during financial reporting. Saving (Cumulative) 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 930 0 930 0 930 0 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: N/A Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1362 Page 135
Page 24
2026/27 MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT Chief Officer: Laurence Slavin Saving Ref: 2627 RES09 Saving Title Portable Appliance Testing Summary of Savings Proposal Currently, each Council service is responsible for arranging its own Portable Appliance Testing (PAT), typically delivered through a range of external contractors. A recent review by the Asset Management team assessed the total cost of PAT across all Council services, comparing the cumulative external spend with the projected cost of delivering the service in-house. The analysis indicates that a centralised, in-house PAT service could offer a more cost-effective and efficient solution. Consolidation of testing using a single delivery model means the Council can achieve better value for money, improve compliance tracking, and reduce administrative overheads. Estimated Financial Impact Total External PAT Cost: £86.5k per annum (Based on average cost of £2.50 per test across circa 10,000 appliances) Projected In-House PAT Cost: £49.5k per annum (Includes salaries for 1 Grade 7 FTE and equipment/training costs) Estimated Annual Saving: £36k per annum Is there a Capital Requirement? No Impact and Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: Transitioning PAT delivery in-house introduces potential risks to service continuity and compliance. If internal capacity is insufficient or staff availability is disrupted (e.g. due to sickness or turnover), there may be delays in testing schedules. This could lead to non-compliance with health and safety regulations, particularly in high-risk environments such as schools or care facilities. Mitigation would require robust scheduling, contingency planning, and clear service level agreements. People Risk: Delivering PAT in-house places additional responsibilities on Asset Management staff. There is a risk of overloading existing roles or requiring new staff with specialist training. Strategic Risk Register: Links to the strategic risks: o Health, Safety, and Statutory Compliance: PAT testing is a fundamental control in ensuring electrical safety across the Council’s estate. Any failure in delivery could result in non-compliance with statutory obligations, potential safety incidents, and financial or legal exposure. o Workforce Capacity and Resilience: The success of the in-house model relies Page 136
Page 25
on sufficient trained staff and effective resource management. Sustained capacity pressures or skills gaps could impact service resilience over time. Reputational Risk: Any failure to deliver PAT effectively, resulting in missed tests, safety incidents, or regulatory breaches, could damage the Council’s reputation. This is particularly sensitive in public-facing services where safety is paramount. Saving (Cumulative) 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 36 0 36 0 36 0 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: N/A Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1363 Page 137
Page 26
2026/27 MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT Chief Officer: Laurence Slavin Saving Ref: 2627 RES11 Saving Title Council Tax Income Summary of Savings Proposal The Revenues and Benefits service proposes a comprehensive re-evaluation of the Council’s budgeted Council Tax income figure. This will be achieved through a targeted review of all income-affecting variables, including: Discounts Exemptions Council tax reductions (CTR) claims and change of circumstances Assumptions on new properties being added to council tax register The Council Tax team will complete reviews on all applicable discounts and exemptions to ensure continued entitlement. Where entitlement no longer applies, backdated bills will be issued to recover underpaid Council Tax. The Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction section will carry out an assessment on CTR claims, ensuring accuracy using various sources which include data from Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), Pension Service and His Majesty’s Revenues and Customs. The section will work alongside DWP to ensure residents in receipt of Universal Credit have a financial assessment carried out to maximise CTR and with the Pension Service to ensure pensioners are claiming both pension credit and CTR given recent reports which indicate thousands of pensioners across the country are not fully receiving what they are entitled to. The Council Tax section will engage with the Dunbartonshire and Argyll and Bute Joint Valuation Board to monitor and project new housing developments that are expected to be added to the council tax roll in the near future to assist with assumptions on chargeable properties Is there a Capital Requirement? No Impact and Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: The proposal will be delivered using existing resources and through business-as-usual activities. However, a more proactive and investigative workload may lead to modest delays in other reactive areas, such as change of circumstance processing or general correspondence. These will be monitored and prioritised accordingly. People Risk: There is no proposed reduction in FTE. However, this proposal increases expectations on existing staff to carry out detailed reviews and engage in additional financial assessment work. Risks to delivery will be mitigated through Page 138
Page 27
performance monitoring and adjustment of non-statutory workload where necessary. Strategic Risk Register: There would be no impact on strategic risks. Reputational Risk: While this approach is focused on increasing the Council’s income through legitimate reassessment, it may generate complaints or appeals from residents whose discount, exemption, or CTR award is amended or removed. These risks will be managed through clear communications, appropriate engagement with affected taxpayers, and adherence to statutory appeal procedures. Saving (Cumulative) 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 250 0 250 0 250 0 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: N/A Equality Impact Assessment Completed: No EIA No: 1361 Page 139
Page 28
Appendix 5 – Equality Impact Assessments Assessment No 1359 Owner Andrew Brown Resource Transformation Service Budget Ed FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Gillian Hamilton Chief Education Officer Members Gillian Hamilton - Chief Education Officer Alison Bowers - Senior Education Officer Julie McGrogan - Senior Education Officer Andrew Brown - Senior Education Officer Claire Cusick - Senior Education Officer Ellen Moran - Principal Educational Psychologist Alison Bowers - Senior Education Officer (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy policy function or financial decision) Policy Title Savings Option EDU01 - ASN School Transport The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy Currently, children with Additional Support Needs are transported to the Lomond Base in Balloch Campus and the Rainbow Base in Faifley Campus using private taxi contracts. The cost of using taxi services has increased significantly in recent years. In order to minimise this cost, it is proposed the Council invests in three mini buses and recruits four drivers to transport children who are able to share vehicles to these locations. This approach has been successful for other schools in the area, with the purchase of five buses and recruitment of six drivers last year for use by children attending Renton Leven Base and Riverside School. This would generate a revenue saving of £53k after costs of driver salary, loan charges related to vehicle purchase and ongoing maintenance costs. Where the needs of individual children prevent them from sharing a vehicle, local taxi provision would still be utilised through the ASN transport budget of £468k. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. Head Teachers and service users, Internal Transport, Fleet Management, Drivers Services, Finance Officers, Procurement Officers and Education central staff. Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? Yes Page 140
Page 29
If yes, please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. Yes SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) Yes Relevance to Human Rights (HR) Yes Relevance to Health Impacts (H) Yes Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) Yes Who will be affected by this policy? Children with Additional Support Needs who are transported to and from school by the local authority will be affected by this change, however we will still be meeting our obligation to transport them to and from school as this proposal only materially changes the mode of transport being provided. This change will also have a direct impact on the income of local taxi providers, as there will be a reduction in the business opportunities presented to them by the Council. There will be employment opportunities presented by this option for drivers and vehicle escorts to be employed by the Council. Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? Consultation with Head Teachers, children and families following the introduction of minibuses during the previous session. Discussion with local taxi providers and Internal Transport. Lessons have been learned through this process and incorporated into future roll out of minibuses. Work is presently ongoing with Internal Transport to revise the Service Level Agreement for the provision of this service, ensuring all aspects are clearly documented and communicated with stakeholders. Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Specific group to consider Needs Evidence Impact Age Council focus on tackling child poverty. Young parents are also a focus. Cross cuts with the consideration below. Neutral - change in the mode of ASN transport provision would not impact upon age. Page 141
Page 30
Disability The Council has a duty to make its services accessible to disabled people, including pupils. This is an anticipatory duty. We must seek to mitigate any negative impacts. Families with one disabled member are more likely to live in relative poverty. Neutral - change in provision would continue to meet accessibility requirements of service users. Gender Reassign N/A Marriage & Civil Partnership N/A Pregnancy & Maternity N/A Race BME families are a focus a group for reducing child poverty. Most BME groups more likely to be in relative poverty and higher child poverty than White ethnic groups. Neutral - change in the mode of ASN transport provision would not impact upon race. Religion and Belief Every young person is entitled to the provision of denominational or non-denominational education Provision of transport would ensure children can access education. Neutral - change in the mode of ASN transport provision would not impact upon religion and belief. Sex Single parent families are a focus a group for reducing child poverty. Women are more likely to be income deprived. Nationally approximately 90% of single parents are women. Neutral - change in provision would need to meet requirements of service users. Sexual Orientation N/A Human Rights UNCRC especially in terms of the domain of 'provision'. Children have a right to access education. ASN Transport provision ensures access to that right. Neutral - change in the mode of ASN transport provision would not impact upon this human right. Health Transporting children to and from school can have an impact on their health, and Provision of transport can alleviate concerns for families getting their child to school, however Positive - reducing the number of vehicles transporting Page 142
Page 31
the health and wellbeing of their families. removes the benefits associated with more active modes of travel. children to school would have a positive impact on the environment, depending on vehicle type used. Social & Economic Impact Council focus on reducing child poverty. Fairer Scotland Duty Scottish Consumer Duty Fairer Scotland Duty: There will be a reduction in the number of business opportunities for local taxi providers, however the Council will still be spending approximately £468k in this market in ASN transportation. We have screened for relevance to the Scottish Consumer Duty. We have concluded that we have had due regard to needs of the duty in the approach, including in the impact assessment, and that there are no additional elements we need to assess. Neutral - change in provision would have reduce business opportunities for local taxi providers but provide employment opportunities for drivers and vehicle escorts. The change in provision would have no wider impact on social and economic factors. Cross Cutting Important to look at cross cutting impacts. Membership of more than one disadvantaged group will multiply affects. Impacts should be considered in the round. Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. Overall, impact is regarded as neutral. Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? We will monitor impact by consulting with Head Teachers, Internal Transport, Taxi Providers, and the children and families involved. Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation EIA 1359: The EIA notes neutral impacts for protected groups of service users. There will be negative impacts on business opportunities for local taxi providers, but positive impacts on council employment. Fewer vehicles used in total will reduce Page 143
Page 32
omissions, which is likely to be positive in terms of health. Assessment No 1307 Owner Claire McKay Resource Regeneration, Environment and Growth Service HE Budget FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer John Kerr Housing Development and Homelessness Manager Members Joanne Sutherland - Homeless and Housing Options Co-ordinator Shari Law - Team Leader (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy policy function or financial decision) Policy Title HE01 Cessation Temporary Accommodation Rotation Budget Saving The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy Under this option the plan to rotate and retire 10 temporary accommodation units returning them back into mainstream use. Some of which have been used between 4 and 10 years in 2026/27 would then be postponed until 2026/27. To carry out the rotation would cost £1,000 per property therefore but delaying these would save £10,000. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. None. Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? No If yes, please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. No SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) No Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) No Page 144
Page 33
Who will be affected by this policy? N/a Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? Housing and Homelessness team Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. N/a Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? No Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation Screening 1307: The proposal has been screened. An impact assessment is not required as there is no impact on service level, service users or staff. Assessment No 1335 Owner James Gallacher Resource Transformation Service Budget P and T FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer James Gallacher ICT Manager Members James Gallacher, ICT Manager Victoria Rogers, Chief Officer, People & Technology Ric Rea, Performance & Strategy Officer (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy policy function or financial decision) Policy Title PT05 SOM Savings Options - ICT Restructure The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy As part of a wider service review of People & Technology, specifically to ensure compliance with SOM and deliver savings towards the Council budget gap, the proposal is to remove 0.5 FTE G8 1st Line Supervisor. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. P&T Management, Chief Officer People and Technology Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? No If yes, please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. No Page 145
Page 34
SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) Yes Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) Yes Who will be affected by this policy? ICT employees Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? Consultation with P&T Chief Officer, Strategic HR, ICT Management team and Trade Unions Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Specific group to consider Needs Evidence Impact Age The council must meet public sector equality duty. People from older age groups that is over 50, are less likely to gain employment than younger if they are out of employment. Potential to have negative on older groups because of workforce demographics however the council is providing early retirement or switch policy to support employees. Disability The Council has a duty to ensure that services are accessible to disabled people and that reasonable adjustments are made for disabled staff when required. It is important that reasonable adjustments are not only made but also Disabled people are more likely to experience financial hardship, as are households with any disabled member. Potential to have negative impact for disabled workers. however, the council is providing early retirement or switch policy to support employees. Page 146
Page 35
made in good time. Gender Reassign Marriage & Civil Partnership Pregnancy & Maternity Race Religion and Belief Sex Important to gauge any differential impact in terms of sex The change will affect one member staff directly. Given that only one member of staff will be affected, there would be a differential impact in terms of sex. Sexual Orientation Human Rights Health Health and wellbeing are a priority for the Council as noted in our Strategic Plan 22-27. Worries surrounding job security may be heightened for employees. This has the potential to negatively impact employees. Any potential reduction in staffing requirements will be managed through SWITCH redeployment programme. Additional support through SWITCHCH is available to any employees impacted by the savings options to ensure their health and wellbeing. Social & Economic Impact The council has duty of care toward all its workers, and in terms of the Public Sector Equality Duty. Employees affected by this policy may be impacted financially. Any potential reduction in staffing requirements could be managed through SWITCH redeployment programme. Additional support Page 147
Page 36
will be available to any employees impacted by the savings options to ensure their health and wellbeing. Cross Cutting Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. There will be a differential impact in terms of sex, affecting a female member of staff. The SWITCH process is in place to support and assist this member of staff. It is not anticipated that there will be any negative consequences for service delivery, including in regard to equality or the other areas we assess. To ensure compliance with SOM and reduce the ICT service with a 0.5 FTE (Grade 8) resource. This is a positive more for the service in terms of device support as it adds clarify to device management roles and responsibilities. Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? ICT will continue to monitor and review support requirements, capacity and workloads. ICT will continue to report via service management and also WDC strategic plan KPI - Volume of ICT Incidents closed in half day or less. Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation EIA 1335: Given that only one member of staff will be affected, there would be a differential impact in terms of sex, in this case for a woman. The SWITCH process is in place to support and assist this member of staff. It is anticipated that there would be minimal impact on consequences for service delivery, including in regard to equality or the other areas we assess. Assessment No 1360 Owner Gail Macfarlane Resource Regeneration, Environment and Growth Service Budget R and N FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Gail Macfarlane Chief Officer - Roads & Neighbourhood Members Grounds and Waste Manager, Procurement Team, Legal Team (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy policy function or financial decision) Policy Title RN 02: Dec 2025 CCTV at Depots Page 148
Page 37
The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy The purpose of the saving option is to transition to the use of CCTV at the depots. The proposal is to upgrade CCTV at the depots to include real time monitoring and should any entry points be tripped with unauthorised access this would be reported to Police to attend. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. Greenspace service, legal, procurement Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? No If yes, please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. Yes SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) No Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) No Who will be affected by this policy? CCTV team and external contractor Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? Greenspace service, procurement team, legal team Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? CCTV management will be monitored Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation Page 149
Page 38
Screening 1360: The proposal to accelerate has been screened and is not relevant to any of the impact areas, therefore no impact assessment is required. Eventual procurement will be impact assessed having regard to the Fair Scotland Duty in line with the Councils usual approach as this is a major procurement. Assessment No 1356 Owner Gail Macfarlane Resource Regeneration, Environment and Growth Service Budget R and N FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Gail Macfarlane Chief Officer - Roads & Neighbourhood Members Fleet Coordinator, Roads & Transport Manager, Road Network Coordinator (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy policy function or financial decision) Policy Title RN 03: Dec 2025 Purchase gully motor The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy The purpose of the saving option is to purchase a gully motor to undertake gully cleaning. The gully motor is now out of service due to age and maintenance requirements. The service has hired a vehicle to undertake the statutory activity. The purchase of the vehicle will mitigate the hire costs for the service. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. Fleet Service, roads service, procurement Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? Yes If yes, please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. Yes SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) No Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) No Page 150
Page 39
Who will be affected by this policy? Service users within the council - roads operatives Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? Fleet Service, roads service, procurement team Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Specific group to consider Needs Evidence Impact Age Disability Gender Reassign Marriage & Civil Partnership Pregnancy & Maternity Race Religion and Belief Sex Sexual Orientation Human Rights Health Social & Economic Impact Cross Cutting Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? Gully motor use will be monitored to maximise use Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation Screening 1356: The proposal to accelerate has been screened and is not relevant to Page 151
Page 40
any of the impact areas, therefore no impact assessment is required. Eventual procurement of vehicles will be impact assessed having regard to the Fair Scotland Duty in line with the Councils usual approach as this is a major procurement. Assessment No 1358 Owner Andrew Brown Resource Transformation Service Budget Ed FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Gillian Hamilton Chief Education Officer Members Gillian Hamilton - Chief Education Officer Alison Bowers - Senior Education Officer Julie McGrogan - Senior Education Officer Andrew Brown - Senior Education Officer Claire Cusick - Senior Education Officer Ellen Moran - Principal Educational Psychologist Alison Bowers - Senior Education Officer (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy policy function or financial decision) Policy Title Savings Option EDU02 - Rental of School Milk Fridges The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy Fridges used in primary schools to keep pupils’ milk chilled are currently rented at a cost of £6,480 per year. In some schools, the existing refrigeration in the school kitchen would have sufficient space to hold the milk, and so it is proposed that all rentals cease with additional equipment purchased if required. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. Head Teachers of Primary Schools and Central Education staff. Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? No If yes, please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) No Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Page 152
Page 41
Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) No Who will be affected by this policy? N/A Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? N/A Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Specific group to consider Needs Evidence Impact Age Disability Gender Reassign Marriage & Civil Partnership Pregnancy & Maternity Race Religion and Belief Sex Sexual Orientation Human Rights Health Social & Economic Impact Cross Cutting Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. N/A Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? N/A Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation Page 153
Page 42
Screening 1358: There is no impact on individuals or groups by this proposed change. Purchasing fridges removes ongoing rental costs. Assessment No 1300 Owner Arun Menon Resource Transformation Service Budget P and T FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Arun Menon Business Support Manager Members Arun Menon, Business Support Manager Richard Butler, Section Head CAS (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy policy function or financial decision) Policy Title PT 04 Delete 1 FTE CAS Team Leader post The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy This option will see CAS establishment reduced by 1 FTE in the Team Leader category. Each TL will assume responsibility for a larger cohort of staff (from 10 FTE to approximately 11.5 FTE), which may extend response times in some cases. The deletion of one Team Leader post is not expected to result in a direct reduction in the range of tasks delivered by CAS. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. Business Support Management Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? No If yes please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. No SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) Yes Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) No Who will be affected by this policy? Services that receive support from CAS but any impact will be minimised. Page 154
Page 43
Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? PMRG have been made aware of the impact should the savings be approved Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Specific group to consider Needs Evidence Impact Age Disability Gender Reassign Marriage & Civil Partnership Pregnancy & Maternity Race Religion and Belief Sex Need to assess any differential impacts The sex split is 2 Male and 6 Female Team Leaders at present and will be 2 Male and 5 Female if a post is deleted. The slight shift in gender balance is due purely to a female post holder retiring. Most of the CAS Teams are female. No significant differential. impacts in terms of sex. Sexual Orientation Human Rights Health Social & Economic Impact Cross Cutting Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. N/A Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? Page 155
Page 44
No Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation EIA 1300: No differential impacts were noted in terms of protected groups. There will be an impact on timeliness and oversight may arise due to an increased span of control across the remaining Team Leaders. Each TL will assume responsibility for a larger cohort of staff (from 10 FTE to approximately 11.5 FTE), which may extend response times in some cases. To mitigate this, internal workflows will be reviewed, and digital tools such as Automation and streamlined reporting will be further leveraged to support oversight and performance tracking. This approach retains operational capacity at the front line and minimises disruption to core support services. Assessment No 1366 Owner Arun Menon Resource Transformation Service Budget Resource FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Arun Menon Business Support Manager Members Arun Menon, Business Support Manager Ryan Chalmers, Section Head – Revenues and Benefits (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy policy function or financial decision) Policy Title 2627 RES06 Council Tax Debt & His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs Pilot The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy West Dunbartonshire Council is participating in a national pilot with HMRC, supported by the Scottish Government, allowing councils to access taxpayer employment records for individuals with unpaid Council Tax. This data sharing will improve the efficiency of recovery actions, including earnings arrestment’s, for current and former residents with outstanding arrears. The pilot is focused on those that can pay but choose not to pay and don't engage with the Council or our debt partners. Scottish Government modelling suggests up to £20 million in additional recoveries if implemented nationally. Based on local population and arrears profiles, West Dunbartonshire could conservatively realise around £100,000 per year. Actual income will depend on the volume of matches and recoveries, which will be evaluated during the pilot’s first year (2025/26). These findings will inform a full business case for Page 156
Page 45
resourcing and sustainable income assumptions from 2026/27 onwards. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. Business Support Management Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? Yes If yes, please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. No SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) Yes Relevance to Human Rights (HR) Yes Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) Yes Who will be affected by this policy? The policy will affect West Dunbartonshire council tax payers with outstanding arrears who are currently or recently employed, particularly those whose earnings can be identified via HMRC data, enabling potential earnings arrestment. It may also affect former residents with historical debts. Other residents may experience minor delays in routine council tax enquiries due to temporary staff reallocation. Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? Chief Officer Resources and Revenues and Benefits Team Management. Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Specific group to consider Needs Evidence Impact Age Younger working- age adults (especially 25–44) are more likely to be in employment and have traceable earnings. Older people (65+) are Scottish Household Survey – employment rates highest in 25–49 age group; high CTR take-up among pensioners. More effective recovery from working-age debtors who can afford to pay. Low/No negative impact on older people as they Page 157
Page 46
less likely to be in employment and more likely to receive Single Person Discount or Council Tax Reduction. are unlikely to be subject to earnings arrestment. Disability Disabled people may have fluctuating or low earned income, be in receipt of benefits exempt from attachment, or find debt recovery correspondence distressing. Approximately 28% of West Dunbartonshire adults report limiting long-term conditions (Scottish Census 2022); higher CTR and exemption uptake among disabled households. No or minimal negative impact – earnings arrestment only applies where PAYE income exists and is above protected thresholds. Existing vulnerability procedures and signposting to advice agencies remain in place. Possible minor positive via fairer burden-sharing. Gender Reassign Marriage & Civil Partnership Pregnancy & Maternity Financial pressure may increase during maternity leave or pregnancy. Pregnancy and maternity is a priority group in terms of tackling child poverty. West Dunbartonshire Child Poverty Strategy No or minimal negative impact – earnings arrestment only applies where PAYE income exists and is above protected thresholds. Existing vulnerability procedures and signposting to advice agencies remain in place. Race Minority ethnic households may face language or digital barriers West Dunbartonshire has small but growing BME population (approx. 4%); English as additional language in some Potential minor negative if letters are not fully understood, but Page 158
Page 47
when responding to debt correspondence. households. standard translation and interpreter services are available on request. Overall impact low. Religion and Belief Sex Female lone parents are a priority group in terms of tackling child poverty. Domestic abuse survivors may have council tax arrears linked to coercive control. In West Dunbartonshire approximately 28% of families are lone parent families. Nationally about 92% of of lone parent families have a female lead. Scottish Census 2022 & local CTR data. Women slightly more likely to be single parents receiving CTR; men slightly more likely to be in full-time PAYE employment. West Dunbartonshire has high levels of domestic abuse. Men are more likely to be the subject of arrestments. Potential negative impact if domestic abuse has affected the persons finances. Existing vulnerability procedures and signposting to advice agencies remain in place. Sexual Orientation Human Rights Article 8 of the ECHR, (Private life etc.) is relevant here. Cross cuts with GDPR considerations. Process need to be in place to ensure that data is securely transferred, that it is accurate and determinations are fair and overseen by people. A data protection impact assessment has been carried out. The results were satisfactory. The Councils approach will follow relevant guidance to ensure fairness and Data Protection. Health There are links between debt and poor mental health. Analysis of polling from research company YouGov suggests around 665,148 of people in Scotland have seen Implementation does provide an opportunity to offer benefit Page 159
Page 48
their mental health and wellbeing affected by debt. https://www.cas.org.uk/news- and-events/over-660000- people-say-debt-has-impacted- their-mental-health. Evidence is also noted from research by 'Mind' https://www.mind.org.uk/media- a/4348/still-in-the-red.pdf. checks and support. Existing vulnerability procedures and signposting to advice agencies remain in place. Social & Economic Impact People on low earned income or zero-hour contracts may still be affected if earnings exceed the protected minimum. The West Dunbartonshire child poverty strategy identifies, larger families and families with younger children more likely to be affected by poverty. High deprivation in parts of West Dunbartonshire (SIMD 2020); earnings arrestment protected rate is relatively low. Minor negative risk for low-paid workers, mitigated by statutory protected earnings rate and existing debt advice/repayment options. Potential positive in that recovery is targeted at those with confirmed ability to pay rather than blanket measures. Cross Cutting We need to consider cross cutting impacts. Need to ensure clear communications. Workloads of the Council's W4U team and local Citizens Advice or other advice agencies may increase. Potential increased workloads for some Council workers and other agencies. Implementation does provide an opportunity to offer benefit checks and support. Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. The proposed pilot is both proportionate and aligned to statutory duties, ensuring the Council maintains an accurate and sustainable tax base. Page 160
Page 49
There may be negative impacts for lower income and/or more indebted groups. W4U can provide support in terms of benefits checks. The Council will follow its Communicating Effectively Guidance. Providing Accessible Services training is available to all staff. The policy change will allow us to enforcement wage arrestments however in the first instance, a letter will be issued to the taxpayer to advise of the data match and to contact us to discuss their debt and financial position. This will allow us to discuss factors impacting their ability to pay, such as debt, personal situations, health issues etc, fully reviewing their income and expenditure with a view to agreeing a suitable repayment arrangement to avoid the wage arrestment being applied. There will also be the option to provide further breathing space to taxpayers to work with us, provide financial and personal support before enforcing the action. The pilot supports fairer burden-sharing by targeting recovery at those who can afford to pay, while continuing to protect unemployed, benefit-dependent, and vulnerable residents. On balance, the financial and equity benefits outweigh the minimal risks identified. The policy will enhance fairness, accuracy and financial resilience across the system, with no discriminatory effects identified. For these reasons, the recommendation is to proceed with implementation, supported by appropriate mitigation measures and ongoing monitoring to ensure equity across all groups. Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? Uptake of Council Tax Debt recovery via this pilot will be monitored Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation EIA 1366: The equality impact assessment has identified no significant adverse impact on any protected characteristic or socio-economically disadvantaged group. Where risks exist for example potential distress from debt letters or slight delays in routine enquiries, these are, temporary, and can be fully mitigated by existing statutory protections, vulnerability procedures, debt-advice signposting, and translation and support services. The Council Tax Debt & HMRC Data-Sharing Pilot introduces no new charges, no changes to discounts or exemptions, and no reduction in service provision. Data sharing will be carefully controlled. It enables the Council to use an existing, lawful recovery method, earnings arrestment more effectively by identifying debtors who are in current employment and confirming that this recovery route can be used. Page 161
Page 50
Assessment No 1362 Owner Michelle Lynn Resource Transformation Service Budget Resource FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Laurence Slavin Chief Officer Resources Members Michelle Lynn Asset Manager (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy policy function or financial decision) Policy Title RES07: Review Non-Domestic Rates budget to realign to reflect in year appeals The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy April 2023 marked the date of the next Non-Domestic Rates (NDR) revaluation, and the first to reflect the reforms introduced by the independent Barclay Review of Non-Domestic Rates. These reforms were to ensure that property values more closely align with prevailing property market conditions in Scotland. Where a property occupied by a public body is subject to a successful proposal or appeal, the financial benefit from the reduction in rateable value will result in a downward re-determination of revenue allocations at a subsequent fiscal event. WDC have begun the process of appeals with our local assessors to ensure that values are accurate. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. WDC Staff Members/Chief Officers Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? No If yes, please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. No SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) No Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) No Who will be affected by this policy? All Council services, Elected Members and partner organisations including the Scottish Page 162
Page 51
Government. Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? Michelle Lynn, Assets Manager- conducted this high level efficiency option ; Laurence Slavin, Chief Officer - Resources - interrogated this high level efficiency option; Performance and Monitoring Review Group, West Dunbartonshire Council - where informed of this high level efficiency option Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Specific group to consider Needs Evidence Impact Age Disability Gender Reassign Marriage & Civil Partnership Pregnancy & Maternity Race Religion and Belief Sex Sexual Orientation Human Rights Health Social & Economic Impact Cross Cutting Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation Screening 1362: Concludes that the proposal is not relevant to any of the areas we Page 163
Page 52
assess and therefore does not require an impact assessment. Assessment No 1363 Owner Michelle Lynn Resource Transformation Service Budget Resource FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Laurence Slavin Chief Officer Resources Members Michelle Lynn Asset Manager (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy policy function or financial decision) Policy Title RES09: Portable Appliance Testing The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy Currently, each Council service is responsible for arranging its own Portable Appliance Testing (PAT), typically delivered through a range of external contractors. A recent review by the Asset Management team assessed the total cost of PAT across all Council services, comparing the cumulative external spend with the projected cost of delivering the service in-house. The analysis indicates that a centralised, in-house PAT service could offer a more cost-effective and efficient solution. Consolidation of testing using a single delivery model means the Council can achieve better value for money, improve compliance tracking, and reduce administrative overheads. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. WDC Staff Members/Chief Officers Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? No If yes, please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. No SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) No Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) No Page 164
Page 53
Who will be affected by this policy? All Council services, Elected Members and partner organisations including the Scottish Government. Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? Michelle Lynn, Assets Manager- conducted this high level efficiency option ; Laurence Slavin, Chief Officer - Resources - interrogated this high level efficiency option; Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Specific group to consider Needs Evidence Impact Age Disability Gender Reassign Marriage & Civil Partnership Pregnancy & Maternity Race Religion and Belief Sex Sexual Orientation Human Rights Health Social & Economic Impact Cross Cutting Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation Page 165
Page 54
Screening 1363: Concludes that the proposal is not relevant to any of the areas we assess and therefore does not require an impact assessment. Assessment No 1361 Owner Arun Menon Resource Transformation Service Budget Resource FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Arun Menon Business Support Manager Members Arun Menon, Business Support Manager Ryan Chalmers, Section Head – Revenues and Benefits (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy policy function or financial decision) Policy Title 2627 RES11 Council Tax Income The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy The Revenues and Benefits service will undertake a full review of the Council’s budgeted Council Tax income. This includes validating all discounts, exemptions and Council Tax Reduction (CTR) awards, ensuring entitlements remain accurate and issuing backdated bills where required. The service will use verified data from national agencies to improve the accuracy of CTR assessments and support residents, particularly Universal Credit claimants and pensioners, to maximise their entitlement. In parallel, the Council Tax team will work with the Dunbartonshire and Argyll and Bute Joint Valuation Board to monitor forthcoming housing developments and refine projections of new chargeable properties. This combined approach aims to ensure the Council Tax base is robust, accurate and fully reflects income due. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. Business Support Management Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? No If yes, please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. No SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) Yes Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No Page 166
Page 55
Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) Yes Who will be affected by this policy? The proposal will primarily affect households whose Council Tax discounts, exemptions or Council Tax Reduction (CTR) awards are subject to review. This may include low- income residents, Universal Credit claimants, and pensioners whose entitlement requires reassessment. Some taxpayers may experience changes to their bill where eligibility has altered or been removed. Internal staff within Revenues and Benefits will also be impacted through an increased requirement for detailed case reviews and cross-agency verification. Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? Chief Officer Resources and Revenues and Benefits Team Management. Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Specific group to consider Needs Evidence Impact Age Older residents may require clearer communication and additional support to understand changes to discounts, exemptions or CTR awards, particularly if they are not digitally confident. Younger working-age residents, especially those on low incomes or receiving Universal Credit, may need support to ensure timely reporting of changes in circumstances and access to accurate financial assessments. Both younger and older adults may need assistance navigating appeals processes if Reports from the Department for Work and Pensions and the Pension Service highlighting that many pensioners are under- claiming pension credit and Council tax reduction (CTR). Local CTR and Council Tax caseload data showing high levels of working-age UC claimants who frequently experience changes in circumstances. The proposal does not create age-related eligibility criteria; rather, it applies consistently across all age groups. Children have the highest If eligibility is altered or removed impacts on more financially vulnerable age groups are likely to be greater. Page 167
Page 56
their award is amended. poverty rates. Pensioners and working-age adults have the lowest rates. (https://www.jrf.org.uk/uk- poverty-2025-the- essential-guide-to- understanding-poverty-in- the-uk) Disability The Council has a anticipatory legal duty to make its services accessibility to disabled people. Some disabled residents may require accessible communication formats (e.g., large print, plain English, alternative formats, or telephone support) to understand changes to their Council Tax or CTR entitlement. Individuals with cognitive, mental health, or learning disabilities may need additional support to navigate reviews, supply evidence, or understand backdated adjustments. Residents with long- term health conditions or fluctuating conditions may require flexible timescales for responding to requests for information. National research and DWP guidance highlight that disabled residents can experience challenges understanding complex benefit changes without tailored communication. The policy does not amend eligibility criteria linked to disability; reviews are applied uniformly across all households. If eligibility is altered or removed, impacts on more financially groups vulnerable groups including disabled people are likely to be greater. Gender Reassign Marriage & Civil Partnership Pregnancy & Maternity Race BME groups are a priority area for tackling child poverty. People from some BME groups such as Bangladeshi, Pakistani If eligibility is altered or removed, Page 168
Page 57
and African are more likely to be in relative poverty compared to White ethnic groups. impacts on more financially vulnerable ethnic groups including are likely to be greater. Religion and Belief Sex Women are disproportionately represented among lower-income households and single- parent families, meaning they may need additional support understanding Council Tax reduction reassessments or dealing with potential backdated charges. Single parents are priority group in terms of reducing child poverty. National data indicating women form the majority of single-parent households. The policy is applied equally to all households regardless of sex, and entitlement criteria are not sex-based. If eligibility is altered or removed, impacts on more financially vulnerable groups including women are likely to be greater. Sexual Orientation Human Rights Health Social & Economic Impact Residents on low incomes may need clear, timely and easy- to-understand communication about any changes to discounts, exemptions or CTR awards, as financial pressures can limit their ability to absorb unexpected charges. Local Council Tax Reduction caseload data shows a significant proportion of recipients are in low-income households, including those on Universal Credit. The policy does not introduce socio-economic eligibility criteria and applies the same review process to all households. If eligibility is altered or removed impacts on more financially vulnerable groups including are likely to be greater. Cross Cutting We need to consider cross cutting impacts. Need to ensure clear Workloads of the Council's W4U team and local Citizens Advice or other advice agencies Potential increased workloads for some Council Page 169
Page 58
communications. may increase. workers and other agencies. Implementation does provide an opportunity to offer benefit checks and support. Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. The proposed Council Tax income review is both proportionate and aligned to statutory duties, ensuring the Council maintains an accurate and sustainable tax base. There may be negative impacts for lower income and/or more indebted groups. W4U can provide support in terms of benefits checks. The Council will follow it's Communicating Effectively Guidance. Providing Accessible Services training is available to all staff. The policy will enhance fairness, accuracy and financial resilience across the system, with no discriminatory effects identified. For these reasons, the recommendation is to proceed with implementation, supported by appropriate mitigation measures and ongoing monitoring to ensure equity across all groups. Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? Uptake of Council Tax reduction will be monitored Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation EIA 1361: The review process may create some communications challenges for particular groups—especially low-income households, older residents, disabled people and those facing language or digital barriers—these impacts can be effectively mitigated through accessible communication, targeted support and adherence to established appeal processes. More financially vulnerable groups such as women, BME groups, Disabled people, single parents and large families might be negatively affected financially if eligibility is reduced or removed. The implementation of the review will include helping residents maximise their entitlement to Council Tax Reduction and related benefits. Page 170
Page 59
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Chief Officer Roads and Neighbourhood West Dunbartonshire Council – 17 December 2025 Subject: Gruggies Burn Flood Alleviation Scheme 1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this report is to update members on the progress delivering the Gruggies Burn Flood Alleviation Scheme, advise of associated costs and confirm the Scottish Government funding position. 2. Recommendations 2.1 It is recommended that Council: i) Note that, following development of the detailed design, the costs of the Gruggies Burn Scheme have significantly increased since scheme conception in 2016. ii) Approve option 3 to construct coastal defences and flood gate as set out in paragraphs 4.27 to 4.32. This requires a total West Dunbartonshire capital investment of £2.94m which translates to a revenue impact of £0.137m per annum for a 40-year period to repay the loan and the incurred interest. iii) Note the funding milestone of 31 March 2026 for construction tender award. iv) Note that, should Option 2 or Option 3 be approved for delivery, the Council will liaise with the Scottish Government to confirm funding will be awarded for part implementation in advance of contract award. If the Scottish Government do not confirm positively a further report will be brought to Council. v) Authorise the Chief Officer Regulatory and Regeneration to conclude negotiations in relation to the finalisation and signing of the construction contract. vi) Grant delegated authority to Chief Officer Roads and Neighbourhood and Chief Officer Regulatory and Regeneration, in consultation with the Procurement Manager, to award any procurement and contract awards related to Gruggies Burn Flood Alleviation Scheme using appropriate procurement routes. ITEM 14 (Revised Version) Page 259
Page 60
3. Background 3.1 The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 established a modern framework for managing flood risk across Scotland. It aims to reduce the harmful effects of flooding on people, property and the environment through sustainable and coordinated planning. 3.2 The Flood Risk Management Act established three 6 year cycles of actions with the Scottish Government committing £420m of funding for schemes identified in Cycle 1. 42 schemes were identified across Scotland through this process with funding to be provided over a 10 year period. 3.3 West Dunbartonshire Council’s (the Council) Gruggies Burn Flood Alleviation project was one of the Cycle 1 schemes identified and prioritised through this process. 3.4 The Flood Risk Plan for Dumbarton was originally completed in 2012. One of the flood actions highlighted in that report was the development of a flood alleviation scheme for the Gruggies Burn. 3.5 The Gruggies Burn is an open watercourse approximately 1 mile long from the meeting of the Garshake and Overtoun Burns to the outfall on the estuary of the Clyde. It has steep fast moving culverted sections with 4 road crossings and 1 footpath crossing, with a tidally influenced outfall. Due to this the burn has two main historic flood paths – Fluvial (Watercourse) and Tidal. 3.6 Fluvial flooding occurs from the burn overspilling in periods of heavy rainfall but also overflowing in constrained culvert sections from Castlegreen Street to Glasgow Road. This can result in flooding of a number of properties in the Dumbarton East Area, including Castlegreen Street, Glasgow Road, Buchanan Street and the surrounding area. 3.7 Tidal flooding occurs from backwater effects from the Clyde during high tide or storm surge combined with a strong southwestern wind. This reduces discharge capacity and results in back up in the burn and overflowing upstream. 3.8 There are records of flooding from the burn causing minor temporary flooding going back to the 1950s including a few events recorded in the 1990s, with increasing reports in the 2000s. Since the late 2000s there has been an increase in precipitation levels which has resulted in more fluvial flooding from the burn, with reports of at least 1 flood event annually since 2002, the most significant being in 2007. 3.9 There are limited reports of significant impacts from tidal flooding alone, with most instances short lived and quickly dissipating as tide levels reduce. 3.10 Large scale flooding events occur during high tide or storm surge events combined with periods of heavy rainfall. This was last experienced in October 2023 with flooding to properties, businesses and significant disruption to the transport network. Page 260
Page 61
3.11 The initial scheme was developed and submitted to the Scottish Government for prioritisation and funding as part of the Cycle 1 funding. The scheme costs were expected to be £20m. At that stage however only high-level assessment and design had been undertaken. 3.12 All projects identified through this process were awarded grant funding of 80% of the scheme costs with the remaining 20% to be funded by the Local Authority. 3.13 The Gruggies Burn Flood Alleviation Scheme was awarded grant funding of £16m by the Scottish Government in 2016 as a Cycle 1 Scheme. A breakdown of the initial project costs and funding is shown below. Initial Project Funding £(m) Total Original Scheme Costs 20 West Dunbartonshire Council Funding (20%) 4 Scottish Government Funding (80%) 16 3.14 A large portion of Cycle 1 schemes in other councils as well as the Gruggies Burn Scheme reported significantly increased costs from their initial design. Consequently, the total funding available for all the Cycle 1 schemes was insufficient. The Scottish Government instructed a pause on all scheme progression in 2019 until funding levels could be reviewed and agreed. 3.15 Although progress was initially paused, in September 2021 the IRED Committee approved that Council capital funds be made available to continue to progress the detailed design of the scheme whilst awaiting a decision at national level. This has been progressed since that approval was granted. 3.16 The Scottish Government, after review, allowed projects to progress in 2022 however to ensure that Cycle 1 could be concluded placed several conditions on the projects identified. 3.17 As a result, all local authorities wishing to progress their projects had to: 1. Confirm their intention to undertake the works by October 2023. 2. Undertake all public consultation and notify the project by March 2024 3. Complete all design works and have the contract awarded by March 2026. Any local authority who fails to achieve any of the above targets would not be funded for the schemes identified. Page 261
Page 62
4. Main Issues 4.1 Committee approved our intention to progress the project in September 2021 and the Council undertook the required design and consultation works which allowed for the project to be notified to meet the deadline of 31st March 2024. 4.2 The Council also progressed the final detailed design to allow us to meet the final deadline of 31st March 2026 for tender award. 4.3 All design work has been delivered through the SCAPE Civil Engineering Framework by Balfour Beatty. Through undertaking the design works the Council have been able to regularly review costs and ensure ability for appointment of the construction contract in time to meet the required deadline. 4.4 Like many other projects identified in Cycle 1, the original estimated costs were based on a high-level assessment of the potential works involved. As detailed designs have progressed, the construction elements of the project have been assessed in more detail, and with more accurate estimates of the expected cost determined. 4.5 In addition to more clarity on the scale of works involved there has been a significant increase in construction costs including the impact of inflation. Additionally, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency now require schemes to factor in a 40% adjustment for the effects of climate change which has resulted in increased capacity requirements within the scheme. 4.6 The full project will include several key elements: 1. Installation of 4m wide diversion culvert from Strowans Well Road to outfall at Hunter Burn into the River Clyde 2. Construction of a new inlet structure to slow down the water and divert the water from the Gruggies Burn into the diversion culvert 3. Construction of new coastal defence walls 4. Coastal embankments 5. Flood gate 4.7 The cost to deliver the full scheme and all benefits is now estimated to be £44.7m. In addition to the construction costs this includes all preliminary site investigation and design works, all anticipated major utility service diversions and various ancillary works to facilitate the delivery of the project. 4.8 Although costs have increased significantly, the Council has been working with the designers to minimise construction costs. Through a value engineering exercise, which has included the implementation of an innovative hybrid high grade PVC/Concrete culvert approach, savings have been made. Page 262
Page 63
4.9 The Council will continue to explore any cost saving opportunities throughout the project stages. 4.10 The Scottish Government have been kept updated throughout the design process on the projected costs and the Council have been seeking assurances that the funding levels provided will remain at 80% of the overall costs at final tender stage rather than the original £20m estimate. 4.11 A letter provided by the Scottish Government on 5th November 2025 confirmed the agreed position is that the grant will be fixed at 80% of costs when the scheme costs are confirmed after tender stage. 4.12 The letter does highlight that, as the grant will be fixed at the final tender stage, should any additional costs exceed this value no additional grant is payable. A level of bias has been included in the predicted figures and tender process to accommodate a level of unforeseen risk. 4.13 As funding levels could not be confirmed and the potential increased costs to the Council were not clear, a phased construction approach was incorporated into the design so consideration could be given to partial installation should funding levels require. 4.14 Through this approach 4 options have been developed for members to consider. • Option 1 – Full Scheme Delivery • Option 2 – Delivery of Inlet and Diversion Culvert • Option 3 – Delivery of Coastal Defences and Flood Gates • Option 4 – Do Nothing 4.15 When considering the four options set out below Council should be mindful of the need to balance affordability and the delivery of flood prevention. The Council has one of the highest ratios of financing costs to net revenue of all 32 Scottish councils and material increases to the capital programme will have a consequential impact on the Council’s revenue budget gap in future years due to the loan charges associated with any borrowing. Option 1 would be broadly equivalent to a 1.0% increase in Council Tax. This is summarised in the Financial and Procurement Implications of this report at paragraph 6.1. Option 1 – Full Scheme Delivery 4.16 Option 1 is the full delivery of the scheme and will ensure the anticipated overall benefits for local residents are achieved, however with the requirement for 20% contribution of funding it requires the largest capital investment from the Council. 4.17 This would require a total capital investment of £8.94m from the Council, which is an additional £4.94m on the original value. Page 263
Page 64
4.18 Full scheme delivery provides the biggest reduction in flood risk to the area and delivers on the information provided to elected members and residents throughout the consultation process. 4.19 A cost benefit analysis for the full scheme highlights that 631 properties will benefit from reduced flood risk against fluvial (river) and pluvial (surface water) events. The whole life benefit cost for the full delivery of the project would be £70m. Overall the project provides a cost benefit ratio of 1.64. For a scheme to be considered to deliver a benefit a cost benefit ratio should be in excess of 1.0. 4.20 Option 1 – Full Scheme Capital Costs Summary £(m) West Dunbartonshire Council Funding (20%) 8.94 Scottish Government Funding (80%) 35.76 Total Scheme Costs 44.70 Option 2 – New Inlet and Diversion Culvert 4.21 The primary benefit of the scheme comes from the construction of the culvert and weir as the primary source of flooding is identified as watercourse and surface water flood risk. Option 2 allows for the delivery of the main benefits of the scheme but reduces the expected Council contribution. 4.22 This approach also ensures the Council maximises the opportunity for the local area from the available Scottish Government funding whilst leaving the smallest elements with the lower overall benefit to be delivered at a later stage should additional funding become available. 4.23 Of the two partial delivery options the construction of the culvert and weir provides the highest reduction in flood risk and addresses the most frequent flood issues in the Dumbarton area. 4.24 If progressing with this option, the Council would likely receive limited public negativity as it delivers the main objectives of the scheme and leaves the potential for the coastal elements to be delivered at a later date. 4.25 This option only reduces the number of properties benefiting by 5 to 626 properties. However, it should be noted these properties would only be protected against fluvial risk. 305 of the properties in the area would still be at risk of tidal flooding when tide levels are high. The whole life cost benefit for this option is £44m and the cost benefit ratio is 1.18. Page 264
Page 65
4.26 Option 2 – Construction of Culvert and Inlet Capital Cost Summary £(m) West Dunbartonshire Council Funding (20%) 7.84 Scottish Government Funding (80%) 31.36 Total Culvert Scheme Costs 39.20 Option 3 – Construction of Coastal Defences and Flood Gate Only 4.27 Coastal flooding in this area only occurs in periods of high tide when water levels in the burn are increased due to the volume of rainfall. In these circumstances although a proportion of properties are at risk of flooding, water levels can quickly dissipate as the tide level reduces. 4.28 This option provides the lowest overall benefit to the area. Full confirmation of Scottish Government funding is required in advance of the contract award for a phased implementation. 4.29 It is likely that progressing with this option alone may receive public criticism as it would fail to deliver on a significant portion of the scheme’s aims and objectives. As any Scottish Government funding in future years is likely to be focused on Cycle 2 delivery it is unlikely this scheme would receive further funding. 4.30 The delivery of option 3 will provide a benefit to 310 properties in total with this risk being restricted to tidal flooding only. There would be no benefit or protection provided for flooding resulting from heavy rain or capacity issues within the Gruggies Burn. 4.31 The cost benefit ratio is the highest at 2.05 due to the significant reduction in overall costs and has a whole life cost benefit of £26m. 4.32 Option 3 – Construction of Coastal Defences Capital Cost Summary £(m) West Dunbartonshire Council Funding (20%) 2.94 Scottish Government Funding (80%) 11.76 Total Original Scheme Costs 14.70 Option 4 - Do Nothing 4.33 Given the significant increase in the capital cost of the project since its inception and the consequential increase in the revenue costs (for example option 1 creating a revenue pressure of £0.419m per annum due to loan charges) the Council could decide not to proceed with the project. Page 265
Page 66
4.34 Under the terms of the Flood Risk Management Act (Scotland) the Council has various responsibilities in relation to mapping, evaluating, and maintaining our watercourses as well as developing flood risk management plans for the area. 4.35 The purpose of the Flood Risk Management Plan is to evaluate the current flood risk and identify potential interventions which could be introduced to reduce flood risk for that area. 4.36 Any cancellation of the project would require all capital expenditure incurred to date to be transferred to the revenue budget as there is no capital asset being created. The costs incurred to date are £1.98m which would need to be funded from Council reserves. 4.37 All consultations and notifications undertaken throughout the development of the scheme have set out the full delivery of the scheme. It is anticipated that the cancellation of the scheme would result in reputational damage to the Council. 4.38 Option 4 – Do Nothing Revenue Cost Summary £(m) West Dunbartonshire Council Funding (100%) 1.98 Total Costs Incurred to Date 1.98 4.39 Overall Option Summary Initial Estimate Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Total £20m £44.7m £39.2m £14.7m £1.98m West Dunbartonshire Council Contribution (20%) £4.0m £8.94m £7.84m £2.94m £1.98m Scottish Government Contribution (80%) £16.0m £35.76m £31.36m £11.76m N/A Whole Life Cost Benefit £70m £44m £26m N/A Cost Benefit Ratio 1.64 1.18 2.05 N/A Properties Protected 370 631 626 310 N/A The initial estimate was based on full delivery of the scheme in 2016. Page 266
Page 67
5. People Implications 5.1 There are no people implications associated with this proposal. 6. Financial and Procurement Implications 6.1 Taking account of the contributions anticipated from the Scottish Government the capital cost increase to the Council for full project delivery is £4.94m additional to the £4m in the original project scope. The borrowing requirement of £8.94m has an estimated revenue implication of £7.79m which will be spread over the life of the loan (at approximately £0.419m per annum – this estimate is based on a 40 year loan at 4.25% - this in indicative as the actual amount will depend on the interest rate when the borrowing occurs). The full costs to the Council of each of the four options is set out in the tables below CAPITAL Option 1 £m Option 2 £m Option 3 £m Option 4 £m WDC Contribution 8.94 7.84 2.94 N/A SG Contribution 35.76 31.26 11.76 N/A Total 44.70 39.10 14.70 N/A WDC REVENUE PER ANNUM Option 1 £m Option 2 £m Option 3 £m Option 4 £m Principal Repayment 0.224 0.196 0.074 N/A Interest on Principal 0.195 0.171 0.063 N/A Total 0.419 0.367 0.137 N/A WDC REVENUE 40 YEARS Option £m Option 2 £m Option 3 £m Option 4 £m Principal Repayment 8.94 7.84 2.94 N/A Interest on Principal 7.79 6.83 2.53 N/A Revenue in 25/26 0 0 0 1.98 Total 16.73 14.67 5.47 1.98 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OPTION 1 AND OTHER OPTIONS Option 1 £m Option 2 £m Option 3 £m Option 4 £m Per Annum 0 -0.052 -0.282 N/A 40 Years 0 -2.059 -11.264 -14.749 6.2 All options will also require legal and procurement support to ensure the construction tender is awarded by 31 March 2026. Page 267
Page 68
7. Risk Analysis 7.1 There is a risk with any project of the size and complexity of increased construction costs due to unforeseen difficulties. Any delay to construction commencing may also increase costs due to rising material costs, however an element of risk has been built into the current costs. 7.2 Mitigation measures and value engineering of design options was undertaken before costs were refined, therefore reducing some risks related to cost increases. 7.3 The funding supplied by Scottish Government in fixed at 80% of the final tender package. If final costs are higher (for example through compensation events or contract variations) no additional funding is payable. Any additional costs will need to be funded directly by the Council. 7.4 The Scottish Government have advised that they are currently considering whether new affordability measures are necessary to bring the overall programme of Cycle 1 flood schemes within the available funding envelope. However, the only measure in place at this time is the 31 March 2026 milestone for any remaining schemes. 8. Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) 8.1 A completed EIA was undertaken as part of the Detailed Design process and there have been no material changes in terms of impact on people with protected characteristics since. 9. Consultation 9.1 The detail contained within this report was considered by the Strategic Asset Management Group which is attended by representatives of all service areas. 10. Strategic Assessment 10.1 This report reflects the 2022 – 2027 Strategic Plan and in particular the following Strategic Priorities: • Our resources are used in an environmentally sustainable way • Our Council is adaptable and focused on delivering best value for our residents Chief Officer: Gail Macfarlane Service Area: Roads and Neighbourhood Date: 10 December 2025 Person to Contact: Liam Greene Roads and Transportation Manager Email: liam.greene@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Page 268
Page 69
Background Papers: IRED 15 September 2021 Gruggies Burn Flood Prevention Scheme Update IRED 2 November 2022 Flood Prevention Schemes - Levenhowe, River Leven and Gruggies Burn. Wards Affected: Dumbarton and Leven Wards Page 268A