Agenda item

Purpose: This report provides an update on the results of Phase 1 of the public consultation exercise in relation to the 2016/17 budget. It provides information on the total number of responses received to the consultation and details of the total number of responses received for each savings proposal.

The report also provides details of where “counter proposals” have been made by organisations and looks at those savings proposals which are currently funded by the public health grant.

Resolved:

(1)          That the responses received to each of the 47 public facing savings proposals in relation to Phase 1 of the public consultation exercise undertaken on the 2016/17 budget be noted.

(2)          That, should transitional funding not be considered appropriate, Full Council be recommended to progress each of the non public health grant funded savings proposals (29 individual proposals in total) and the one income proposal relating to car parking as set out in Appendix C.

(3)          That it be a recommendation to Council that those public health grant funded services set out in paragraph 3.4 of Appendix A and Appendix C totalling £114,000 be progressed.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

·      the item is due to be referred to Council for final approval.

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 7) which provided an update on the results of Phase 1 of the public consultation exercise in relation to the 2016/17 budget. The report provided information on the total number of responses received to the consultation and detailed the total number of responses received for each savings proposal.

The report also included details of where “counter proposals” had been made by organisations and looked at those savings proposals which were currently funded by the public health grant.

Councillor Roger Croft introduced the report by reminding those present that from 3 November 2015 to 14 December 2015, the Council consulted the public on the need to make £10.8m of savings in 2016/17. £4.6m of these savings affected frontline services. The consultation generated over 2,500 responses and covered 47 individual budget proposals. The feedback, which was very comprehensive, was contained within the agenda paperwork and Councillor Croft thanked the public for their comprehensive responses to the consultation.

Councillor Croft also placed on record his thanks for the significant amount of time that Members and Officers had spent, since the consultation closed on 14 December 2015, in reading and assessing all of the comments received. Provided within the agenda paperwork were the verbatim comments, a summary of comments template, an overview and recommendations template and Equality Impact Assessments for each of the 47 savings proposals, over 900 pages in total. 

During the course of the consultation, Members had been provided with a formal briefing note of the requirements placed on them in relation to the Public Sector Equality Duty, a copy of which had been provided to Members for this meeting. The Public Sector Equality Duty essentially required decision makers to keep the welfare of service users and their families at the forefront of their minds particularly those that were most disadvantaged.

The role of the Executive at this evening’s meeting was to provide a recommendation to Council on each of the 47 public facing savings proposals in order that a balanced budget could be agreed on 1 March 2016 and an overview template covering all 47 savings proposals with an appropriate recommendation was attached to the report. However, Councillor Croft advised that if the savings proposal was taken, this did not mean that the corresponding service would end. Through discussions triggered by the consultation, Councillor Croft was encouraged to see other local organisations, parish and town councils coming forward to offer some of the services outlined in the report which were subject to potential reductions.

Prior to making appropriate recommendations, Councillor Croft expressed publicly his disappointment as Leader of West Berkshire Council on receiving the Government’s Revenue Support Grant (RSG) Settlement consultation one week before Christmas. This consultation proposed a cut in the Council’s RSG by 44% or £8m in one year. The Council had been planning and working towards a proposed cut of 25%.

Having received this news Members, working with Officers, had spent a significant amount of time looking at where these additional savings could be found. The process of identifying Phase 1 savings was found to be very challenging, but Phase 2 savings had been even more difficult and disappointing. Councillor Croft was certain that fellow Members would agree that they did not become Councillors to close down important services valued by the District’s residents or to increase the Council Tax burden on residents.

Councillor Croft was then pleased to report that with the help of Richard Benyon MP and John Redwood MP, the Council had managed to persuade the Government that reducing West Berkshire’s budget by 44% in one year was a step too far. Accordingly he was pleased to say that the Council had been advised that the Government would provide transitional funding in 2016/17 of £1.39M and £1.37M in 2017/18. This was not a significant amount of additional funding and would not stretch too far, however Councillor Croft reported that he was committed to looking at those areas of feedback received in Phase 1 and would no doubt receive to Phase 2 savings proposals to assess where the Council might be able to provide some transitional funding to secure the future sustainability of a service.

The Phase 2 public facing savings proposals consultation would go ahead and would run from 15 February 2016 to 7 March 2016. As a result of the Government’s timing, the Council was only able to run a three week consultation timeline. However, the Government had recently issued consultation guidance which permitted a shorter timescale to be agreed where there were exceptional circumstances. Councillor Croft could not think of a more exceptional set of circumstances than the position the Council had been placed in.

Councillor Croft then took the opportunity to clarify how the decisions around the budget would be made given that the Council would set its budget on 1 March 2016 with the consultation still open. The Council would set its budget on 1 March 2016, but a request would also be made for the Executive, at its meeting on 21 April 2016, to be given delegated authority to adjust these plans afterwards should it need to. Once the consultation closed on 7 March 2016 the responses to the Council’s proposals would be fully considered. If any issues were raised, which required a change to the Council’s plans, the Executive would be able to respond accordingly.

Given that the Executive would be making a recommendation to Council, Councillor Croft did not see any value in rehearsing the debate which would be held at Council. However, Councillor Croft did offer Members the opportunity to make comments at this stage, perhaps to clarify something raised in the consultation or matters that had arisen post consultation.

In light of the finalised Government settlement, Councillor Croft advised of his wish to amend the recommendation set out in paragraph 2.2 of the report to enable Members to look at the implications of this and recommend to Council on 1 March 2016 any changes to plans should this be appropriate. Councillor Croft reiterated that the additional Government funding was for transitional purposes and any proposals considered would be on the basis of them becoming self sustainable in the future.

Councillor Croft then recommended the proposals in paragraphs 2.1, 2.2 (amended) and 2.3, with 2.2 proposed for amendment as follows:

‘That, should transitional funding not be considered appropriate, Full Council be recommended to progress each of the non public health grant funded savings proposals (29 individual proposals in total) and the one income proposal relating to car parking as set out in Appendix C.’

Councillor Marcus Franks made reference to the counter proposal that had been put forward for the CCTV savings proposal which he saw as an excellent example of the successes that could be achieved via consultation. In response to the consultation, Newbury Town Council working with Newbury Business Improvement District and Thames Valley Police were developing a proposal that would hopefully result in a CCTV system being retained in Newbury. Thatcham and Hungerford Town Councils, and Lambourn and Theale Parish Councils were also considering the potential to develop their own bespoke CCTV service.

Councillor Dominic Boeck made reference to the savings proposals for discretionary home to school transport. He specifically commented on the Mortimer to Willink School walking route and explained that Officers had rigorously assessed this route in line with national guidelines. However, to support this a second independent opinion had been sought to assess highways matters for this route and the outcome of this had supported the original Officer view. Councillor Boeck also advised that he was working with Officers with a view to the Council undertaking infrastructure works such as signage, drainage, vegetation maintenance and the implementation of a crossing on Goring Lane in order to improve this route, with appropriate levels of investment to be considered as part of this.

Other options proposed by Officers in relation to home to school transport included the potential for a seat to be offered for pupils, whose free entitlement to transport had ceased, on a fare payer basis; and for the Council to encourage schools and/or community groups to set up their own bus services.

Councillor Alan Law referred to the proposals for the 143 bus service, which was the subject of two of the petitions presented to tonight’s Executive. He explained that the Council’s subsidy had been placed under pressure following the decision of Oxfordshire County Council to end their subsidy. However, the strong local feeling to maintain this service was noted and Councillor Law felt that this was an area where committed local support could enable the service to continue at least in part. As an example, he was pleased to advise the Executive that Basildon Parish Council had offered a funding contribution of £10k for this service and he was hopeful that others would follow this example and make a similar contribution. Councillor Law also made the point that a minimal level of public use would enable the service to run without a need for any subsidy.

Councillor Law concluded his comments by thanking members of the public for their extremely informative consultation responses.

Councillor Alan Macro stated that was pleased that a review of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 consultation proposals would be undertaken in the light of the additional Government grant being received over the next two financial years. Councillor Macro explained that he had a number of serious concerns in relation to the proposed cuts, but advised that he would reserve his comments for the debate at Council on 1 March 2016 when the full budget paperwork and list of savings proposals would be available.

Councillor Mollie Lock referred to Councillor Boeck’s comments on home to school transport and stated that she was pleased that a second risk assessment had been undertaken on the Mortimer to Willink School route. She was however concerned that works to repair the routes to the school would be costly and the cost per day for a child to travel to school on a private bus would be high (around £8 per day) in comparison to the daily charge for a public bus (£1.90 return). She then asked whether the risk assessment was based on the full route which incorporated the woodlands and the bridleway. In response, Councillor Boeck confirmed that the full route was assessed, this included Wokefield Common and Goring Lane. He also reiterated that the route was considered alongside national highways guidelines.

Councillor Lee Dillon sought to understand whether the Phase 2 consultation would make reference to the Phase 1 proposals so that residents could understand wider impacts, i.e. a cut to a library service in an area further exacerbating the impact of cuts to public transport in the same area. Councillor Croft responded to this query by explaining that there had been a significant level of signposting to Phase 1 proposals and this would be likewise for Phase 2 when it went live on Monday 15 February 2016. Consideration had also already been given to the impact caused by proposals on one another and potential mitigation. Andy Day added that the Phase 1 proposals remained on the Council’s website and there would therefore be the ability for members of the public to consider what was proposed for Phase 2 alongside the earlier proposals.

Councillor Dillon then queried whether website links would be included which directed the individual to related proposals. Andy Day agreed this could be considered outside of the meeting, but stated that it was important for ease of access to the consultation to be established and the inclusion of different links to separate pages could complicate the process.

Councillor James Fredrickson informed Members that dialogue had been ongoing with the press to continue to help raise awareness of the Council’s plans and its consultation exercises. It was important to hold an inclusive consultation process and Councillor Fredrickson felt that the additional Government funding put the Council in a better position in terms of the ability to respond to consultation comments.

RESOLVED that:

1.    the responses received to each of the 47 public facing savings proposals in relation to Phase 1 of the public consultation exercise undertaken on the 2016/17 budget be noted.

2.    should transitional funding not be considered appropriate, Full Council be recommended to progress each of the non public health grant funded savings proposals (29 individual proposals in total) and the one income proposal relating to car parking as set out in Appendix “C”.

3.    it be a recommendation to Council that those public health grant funded services set out in paragraph 3.4 of Appendix “A” and Appendix “C”) totalling £114,000 be progressed.

Reason for the decision: to enable the Council to set a balanced budget for the 2016/17 financial year.

Other options considered: None. The Council is required to consult on its 2016/17 budget by virtue of the Equality Act 2010 and particularly in relation to any proposals which might have a public impact.