Agenda item

To consider and agree the 2017-18 Revenue Budget, which proposes a Council Tax requirement of £88.4m requiring a Council Tax increase of 1.99% in 2017-18 with a 3% precept ring-fenced for Adult Social Care. The Council Tax increase and Adult Social Care precept will raise £4.2m, leaving a gap of £4.7m to be met from savings and income in 2017-18.

This report also proposes the Fees and Charges for 2017-18 as set out in Appendix H, the Parish Special Expenses as set out in Appendix I and recommends the level of General Reserves as set out in Appendix F and Appendix G.

(All Members had been granted a dispensation by the Monitoring Officer to speak and vote on this item).

(Councillors Billy Drummond, Lee Dillon, Mollie Lock, Lynne Doherty, Jeanette Clifford, Dominic Boeck, Hilary Cole, Rick Jones, Mike Johnston, Steve Ardagh-Walter, Richard Crumly, Rob Denton-Powell, Anthony Pick, Richard Somner, Adrian Edwards, Carol Jackson-Doerge, James Fredrickson, Howard Bairstow, Marigold Jaques and Dave Goff declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 16 by virtue of the fact that they were dual hatted Members and a number of proposals would affect them in that capacity. As their interest was personal and not an other registrable nor a disclosable pecuniary interest they determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Marigold Jaques declared an other registrable interest in Agenda Item 16 by virtue of the fact that she was a trustee of the Citizen’s Advice Bureau. As she had a fiduciary duty to this trust she determined to leave the Chamber during the discussion of this item and did not take part in the vote).

(Councillor Carol Jackson-Doerge declared an other registrable interest in Agenda Item 16 by virtue of the fact that she was a trustee of the Newbury Corn Exchange. As she had a fiduciary duty to this trust she determined to leave the Chamber during the discussion of this item and did not take part in the vote).

(Councillors Marigold Jaques and Carol Jackson-Doerge left the meeting at 7.25pm and returned at 8.27pm). 

The Chairman clarified the rules of debate for this item which had been agreed by both Group Leaders prior to the meeting. Both Leaders would be permitted to speak for up to ten minutes and their presentations should include the submission of any amendments. All Portfolio and Shadow Portfolio Holders would be permitted to speak for up to five minutes on the Motion and amendments with all other Members being allowed two and a half minutes to speak.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 16) concerning the 2017/2018 Revenue Budget, which proposed a Council Tax requirement of £88.4m which, in turn, would mean a Council Tax increase of 1.99% in 2017/18 with a 3% precept ring-fenced for Adult Social Care. The Council Tax increase and Adult Social Care precept would raise £4.2m, leaving a gap of £4.7m to be met from savings and income in 2017/18.

The report also proposed the Fees and Charges schedule for 2017/18 as set out in Appendix H, the Parish Special Expenses as set out in Appendix I and recommended the level of General Reserves as set out in Appendix F and Appendix G.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Graham Jones and seconded by Councillor Anthony Chadley:

That the Council:

1.    “Approves the 2017-18 Council Tax requirement of £88.4 million requiring a Council Tax increase of 1.99% with a 3% precept ring-fenced for Adult Social Care.

2.    Approves the Fees and Charges as set out in Appendix H and the appropriate statutory notices be placed where required.

3.    Approves the Parish Special Expenses as set out in Appendix I.

4.    Acknowledges and notes the responses received to each of the public facing savings proposals in the public consultation exercise undertaken on the 2017/18 budget and that the Transition Grant of £1.37m be allocated as follows:

a)            £140k to Short Breaks

b)            £30k to Citizens Advice Bureau

c)            £200k to Libraries

d)            £1m to be put into a Transformation Fund, to assist West Berkshire Council to transform and improve the way it delivers its services.

5.    Notes the following amounts for the year 2017/18 in accordance with regulations made under Section 31B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended (by the Localism Act 2011):-

a)            64,084.15 being the amount calculated by the Council, (Item T) in accordance with regulation 31B of the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) Regulations 1992 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011), as its council tax base for the year.

b)            Part of the Council’s area as per Appendix M being the amounts calculated by the Council, in accordance with regulation 6 of the Regulations, as the amounts of its council tax base for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which a Parish precept relates.

6.    Calculates that the Council Tax requirement for the Council’s own purposes for 2017/18 (excluding Parish precepts) is £88,366,272.

7.    Agrees that the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2017-18 in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, amended by the Localism Act 2011:-

a)            £280,592,545 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(2), (a) to (f) of the Act taking into account all precepts issued to it by Parish Councils.

b)            £188,154,769 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(3), (a) to (d) of the Act.

c)            £92,437,776 being the amount by which the aggregate at 7(a) above, exceeds the aggregate at 7(b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 31A(4) of the Act, as its Council Tax requirement for the year (Item R).

d)            £1442.44 being the amount at 7(c) above (Item R), all divided by 5(a) above (Item T), calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 31B of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year (including Parish precepts).

e)            £4,071,504 being the aggregate amount of all special items (Parish precepts) referred to in Section 34(1) of the Act (as per Appendix M).

f)             £1378.91 being the amount at 7(d) above less the result given by dividing the amount at 7(e) above by the amount at 5(a) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 34(2) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which no special items relates.

8.    Notes that for the year 2017/18, the Police and Crime Commissioner for the Thames Valley and The Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service have issued precepts to the Council in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 for each category of dwellings in the Council’s area as indicated in Appendix M.

9.    Agrees that the Council, in accordance with Sections 30 and 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, hereby sets the aggregate amounts shown in the tables in Appendix M as the amounts of Council Tax for 2017-18 for each part of its area and for each of the categories of dwellings.”

Councillor Graham Jones stated that he was presenting this speech in tragic circumstances. Much of what he was going to say was based on the draft speech that Councillor Roger Croft had put together in the weeks leading up to the meeting.

He stated that Local Government had changed completely in England in December 2015 when the four year Settlement was announced. The Council’s budget was cut to an unprecedented depth. In fact West Berkshire Council was the third hardest hit unitary authority in the country.  

In terms of the context of the 2017/18 Revenue Budget the Council would receive Council Tax and other income of £98m and the authority would collect business rates of £85m, a total of £183m. If the authority was able to retain all this income it would more than cover the £117m the Council needed.

However, nationally the country’s finances remained perilous and therefore it was recognised that the Government’s primary focus had to be to deal with the deficit. The Administration supported the principle of making Councils more locally financially accountable.

In 2011 the equivalent of Revenue Support Grant (RSG) the Council received was over £33m and in 2017/18 it would only receive £3.7m. In addition the Valuations Office Agency had cut the Council’s business rate yield by £800k every year. Councillor Graham Jones reminded Members that Local Government as a whole in England retained 50% of business rates. In 2017/18 the Council expected to collect £85m in local business rates and would have to pass £66m back to Central Government. This represented a retention rate of only 22.7% and it was expected that this retention rate would continue to fall. Over the next three year period the Council would collect £2m extra in local business rates but would pass £3m extra back to Central Government. 

To replace what had been lost in the cuts to RSG the Council would need to retain at least 38% of the business rates collected. It was with regret that Councillor Graham Jones had to announce a 1.99% rise in Council Tax for the forthcoming year.

The Acting Leader explained that nearly half of the Council’s budget was spent on Social Care. He reported that 28,000 people in West Berkshire were over the age of 65 and this number continued to grow by 3.3% every year. The Council’s challenge, working with partners in the National Health Service, was to both maintain quality and contain cost. The enactment of the Care Act in 2014 had created an extra financial burden on the Council of £3m per annum. The Council was promised financial relief for this extra burden but this had not materialised. It was therefore with regret, that in order to maintain the Council’s commitments to older people, a 3% increased ring-fenced precept had to be levied to fund Adult Social Care.

Councillor Graham Jones noted that Children and Family Services (CFS) had undertaken a programme of fundamental change to implement service improvement subsequent to their Ofsted in May 2015. The overarching aim was to improve outcomes for children, young people and their families and a range of improvements had been implemented across the service. He thanked all those involved in that journey. A number of initiatives had been implemented including the creation of a Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) and the formation of a new Children In Care Team.

Councillor Graham Jones highlighted the fact that the Council would continue to help communities to help themselves and it had been encouraging to see communities come together to take over some of the services that were not statutory but that were valuable to local communities.

Councillor Graham Jones noted that the Council would continue to seek ways to generate income including the joint venture with Greenham Common Trust that Councillor Roger Croft was championing. He noted the collective decision to reduce the number of Councillors from 52 to 42, despite the additional work this would place on Members. He stated that this underlined how seriously Members were about transforming the Council. 

The Council’s Reserves were being kept at prudent levels and no more. The Council had listened to views emanating from the public consultation and as a consequence the Council was proposing to allocate money from the Transition Grant to short breaks, CAB and Libraries. It was also being proposed that a Transformation Fund be set up to continue the necessary changes in the way services were delivered.

Councillor Graham Jones reminded Members of the requirement to set a balanced budget and he therefore commended the Revenue Budget to Council.

Councillor Anthony Chadley in seconding the Motion reiterated the inequality of how business rates were collected and re-distributed. He too was disappointed that the Council had been forced to increase council tax by 1.99% and also had to take up the Government’s proposal of a 3% precept for Adult Social Care (ASC) He noted that around a third of the Council’s budget was spent on ASC. The increases would generate an additional £4.2 million of income, against a funding gap of just under £9million and would mean that the Council would be able to minimise its savings requirement. There would, however, still be a need to generate £5m worth of savings in 2017/18 or other ways of generating income.

The Council had decided to protect ASC by ring-fencing 1% of the precept as an ASC Risk Fund to mitigate against the eventuality of increases in demand that was outside its forecasting model. Councillor Chadley commented that setting the budget had not been an easy task and year on year the Council would have to keep on searching for ways to meet the ongoing demand on its services. He commented that he had read all the budget consultation responses and thanked all those residents that had participated in the consultation process. Councillor Chadley commented that difficult decisions had to be made against conflicting needs and a perfect outcome for all was not possible.

He was pleased to note that, as a result of the consultation, transitional funding would be allocated as follows: £140k for short breaks for disabled children, £200k for libraries and £30k for the Citizens Advice Bureau. The remaining £1million would be allocated to a Transformation Fund.

Councillor Lee Dillon stated that the budget was being proposed against a backdrop of cuts to vital public services. He accepted that the Council had difficult choices to make with regards to fulfilling the legal responsibility of producing a balanced budget. His Group however disagreed on which services to cut to achieve this. He hoped that the local Members of Parliament had visibility of the list of 73 savings proposals and understood their impact. He hoped that this information was being fed back to Central Government.

Councillor Dillon noted that his Group had asked for transitional funding to be secured earlier for Short Breaks which would have mitigated some of the pain arising from the cuts. It would have provided assurance to those impacted some time ago rather than worrying for the many months as they had been. 

He stated that CAB provided an invaluable service to residents across the District and with more and more assessments being needed to access services and benefits the Council should be seeking to support the CAB as much as possible.

Councillor Dillon welcomed the transition funding allocated to the library service but lamented that this funding should have been dealt with much earlier in the year. He was of the opinion that the misguided approach of proposing to close all the libraries in the first instance had contributed to the delay. His biggest concern was that the transitional money was being put into a transformational fund rather than being used now when it was desperately needed. 

AMENDMENT: Proposed by Councillor Lee Dillon and seconded by Councillor Billy Drummond

That the Council:

(i)            “That the car parking tariffs be amended as per the supporting appendix which effectively reduces the increases on the first hour by 10p, with some of the estimated shortfall being met by increasing the costs on some of the longer stay options. The estimated annual budget shortfall would be £23k to be funded from the Transitional Grant.

(ii)           That the Home to School Transport (HTST) Grant be reduced from £250 to £100 instead of zero, and the shortfall funded by use of the Transitional Grant of circa £7k.

(iii)         That the proposed £200k saving relating to drainage repairs and maintenance not be approved and instead the shortfall be met using the Transitional Grant.”

Councillor Dillon stated that the proposal to increase parking fees by 20p in the first hour would disadvantage shoppers and would hurt local businesses. They were therefore proposing that the price should only be increased by 10p in the first hour and that the shortfall should be met from increasing the cost of longer stay options.

His Group were also proposing that reduction in the Home to School Transport Grant be more gradual and that for 2017/18 it should be reduced to £100 instead of £0.

He stated that the lack of maintenance of drainage had contributed to both the 1967 and 2007 floods and cutting this budget might jeopardise properties in the event of a future flood. He therefore requested that the reduction in this budget be reversed. Councillor Dillon requested that each of the amendments be voted on as a separate item.

He noted that residents were being asked to pay an extra 5% in taxes in 2017/18. He accepted that 3% would be spent on the funding crisis that the country was facing with regards to Adult Social Care which he felt was an area that needed a better solution. As residents were being asked to pay more for less he could not support the budget.

Councillor Jeanette Clifford stated that if Members were minded to accept the amendment in respect of car parking charges the proposal would have to be consulted on again. This would incur a cost as a result of lost income and it was estimated that this would be in the region of £20k. In preparing the budget much thought had gone into the preparation of the fee schedule and it was deemed fairer to increase the costs for short term parking rather than to charge those people parking all day. Research indicated that it was the availability of accessible parking that attracted shoppers to an area rather than decisions based on cost. The Council had a responsibility to build a whole budget and had to live within its means and while she was reluctant to increase parking charges it was necessary in the context of the overall budget. She would therefore not be supporting that amendment.

A lot of thought had also gone into the decision to reduce the drainage budget. This was a difficult decision, work would continue but with a smaller budget and the work would be undertaken in a different way. She understood the anxiety around this issue but felt that this was the right choice.

Councillor Tony Linden commented that difficult decisions had to be made and he could therefore not support the amendments.

Councillor Lynne Doherty stated that she found the amendments pertaining to Home to School Transport to be a little confusing. As she understood it the amendment pertained to the subsidy afforded to some parents on a fare paying scheme. The Council had spoken to that cohort of parents in 2015 as they were the first to be affected and they were therefore aware of the removal of the subsidy. It should be noted that other parents were already paying these costs. She could therefore not support the amendment.

Councillor Billy Drummond urged Members to support the amendments proposed by Councillor Dillon.

Councillor Dillon commented that even if parents were informed about the changes to the Home to School Transport proposals in 2015 the additional costs would still be difficult for some families to manage. He reiterated that the reports commissioned after the 2007 floods had stated that the maintenance of gullies had been a contributory factor to the floods. The Authority had a duty to protect property and life.

Councillor Graham Jones stated that he did not accept Councillor Dillon’s extrapolation in respect of flooding. While he noted that the Opposition could point out problems the Administration had to identify solutions. He commented that it was not possible to allocate funding for Short Breaks prior to the consultation being concluded as the Council could be deemed to have predetermined the outcome of the consultation. Delaying the removal of the subsidy for Home to School Transport would merely defer the problem. He therefore did not support the amendments.

Each of the amendments were voted on separately.

Prior to the vote being taken the Deputy Monitoring Officer announced that the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/165) (2014 Regulations) came into came into effect on the 25 February 2014 and as a consequence the Council was required to record the names of Members voting for and against the budget proposals.

For Amendment i):

Councillors Lee Dillon, Billy Drummond and Mollie Lock.

Against Amendment i)

Councillors Steve Ardagh-Walter, Peter Argyle, Howard Bairstow, Pamela Bale, Jeremy Bartlett, Dominic Boeck, Graham Bridgman, Paul Bryant, Anthony Chadley, Keith Chopping, Jeanette Clifford, Hilary Cole, Richard Crumly, Rob Denton-Powell, Lynne Doherty, Adrian Edwards, Marcus Franks, James Fredrickson, Dave Goff, Nick Goodes, Clive Hooker, Carol Jackson-Doerge, Marigold Jaques, Mike Johnston, Graham Jones, Rick Jones, Alan Law, Tony Linden, Gordon Lundie, Tim Metcalfe, Ian Morrin, Graham Pask, Anthony Pick, James Podger, Garth Simpson, Richard Somner, Virginia von Celsing, Quentin Webb, Emma Webster and Laszlo Zverko

For Amendment ii):

Councillors Lee Dillon, Billy Drummond and Mollie Lock.

Against Amendment ii)

Councillors Steve Ardagh-Walter, Peter Argyle, Howard Bairstow, Pamela Bale, Jeremy Bartlett, Dominic Boeck, Graham Bridgman, Paul Bryant, Anthony Chadley, Keith Chopping, Jeanette Clifford, Hilary Cole, Richard Crumly, Rob Denton-Powell, Lynne Doherty, Adrian Edwards, Marcus Franks, James Fredrickson, Dave Goff, Nick Goodes, Clive Hooker, Carol Jackson-Doerge, Marigold Jaques, Mike Johnston, Graham Jones, Rick Jones, Alan Law, Tony Linden, Gordon Lundie, Tim Metcalfe, Ian Morrin, Graham Pask, Anthony Pick, James Podger, Garth Simpson, Richard Somner, Virginia von Celsing, Quentin Webb, Emma Webster and Laszlo Zverko

For Amendment iii):

Councillors Lee Dillon, Billy Drummond and Mollie Lock.

Against Amendment iii)

Councillors Steve Ardagh-Walter, Peter Argyle, Howard Bairstow, Pamela Bale, Jeremy Bartlett, Dominic Boeck, Graham Bridgman, Paul Bryant, Anthony Chadley, Keith Chopping, Jeanette Clifford, Hilary Cole, Richard Crumly, Rob Denton-Powell, Lynne Doherty, Adrian Edwards, Marcus Franks, James Fredrickson, Dave Goff, Nick Goodes, Clive Hooker, Carol Jackson-Doerge, Marigold Jaques, Mike Johnston, Graham Jones, Rick Jones, Alan Law, Tony Linden, Gordon Lundie, Tim Metcalfe, Ian Morrin, Graham Pask, Anthony Pick, James Podger, Garth Simpson, Richard Somner, Virginia von Celsing, Quentin Webb, Emma Webster and Laszlo Zverko

Each of the Amendments were put to the vote (as set out above) and declared LOST.

Members then returned to the Substantive Motion.

Councillor Rick Jones stated that new methods of working were already delivering savings in the Adult Social Care arena. Like most other areas in the country the Council was facing a growth in demand. The average costs of an Adult Social Care client was £17k per annum and £44k per annum for clients with learning difficulties. Clients with more complex needs could cost the Council significantly more each year. A relatively modest increase in numbers could have a big impact on the Council’s finances. Although he regretted the need for the 3% increase in the ASC precept, savings had been taken as far as they could for the moment and this extra funding was therefore needed in order to set a balanced budget.

Councillor Marcus Franks stated that local government was having to do a lot more with a lot less. The Council was therefore seeking ways to reduce costs. This included the creation of shared services which reduced costs but also increased resilience across the authorities. The Council was also seeking to invest in property which would either generate income or offset costs. One of the themes of the budget was getting communities to help themselves and a new Building Communities Together Team was being created in order to facilitate this.

Councillor Franks commented that the CAB was a non statutory service but following the consultation it was agreed that £30k of transitional funding would be awarded to them again in 2017/18. The service would need to be transformed in light of the diminished funding. They were confident that they would be able to transform and adapt whilst continuing to deliver this valued service.

Councillor Mollie Lock commented that the Education Act required the Council to provide Home to School Transport for Post 16 children that had special education needs or disabilities. She stated that the proposed savings would have a profound effect on these vulnerable residents many of whom had complex physical needs. It would also cause additional financial and emotional strain on their families. These young people were also most likely to have to attend schools which were further away from their homes as their needs could often not be met at their local school.

Councillor Dominic Boeck commented that the library service was having to transform and the Council was in the process of consulting with the town and parish councils as well as community groups as to how this transformation could be achieved. New working models would be put in place as had been agreed at the Extraordinary Council meeting on the 7 February 2017.

Councillor Alan Law stated that while he supported the budget he was reluctant to support the Council Tax increase of 4.99% and he hoped that this was a one off increase. He noted that the single biggest cost to the Council was employee costs. He noted that the previous year the Communities Directorate had overspent their original staff budget by £4 million and then went on to overspend their revised staff budget by a further £2million. In 2015/16 they had also spent £5.2 million on agency staff despite only budgeting for £1m. He was of the opinion that when staff costs exceeded the budget in year cuts had to be made. He therefore urged the Administration to focus on staff budgeting and monitoring during the forthcoming year and requested that this information be incorporated into the quarterly performance monitoring data. 

Councillor Emma Webster commented that the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission would be looking at the impact transitioning from Children’s Services to Adult Social Care had on vulnerable residents.

Councillor Lynne Doherty commented that Children and Family Services continued to build on its successes. The progress made in respect of the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hubs was well documented. A new Children in Care Team had been established to look after the 149 children who were currently in care. Investment was being put into looking after children that most needed protection. Councillor Doherty reminded Members of the volatile nature of these frontline services.

She was particularly pleased to see that some of the transitional funding had been set aside for Short Breaks in recognition of the great work provided by this service. The Council was already working collaboratively with the Chief Executive Officer of Dingley’s Promise to ensure that this service was not adversely affected by a diminution of funding from the Council.

In terms of Post 16 Transport for vulnerable children, the Council would continue to provide this service but while it would not be free, there were bursaries available that parents could apply for. It was felt that it would be preferable to consider each application on its own merits rather than apply a blanket policy.

Councillor James Fredrickson stated that the Administration was being forced to make real choices and had to base decisions on conflicting needs.  The Council would have to make tough decisions now for the future.

Councillor Graham Jones commented that he had first presented a budget to Council in 2006. The challenges and expectations then were very different to now. The challenge in 2006 was to end the culture of increasing expenditure fuelled by council tax hikes which in West Berkshire became the highest cumulative rises in the country. 

He explained that the challenge now was to not just spend money as carefully as possible but also to ensure that high quality vital services were maintained for the most vulnerable in society. The Council was forced to make tough decisions. As a Leader who presided over the lowest cumulative Council Tax rises in the Council’s history it gave him no pleasure to be proposing the increase but he did so in the knowledge that it was the right thing to do.

Prior to the vote being taken the Deputy Monitoring Officer announced that the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/165) (2014 Regulations) came into came into effect on the 25 February 2014 and as a consequence the Council was required to record the names of Members voting for and against the budget proposals.

For the Substantive Motion

Councillors Steve Ardagh-Walter, Peter Argyle, Howard Bairstow, Pamela Bale, Jeremy Bartlett, Dominic Boeck, Graham Bridgman, Paul Bryant, Anthony Chadley, Keith Chopping, Jeanette Clifford, Hilary Cole, Richard Crumly, Rob Denton-Powell, Lynne Doherty, Adrian Edwards, Marcus Franks, James Fredrickson, Dave Goff, Nick Goodes, Clive Hooker, Carol Jackson-Doerge, Marigold Jaques, Mike Johnston, Graham Jones, Rick Jones, Alan Law, Tony Linden, Gordon Lundie, Tim Metcalfe, Ian Morrin, Graham Pask, Anthony Pick, James Podger, Garth Simpson, Richard Somner, Virginia von Celsing, Quentin Webb, Emma Webster and Laszlo Zverko

Against the Substantive Motion:

Councillors Lee Dillon, Billy Drummond and Mollie Lock.

The Substantive Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.