To report any issues with the information below please email executivecycle@westberks.gov.uk.

Agenda item

Revenue Budget 2018/19 (C3277)

To consider and recommend to Council the 2018/19 Revenue Budget, which proposes a Council Tax requirement of £94.84m requiring a Council Tax increase of 2.99% in 2018/19 with a 3% precept ring-fenced for Adult Social Care. The Council Tax increase will raise £2.7m and the precept will raise a further £2.7m ring-fenced for Adult Social Care.

This report also proposes the Fees and Charges for 2018/19 as set out in Appendix H and 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. 

Minutes:

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

(Councillors Steve Ardagh-Walter, Jeff Beck, Dominic Boeck, Jason Collis, Richard Crumly, Lynne Doherty, Adrian Edwards, Dave Goff and Anthony Pick declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 17 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 Jeff Beck declared a personal interest in Agenda item 17 by virtue of the fact that he was a Council appointed Trustee of The Corn Exchange (Newbury) Trust Limited, Readibus and Volunteer Centre West Berkshire. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Jeanette Clifford declared a personal interest in Agenda item 17 by virtue of the fact that she was a Governor and Foundation Governor of St. Bartholomew’s School, a Trustee of the Charity of Mrs. Mable Luke and a Governor of South Central Ambulance Service. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial she was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Jason Collis declared a personal interest in Agenda item 17 by virtue of the fact that he was a substitute on the City Deal Joint Committee. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Lynne Doherty declared a personal interest in Agenda item 17 by virtue of the fact that her husband was co-opted onto Shaw-cum-Donnington Parish Council. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial she was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Rick Jones declared a personal interest in Agenda item 17 by virtue of the fact that he was a Council representative on WB Mencap and a member of West Berkshire Disability Alliance. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Tim Metcalfe declared a personal interest in Agenda item 17 by virtue of the fact that he was a Trustee of the Adventure Dolphin (Pangbourne) Charity. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Chairman clarified the rules of debate for this item which had been agreed by both Group Leaders prior to the meeting. Firstly, Councillor Graham Jones would move the Motion as set out in the agenda which would be seconded by Councillor Anthony Chadley. During his presentation Councillor Graham Jones would speak to the report and would also introduce his two amendments. Councillor Jones would be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes. Following Councillor Graham Jones’ introduction the Council would consider each of the proposed amendments in turn once they had been seconded, the first by Councillor Dillon and the second by Councillor Chadley. Councillor Lee Dillon would then respond to the Motion. He would have up to 10 minutes to speak.

All Portfolio and Shadow Portfolio Holders would be permitted to speak for up to five minutes on the Motion and the amendment with all other Members being allowed 2.5 minutes.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 17) concerning the 2018/19 Revenue Budget, which proposed a Council Tax requirement of £94.84m requiring a Council Tax increase of 2.99% in 2018/19 with a 3% precept ring-fenced for Adult Social Care. The Council Tax increase would raise £2.7m and the precept would raise a further £2.7m ring-fenced for Adult Social Care. The report also proposed the Fees and Charges for 2018/19 as set out in Appendix H and the Parish Special Expenses as set out in Appendix I, and recommended the level of General Reserves as set out in Appendices F and G.

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

That the Council:

“(1)    approves the 2018/19 Council Tax requirement of £94.84 million, based on accepting Business Rates Pilot status across Berkshire, requiring a Council Tax increase of 2.99% 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)     acknowledge and note the responses received to each of the public facing savings proposals in the public consultation exercise undertaken on the 2018/19 budget.

(5)     recommend that if the Garden Waste Collection Service is approved then delegated authority be granted to the Head of Transport and Countryside in consultation with the Section 151 Officer, Monitoring Officer and the Portfolio Holder for Waste to enable the necessary contract changes to be made to facilitate the changes to the Garden Waste Collection Service.

(6)     note the following amounts for the year 2018/19 in accordance with regulations made under Section 31B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended (by the Localism Act 2011):-

(a)     £64,890.66 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.

(7)     calculate that the Council Tax requirement for the Council’s own purposes for 2018/19 (excluding Parish precepts) is £94,838,347.

(8)     calculate the following amounts by the Council for the year 2018/19 in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, amended by the Localism Act 2011:-

(a)     £312,550,626 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)     £213,525,349 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)     £99,025,277 being the amount by which the aggregate at 8(a) above, exceeds the aggregate at 8(b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with the Section 31A(4) of the Act, as its Council Tax requirement for the year (Item R).

(d)     £1526.03 being the amount at 8(c) above (Item R), all divided by 6(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)     £4,186,930 being the aggregate amount of all special items (Parish precepts) referred to in Section 34(1) of the Act (as per Appendix M).

(f)      £1461.51 being the amount at 8(d) above less the result given by dividing the amount at 8(e) above by the amount at 6(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.

(9)     note that for the year 2018/19, Police and Crime Commissioner for Thames Valley & 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 Councils area as indicated in Appendix M.

(10)   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 2018/19 for each part of its area and for each of the categories of dwellings.”

Councillor Graham Jones reported  that ensuring that the Council delivered a fair and balanced budget that worked for every resident of the district was absolutely vital and he believed that this had been achieved. 

Over the past five years the Council had faced increasing demands for its core services, coupled with reduced funding. In 2013/14 the grant from Central Government was almost £24m and that grant was now virtually zero. Growth in other income streams had helped to mitigate this, but taking inflation into account there had been a real term reduction in the Council’s spending of £10.5m each year compared to 2013/14. West Berkshire had become one of the first areas in the country that was self-financing. As most of its business rates had been passed back to Central Government West Berkshire was a net contributor of £64m to the Government.

Budgets were particularly under strain as a result of the spiralling cost of adult social care, which represented almost 40% of the Council’s budget. It was estimated that by 2036 there would be two adults of working age for every one retired. Caring for the most vulnerable was one of the most important things the Council did. It was the right thing to do and the Council did it well. Through the ground breaking accountable care pilot with the NHS, the Council could look to mitigate the effects of this and improve patient care but the fact remained that the Council would have a significant adult social care bill. However, in spite of these challenges, there was also a lot to celebrate.

The Council Strategy set out in 2015 by Councillor Lundie outlined the key priorities that were at the heart of all the Council did. The past year had seen a great deal of achievement in these priority areas.

With its Berkshire partners, the Council had successfully bid to become part of the next business rates retention pilot, which would allow it to raise and spend more of the business rates locally. The Council collected £86m in business rates every year, £64m of which were returned to Central Government. Being able to retain the majority of this in Berkshire would ensure that it could be spent on infrastructure and services that really made a difference to the District.

Councillor Graham Jones commented that all service budgets had been gone through in great detail. Officers, Members and the public had examined where savings could be made, how it could work differently and which services should be prioritised. This was done very clearly when the Council consulted on this year’s budget. The public expressed their view as to how important the Citizens Advice Bureau’s services were and this was reflected in one of the amendments.

Any future savings made would be more challenging than those that had gone before. Without funding, the Council would not be in a position to provide the services its residents needed. Therefore, like many other Councils, it was with regret that a Council Tax rise of 5.99% was proposed, comprising 2.99% on basic Council Tax and a 3% Adult Social Care precept. The Leader commented that this was an immensely difficult decision to take. To put this budget into context, although this increase would generate an additional £5.4 million for the Council’s budget, a combination of inflation and the removal of Revenue Support Grant meant that the Council actually had less to spend on its essential services.

The outcome of the next few months and years could not be foreseen. What was clear was that West Berkshire remained a fantastic place to live, work and learn.

AMENDMENT 1: Proposed by Councillor Graham Jones and seconded by Councillor Lee Dillon:

That the Council:

“replace the proposed saving relating to on street charging shown on page 263 of the agenda papers (and below) with a general efficiency savings target for the Transport and Countryside Service of the same value”.

 

Line 46

Income from further on street charging

This proposal builds on income from on-street charging by introducing pay to park mobile phone at Broadway and High Street, Thatcham

Income

£10,900

 

Councillor Lee Dillon welcomed the cross party support for this amendment. He noted that the Town Council had been unanimous in its wish to not see the charges introduced as were the Chamber of Commerce.

The Substantive Motion was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 4.15.2 it was requisitioned that the voting on the Amendment be recorded. The names of those Members voting for, against and abstaining were read to the Council as follows:

FOR the Motion:

Councillors Steve Ardagh-Walter, Howard Bairstow, Jeremy Bartlett, Jeff Beck, Dennis Benneyworth, Dominic Boeck, Graham Bridgman, Paul Bryant, Anthony Chadley, Keith Chopping, Jeanette Clifford, Hilary Cole, Jason Collis, Richard Crumly, Rob Denton-Powell, Lee Dillon, Lynne Doherty, Adrian Edwards, James Fredrickson, Dave Goff, Carol Jackson-Doerge, Graham Jones, Rick Jones, Gordon Lundie, Tim Metcalfe, Graham Pask, Anthony Pick, Garth Simpson, Richard Somner, Anthony Stansfeld, Quentin Webb and Emma Webster.

AGAINST the Motion:

None

ABSTAINED:

None

AMENDMENT 2: Proposed by Councillor Graham Jones and seconded by Councillor Anthony Chadley:

That the Council:

“amend Appendix H3 Fees and Charges – Environment Directorate”.

Description

2017/18

2018/19 Proposed

Notes

Newbury Season Ticket Prices:

Newbury “General”, Per Quarter

 

£350.00

 

£350.00

 

No change

Other Licences and Charges:

 

 

 

Sewerage treatment property charge

 

£335.00

 

£368.50

Applicable to properties not connected to mains drainage but to WBC owned sewerage treatment plants.

Public Transport:

 

 

 

Provision of information at bus stops for services not subsidised by WBC

per stop

 

 

£10.00

 

 

£11.00

 

Concession bus pass replacement fee

£15.00

£16.50

 

Highway search enquiries:

 

 

 

One A4 plan covering 100 metres of highway

£45.00

£49.50

 

Additional 100 metres

£12.00

£13.20

 

Additional question

£12.00

£13.20

 

Provision of Data:

 

 

 

Provision of recorded injury accident Data

 

£125.00 + £40.00 per additional block of up to 10 accidents

 

£137.50 +

£44 per additional block of up to 10 accidents

 

Cost per request for up to and including 10 recorded injury accidents. There will be a further charge of £44.00 for up to each additional block of 10 recorded injury accidents (e.g. 11-20 accidents would cost £181.50; 21-30 accidents would cost £225.50 etc).

Highways Development Control Fees:

 

 

 

Production of current statutory undertakers schedule for commercial companies

 

£55.00

 

£60.50

 

Goldwell Park and Newbury Football Club:

 

 

 

Up to 4 hours

£1.00

£1.00

Football Club charges reduced to align with Goldwell Park from 2018/19

Over 4 hours

£2.00

£2.00

Football Club charges reduced to align with Goldwell Park from 2018/19

No Evening Charge

 

 

 

 

Councillor Graham Jones stated that this was a correction to the documentation issued and he did not have any additional comments to make.

The Substantive  Motion was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 4.15.2 it was requisitioned that the voting on the Amendment be recorded. The names of those Members voting for, against and abstaining were read to the Council as follows:

FOR the Motion:

Councillors Steve Ardagh-Walter, Howard Bairstow, Jeremy Bartlett, Jeff Beck, Dennis Benneyworth, Dominic Boeck, Graham Bridgman, Paul Bryant, Anthony Chadley, Keith Chopping, Jeanette Clifford, Hilary Cole, Jason Collis, Richard Crumly, Rob Denton-Powell, Lee Dillon, Lynne Doherty, Adrian Edwards, James Fredrickson, Dave Goff, Carol Jackson-Doerge, Graham Jones, Rick Jones, Gordon Lundie, Tim Metcalfe, Graham Pask, Anthony Pick, Garth Simpson, Richard Somner, Anthony Stansfeld, Quentin Webb and Emma Webster.

AGAINST the Motion:

None

ABSTAINED:

None

The discussion then returned to the substantive motion. Councillor Lee Dillon commented that the Council was asking tax payers to pay an additional 6% council tax on top of a range of other charges they were introducing. This would create a divide in the district between those that could afford the payments and those that could not. He was of the opinion that the proposed budget only worked for the rich. He felt that it would be useful for the Council to use £450k of the remainder of the Transitional Fund (which still had £650k in it) to reduce the proposed green waste collection service from £50 per household to £25 per household for 2018/19 to assist residents with the transition. Councillor Dillon commented that the £900k savings attached to that scheme was unrealistic as many residents were indicating that they would not be willing to pay for the service.

As the Amendment proposed by Councillor Dillon was not seconded no debate occurred on it. Councillor Dillon stated that, for that reason, he would not seek approval of his other amendment which sought to use a further £20k from the Transitional Fund to cancel the proposal to introduce full charging for arranging residents care packages.

Discussion then turned to the Substantive Motion. Councillor James Fredrickson commented that the question some residents would ask themselves was ‘am I paying more for less’ and the reality was that some residents would be. The Council was being forced to make difficult decisions. This budget however sought to protect the most vulnerable residents in the District. The extra funding generated by the ASC precept would be used to provide extra support for them.

Councillor Emma Webster commented that the budget underpinned the Council’s key aims of better educated communities, a stronger local economy, protecting and supporting those who needed it and maintaining a high quality of life within its communities. At times this was not visible to residents but it was important to provide individuals with the best life chances that the Council could provide. She acknowledged that waste was an emotive issue. She could not support Councillor Dillon’s proposal and it would be up to individual residents as to whether they opted in or out. She reminded Members that if they had concerns about the state of the roads they should report any incidents to the Council. In her experience any defects were quickly repaired where it was appropriate to do so.

Councillor Lynne Doherty was pleased to see the support offered to children in the district. She stated however that it would be remiss of her not to mention the extreme pressure some of the budgets in this area were facing due to an increase in demand. This budget would only be able to support the most vulnerable and there was not sufficient budget to undertake preventative work. The Council, in partnership with the Local Government Association, would continue to lobby Central Government for additional financial support.

Councillor Rick Jones noted that there had been a lot of discussion around the Adult Social Care budgets which comprised 40% of the Council’s expenditure. It was becoming increasingly difficult to deal with the pressures in this area. Officers were continuing to manage demand and seek out best value where they could. Officers were also exploring the use of technology to improve care and reduce costs and families were being used to support individuals where this was appropriate.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld commented that the householders in a Band D property would be charged an additional £12 per annum (which equated to a 7% increase) as part of the precept raised by the Police and Crime Commissioner for Thames Valley. The police were facing considerable cuts in their budget. In the Thames Valley this equated to around £100m per annum in real terms. One third of the funding for the police was derived from council tax and the remaining two thirds came from Central Government.

Councillor Adrian Edwards commented that as a keen cyclist he encountered potholes and whenever he reported them they were repaired within 72 hours. He also drew attention to the co-operative work that was being undertaken between town/parish councils and the District Council.

Councillor Hilary Cole, on behalf of Councillor Marcus Franks, drew attention to the changes to the budget in respect of Citizens Advice West Berkshire. The Council had listened to the comments that came out of the consultation and the Council would only be reducing their funding by £40k and not the £80k that had originally been suggested.

Councillor Anthony Chadley wholeheartedly endorsed the budget proposal for 2018/19 presented by Councillor Jones. The Council continued to look at ways to generate income which would be key to the ongoing financing of the Council’s services. Property investment was well under way and once fully invested was expected to contribute £1m to the Council’s income. In addition, a further £1m had been generated from other income streams.

The Council’s Transformation Fund was used wisely and was not to be used to offer sweeteners to residents. The Council would not make promises that appeared to offer a better result for residents but in the long term would leave them worse off. The Council would continue to investigate how it could generate new income, i.e. new money to pay for real costs. Every pound, every penny of the Transformation Fund would be used wisely with the aim of multiplying the pot, not throwing it away on short term, ill thought out ‘vote winners’. This budget was a sound budget, it was a responsible budget and it was a forward thinking budget.

Councillor Graham Jones reiterated that while the Administration did not want to increase Council Tax the increase in demand and decrease in funding meant that they had to.

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

In accordance with Procedure Rule 4.15.2 it was requisitioned that the voting on the Amendment be recorded. The names of those Members voting for, against and abstaining were read to the Council as follows:

FOR the Motion:

Councillors Steve Ardagh-Walter, Howard Bairstow, Jeremy Bartlett, Jeff Beck, Dennis Benneyworth, Dominic Boeck, Graham Bridgman, Paul Bryant, Anthony Chadley, Keith Chopping, Jeanette Clifford, Hilary Cole, Jason Collis, Richard Crumly, Rob Denton-Powell, Lynne Doherty, Adrian Edwards, James Fredrickson, Dave Goff, Carol Jackson-Doerge, Graham Jones, Rick Jones, Gordon Lundie, Tim Metcalfe, Graham Pask, Anthony Pick, Garth Simpson, Richard Somner, Anthony Stansfeld, Quentin Webb and Emma Webster.

AGAINST the Motion:

Councillor Lee Dillon.

ABSTAINED:

None.

Supporting documents: