Agenda item

Purpose: To consider and recommend to Council the 2021-22 Revenue Budget, which proposes a Council Tax requirement of £104.32m, requiring a Council Tax increase of 1.99%. The Council Tax increase will raise £2.04m. The Council is not proposing any use of the Adult Social Care precept and there will therefore not be any increase in the precept. The overall Council Tax increase is intended to balance the financial impact of the pandemic on residents, mitigating the financial pressures they face, as well as the cost pressures that the Council faces.

The budget details the investment for the year ahead to deliver the Council Strategy and support core Council Services. This includes investment in Adult Social Care, economic development and prevention work. The budget also allocates revenue funding to deliver the Capital Strategy (separate paper) that has a substantial amount of investment in infrastructure for the year ahead, including savings proposals, other income sources and £3.2m of support from Government for Covid-19 costs. The Council is proposing to support the budget with a £2.2m contribution from reserves; it is rare that the Council would use such a sizeable level of one-off support for the budget but the impact of the pandemic on the current year budget, allied to Government financial support, has led to an expected underspend in the current year that is being proposed to partially use to support the 2021-22 budget.

This report also proposes the Fees and Charges for 2021-22 as set out in Appendix F and the Parish Expenses as set out in Appendix G and recommends the level of General Reserves as set out in Appendix E.

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

(Councillor Claire Rowles declared a disclosable pecuniary interest or an other registrable interest in agenda item 18 by virtue of the fact that she had been appointed as a trustee Member on the Citizen’s Advice Bureau. She would therefore be made an attendee for the duration of the item and would not vote or take part in the debate on the item).

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 18) concerning the 2021/22 Revenue Budget, which proposed a Council Tax requirement of £104.32m, requiring a Council Tax increase of 1.99%. The Council Tax increase would raise £2.04m. The Council was not proposing any use of the Adult Social Care precept and there would therefore not be any increase in the precept. The overall Council Tax increase was intended to balance the financial impact of the pandemic on residents, mitigating the financial pressures they faced, as well as the cost pressures that the Council faced.

The budget detailed the investment for the year ahead to deliver the Council Strategy and support core Council Services. This included investment in Adult Social Care, economic development and prevention work. The budget also allocated revenue funding to deliver the Capital Strategy (separate paper) that had a substantial amount of investment in infrastructure for the year ahead, including savings proposals, other income sources and £3.2m of support from Government for Covid-19 costs. The Council was proposing to support the budget with a £2.2m contribution from reserves; it was rare that the Council would use such a sizeable level of one-off support for the budget but the impact of the pandemic on the current year budget, allied to Government financial support, had led to an expected underspend in the current year that was being partially used to support the 2021/22 budget.

The report also proposed the Fees and Charges for 2020/21 as set out in Appendix F, the Parish Expenses as set out in Appendix G and recommended the level of General Reserves as set out in Appendix E.

Councillor Mackinnon introduced a minor alteration to the proposal for the revenue budget (recommendations at pages 123-125 of the agenda), and clarified that the recommendation at paragraph (10) was that Council: “Consider and reject the motion presented at the Council meeting of 3rd December 2020 regarding the Citizen’s Advice Bureau.”

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Ross Mackinnon and seconded by Councillor Lynne Doherty:

“That the Council:

(1)       approves the 2021-22 Council Tax requirement of £104.32 million, requiring a Council Tax increase of 1.99% with a 0% increase in the Council Tax Precept ring-fenced for adult social care;

(2)       the Fees and Charges are approved as set out in Appendix F and the appropriate statutory notices be placed where required;

(3)       the Parish Expenses of £6,410 are approved as set out in Appendix G;

(4)       provide a £150 reduction to Council Tax for claimants receiving Council Tax Reduction falling within a working age category during the 2021-22 financial year. Where the balance to pay for a working age claimant is less than £150, we will credit all the remaining liability through this hardship scheme. The remaining funding from the allocation of £838k will be utilised to support the Collection Fund and consideration of the further impact on the Council Tax Reduction Scheme as well as the overall Collection Fund;

(5)       it be noted that the following amounts for the year 2021-22 in accordance with regulations made under Section 31B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended (by the Localism Act 2011):

(a)       £65,343.65 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 (the number of properties paying council tax);

(b)       part of the Council’s area as per Appendix K 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)       calculate that the Council Tax requirement for the Council’s own purposes for 2021-22 (excluding Parish precepts) is £104,315,255;

(7)       the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2021-22 in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, amended by the Localism Act 2011:

(a)       £345,178,680 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)       £236,356,619 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)       £108,822,061 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 the Section 31A(4) of the Act, as its Council Tax requirement for the year (Item R);

(d)       £1,665.38 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)       £4,506,806 being the aggregate amount of all special items (Parish precepts) referred to in Section 34(1) of the Act (as per Appendix K);

(f)        £1,596.41 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)       it be noted that for the year 2021-22, Police and Crime Commissioner for 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 Councils area as indicated in Appendix K;

(9)       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 K as the amounts of Council Tax for 2021-22 for each part of its area and for each of the categories of dwellings;

(10)     consider and reject the motion presented at the Council meeting of 3rd December 2020 regarding the Citizen’s Advice Bureau.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon moved the Motion and set out three minor amendments which included updated figures in paragraph (7) of the recommendations, recommendation (10) to be altered to state that the Motion in relation to the Citizen’s Advice Board be considered and rejected, and that the fees and charges for taxi and hackney carriage licences as set out in Appendix F be frozen as recommended by the Licensing Committee. All Group Leaders indicated that they were in agreement with the proposed amendments and it was confirmed that they had therefore been accepted.

Councillor Mackinnon noted that Covid had resulted in a significant divergence from the budget in some services particularly within the People Directorate. He thanked Councillor Jeff Brooks for taking a constructive approach in recognising the unprecedented challenges facing the Council during the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission meetings where revenue spend was reviewed against the budget which had been set. The Council had received support from Central Government during the pandemic but there would be longer term impacts on future budgets. He expressed his thanks to the Revenues and Benefits Team who had done an excellent job in distributing business grants across the district. They had provided over £17m of support to businesses to sustain them through the pandemic.

Councillor Mackinnon referred to the Motion in respect of the Citizen’s Advice Bureau which had budgetary implications as it was calling on funds to be invested and was also asking for MPs to lobby Central Government to campaign to meet various changes to the benefit system and financial support. The Prime Minister had that evening made an announcement that matters were currently under review in relation to Universal Credit and therefore it was not proposed to lobby MPs any further on that issue. In the current financial year the Council had provided £104k to the CAB and the Council had a service level agreement in place with them until March 2022 and for those reasons it was proposed that the Motion should be rejected.

In terms of the Council Tax level although he would like to keep it at the same level it cost the Council more to provide the same level of services to residents and as mentioned previously 75% of the Council’s income came from Council Tax. This year the Council had decided not to take the 3% Adult Social Care precept unlike some other Councils and it was therefore proposing a Council Tax increase of 1.99%. Demand for Adult Social Care services had been lower this year due to the pandemic and it would likely remain at a lower level than originally forecast for a number of years before resuming an upwards trend. It was also the main driver of the £3.2m predicted underspend in the current year. It would therefore be wrong to impose an additional precept for Adult Social Care given the current situation. However, the Council was only in a position to do that because of the extensive financial support it had received from Central Government over the past year.

Councillor Mackinnon highlighted a number of areas where investment would be made over the coming year. The level of reserves would increase from £8m in the previous year to £9.35m in April 2021. This was a prudent level with all the continuing uncertainty of the impact from Covid. He felt that this budget struck the right balance between investing in services and infrastructure whilst keeping Council Tax rises to a minimum.

AMENDMENT: Proposed by Councillor Jeff Brooks and seconded by Councillor Lee Dillon:

1)         People Directorate

A)        Funding to allow Council Tax Relief for care leavers (on-going)

            Cost £10,000

This will help eighteen to twenty one year old care leavers in West Berkshire to start to make their own way in the world by giving them relief from Council Tax.

B)        Funding for instrument loan for Maestros to supply instruments to all Y3 pupils in West Berks (on-going)

            Cost £30,000

Playing a musical instrument brings many benefits to young children, and for some, leads to a life-long passion for amateur or even professional performing arts. To nurture this we want every primary school child in West Berkshire to have the opportunity of learning to play a musical instrument.

C)        Freeze ASC personal fee increases for 2021/22 (on-going)

            Cost £4,000

Many families have to contribute to the costs of relatives' care. The   finances of many of those families are, or are likely to be, stretched by reduced incomes due to furlough, redundancies, reduced hours or less overtime. This amendment is to ease the financial pressure on these families.

D)        Funding for Corn Exchange Learning Centre education program to support their children's and adults learning program (one off)

            Cost £20,000

This will help people across West Berkshire overcome the isolation of   the COVID lockdowns of the last year and to reduce the barrier of cost, this will help support the people of West Berkshire to participate in art learning programs provided by the Corn Exchange Learning Centre.

E)        Community Support Fund – Arts and Culture (one off)

            Cost £20,000

This will create a support fund for arts and culture sector within West   Berkshire.

F)        Funding to provide relief for town and parish councils to cover contributions for library services (on-going)

            Cost £100,000

This will reduce the requirement for parish councils to pay to maintain a service which is the statutory function of West Berkshire to maintain.

G)        Funding to provide Active Travel support for schools (on-going)

            Cost £50,000 (officer)

To restore the School Travel Plans Officer post in the light of the increasing priority of Active Travel, linked to the public health, climate emergency and sustainable travel agendas.

H)        Funding for Berkshire Youth to allow the detached youth work in schools work to continue after funding from the PCC ends in March 2021 (on-going)

            Cost £50,000

This will allow Berkshire Youth to continue to provide detached youth work in all schools in West Berkshire, by providing £50,000 to replace the funding they are losing from the TV PCC. Without this funding being replaced, school children in West Berkshire will no longer benefit from this youth work.

2)         Place Directorate

A)        West Berkshire becoming its own Power company (invest to save)   

            Cost £100,000

By becoming a supplier, we are able to take advantage of the higher                         revenue and so more environmental projects become affordable whilst also contributing to the council’s revenue stream and gives us options to encourage businesses with West Berkshire. This funding would provide for Feasibility studies to establish the business plan for major investment and return on that investment in future years.

B)        Develop larger Solar Power generation facilities to provide energy for Council use and to sell to consumers/industry (one off)

            Cost £100,000

The current plan is only 3-4% of what is needed in West Berkshire          and we are therefore proposing to enlarge current activity to have a          chance of meeting the Council’s carbon reduction targets on time.

 C)       Introduce energy standard for all suppliers (carbon footprint) (taking into account their ability to do the work) - 2nd officer to help here (on-going)

            Cost £50,000 (officer)

This will introduce a standard that can be built into tenders and RFPs that go to suppliers. Responses should then include details about     critical elements that allow the Council to evaluate suppliers for their   green credentials. This ensures suppliers have environmental concerns front and centre when responding to such opportunities.

D)        Power from water (rivers and canals) (Kennet, Dunn and Lambourn) Initial Projects run in conjunction with NTC as locations previously established plus (one off)

            Cost £150,000

To undertake a Feasibility study and develop a Business Plan for future years with all costings; looking at micro hydro schemes across the Council that take only 6% of space compared to equivalent sized energy schemes using solar.

E)        Green hubs adjunct to community hub (consumer & business focus) 2nd additional officer to also help here plus some KPI’s from other Officers.

            Cost £50,000 (officer)

As expertise grows within the council this aims to embed the sharing of   that expertise with consumers and business.

F)        Viable villages (investigation of what needs to change to make West Berks villages viable long term) 2nd additional officer to also help here.

            Cost £40,000 (officer)

To work with every village within West Berkshire to understand what was  needed to make their village viable in the longer term - in areas such as  community mix, energy supplies, and housing.

G)        Remove the green bin charge for those in receipt of Council Tax benefits. 

            Cost £100,000

Roughly 5,500 homes. We assume an uptake of around one third of these households at a cost of £50 each, meaning a total cost of £92,000 but we allow more than this within this cost allocation (on-going).

H)        Create taxi recovery fund – so no license fee. (One off – one year)

            Cost £40,000

            To provide support to Taxi drivers so that we maintain an active rank. 

I)          Do not delete Enforcement Officer as planned by Administration (Place D&P E4)

            Cost £30,000

Public perception that planning enforcement is extremely ineffective, risks undermining support for whole planning system. Instead of cutting a post, this would urgently review processes, work more closely with parish councils and boost resources.

J)         Reintroduce Planning letters to neighbours – 0.8 FTE plus postage costs (on-going)

            Cost £40,000

This would form part of the effort to boost public confidence in the planning system. The Council should investigate use of case officer or parish councils for hand delivery of letters to save postage costs.

K)        Allow for more community speed reviews by increasing officers to carry out assessments 0.5 FTE (on-going)

            Cost £25,000

Boost public confidence in highway safety and help encourage increases in Active Travel.

L)         Town Centre Refurbishment Plans – Thatcham, Theale, Hungerford

            Cost £150,000 (additional to budget papers)

This will give our towns the opportunity to create a sense of ‘place’ within their centres, helping them to remain viable as shopping habits change.

3)         Resource Directorate

A)        Green Bins – reduce charge to provide a £2 discount (becomes £48) for the lack of collection in January 2021 (one off)

            Cost £46,000

This would reduce the green bin charge to £48 per year for next year.

Summary

The financial demand was modest and would lead to only a small revenue demand in servicing the increased borrowing requirement and which could be contained within existing budgets/reserves.

Councillor Jeff Brooks confirmed that he was speaking mainly to the package of amendments to the budget proposals that the Liberal Democrats had put forward. It proposed some additional spend which would improve Council services and the quality of those services to local residents. The level of money required was modest and affordable and comprised 21 additional lines of spend amounting to just under £600k of recurring revenue investment. He acknowledged that the current financial year had not been easy to manage and the forecast going forward would need to be prudent as the country came out of the pandemic. That was the reason why some of the amendments put forward in the previous year had not been brought forward again. The focus was on helping two groups who had been going through difficult times.

Councillor Brooks had had discussions around whether the amendments would be taken separately or in small blocks but this had not been accepted by the Leader who had stated that the amendments would be taken en bloc. So even if there was one proposal that might be acceptable it would fail as it would not be debated separately. Therefore the same budget process would be followed as in previous years which was disappointing. Councillor Brooks mentioned the proposal to adjust the green bin charge by reducing it to £48 for next year due to the cancellation of one collection of the green bin. It had been stated that it would not be cost effective to give a refund of just under £2 at the time. However, the Council had taken money from people without providing the service.  Councillor Steve Ardagh-Walter responded that due to unprecedented circumstances it had not been possible to collect the green bins for a short period. However, the Council had offered to collect extra bags of green waste for a short period after the suspension of the service.

Councillor Brooks noted that there was a sum of £150k for Town Centre Plans proposed in the budget but the Liberal Democrats would like to extend that to Theale, Hungerford and Lambourn and had therefore included a further £150k to support those rural areas rather than focusing on urban areas. 

Councillor Brooks concluded that the Liberal Democrat amendment had put forward a range of budget proposals which were affordable and which would assist people who had been hardest hit by the pandemic. Some of the proposals would not be difficult to take on board but he felt that the current process was flawed.

Councillor Lynne Doherty responded that she was concerned that 21 individual amendments had been presented to the meeting that evening and although Councillor Brooks had stated that they were modest they did equate to £1.2m of additional revenue expenditure. The paper suggested that this could be taken from Reserves or from existing budgets but there was no mention of what could be cut out of the existing budget to make this possible. Councillor Doherty had mentioned earlier the importance of producing a fair and balanced budget within the MTFS that took into account future risks and none of that had been taken into account in the amendments. She agreed that there might be some potentially good ideas within the amendments but they were just ideas and would need to be considered alongside their feasibility and the fit within existing strategies. In respect of the proposal to retain the Enforcement Officer this had already been picked up and she confirmed that there would be no reduction in the number of Planning Enforcement Officers. However, in relation to the process it would be unreasonable to expect a decision to be made on what little information had been provided as they would need to be checked for feasibility. She had asked in the discussion on the substantial revenue proposal that the relevant Portfolio Holders highlight individual items that they felt might be worthy of further investigation. However, it would have been helpful if these budget proposals could have been worked on earlier in the year and submitted to the relevant areas to be considered. In respect of the voting arrangements it was not in her gift to make constitutional changes to the process and this would need to be decided by Council. She would be happy for the Constitution Review Task Group to look at that and bring forward alternative proposals.

The Chairman of the Council reminded Members that time was moving on and it would therefore be necessary to vote on the Motion to continue the meeting past 10.00pm. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 4.9.12 of the Constitution Councillor Graham Bridgman proposed that the meeting should continue past 10.00pm provided that all business could be conducted by 10.30pm. This was agreed.

Councillor David Marsh confirmed that he broadly supported the amendments put forward by Councillor Jeff Brooks apart from the unnecessary refund of the green bin charge. People had been allowed to put out additional waste on the following collection day and he had not received any complaints from local residents about this issue. He shared the concerns raised by Councillor Brooks about the process around the voting arrangements for the budget amendments and a compromise was offered but not accepted. However, it would be explored through the Constitution Review Task Group and hopefully a better process could be agreed for the following year. However, he did want to make the point that had the Council discussed and voted separately on each of the Liberal Democrat and Green Party amendments for both the Capital and Revenue

Councillor Tony Vickers stated that amendments I and J were designed to boost public confidence in the Planning system as it was not the right time to cut a post in Planning Enforcement. Although it was not a statutory function it was a factor in the low opinion many residents had in the planning system. The Chairman of the Council pointed out that this issue had already been addressed by the Leader in her earlier comments when she confirmed that the Planning Enforcement Officer post would not be deleted. Councillor Vickers apologised but asked if he could raise the point that there was a need to involve Parish Councils much more in the Planning system.

Councillor Alan Law raised a point of order. The comments made by Councillor Vickers were in respect of the Planning system and was nothing to do with the amendments to the budget. Councillor Vickers responded that he was referring to the amendment around the restoration of the neighbourhood letters which had been withdrawn. He also referred to public safety in respect of speed limit reviews and active travel support for schools as this was something that needed to be prioritised amongst young people.

Councillor Lee Dillon raised a point of order and asked what would happen if the Council did not get through the debate. Unless speaking rights were limited to one minute then it would not be possible to get through the agenda. Members had been advised of their speaking time limits but hardly anyone had breached the limit and yet time was rapidly running out. It did not seem fair that Members were being rushed through their careful deliberation because of an arbitrary time limit.

Councillor Alan Law also raised a point of order. He proposed that the question be put. This was seconded by Councillor Dominic Boeck. The Chairman of the Council noted that time was running out and it was necessary to set the budget that evening. Sarah Clarke outlined the process which would need to be followed in relation to the Closure Motion and asked the Leaders of each group how they wished to vote.

Councillor Lynne Doherty reluctantly agreed as it was necessary to agree a budget.

Councillor Lee Dillon did not agree as he felt that it was a travesty of debate and justice.

Councillor Carolyne Culver agreed with the comment made by Councillor Dillon.

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the Closure Motion had been carried and the meeting would now move to the close of debate provisions.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon confirmed that he had nothing further to add.

The Amendments were put to the vote and declared LOST.

Councillor Lee Dillon stated that he was not willing to take any further part in the meeting and was going to leave the Chamber. He urged his Party to leave with him as despite being democratically elected representatives of West Berkshire residents their voices were not being heard. Councillor Carolyne Culver confirmed that her Party would also be leaving the Chamber.

Green Party Amendment:

Investment

Page 145 D&P13 LRIE site investment

Amendment: Delete from budget

Reason: Further consultants' fees on the LRIE cannot be justified, especially as D&P13 earmarks a similar sum for Council Officers to support the project.

Savings and Income Generation

Page 150 E20 Cashless Parking

Amendment: Delete from budget

Reason: The claimed savings simply do not add up. CEOs more than pay for themselves. Moreover, cashless parking machines do not “mean we need less CEOs” as they face ever increasing demands – for example, Safer Schools, pavement parking, cycle lanes, and other active travel schemes.

Green Party Investment Proposals

1)    Berkshire Youth

Proposal: £37,000 grant

Reason: To provide a full-time youth worker to support young people, particularly those who have experienced loss, isolation, changes in parental employment or income and uncertainty about their future as a result of living through Covid-19, and to give them a voice in the community to engage in future youth opportunities.

2)    Community United

Proposal: £35,000 grant

Reason: To cover staffing costs and enable this non-partisan organisation to concentrate on its key aims of bringing West Berkshire communities together, raising awareness and working to eliminate discrimination, promoting positive relationships between our diverse communities, advocating for equal opportunities for all in West Berkshire.

3)    West Berkshire Foodbank

Proposal: £35,000 grant

Reason: To cover staffing costs and enable the Foodbank to concentrate on its role of helping to feed families in crisis, particularly those affected by Covid-19.

budgets it would have taken a very long time and it was hoped that a more productive way forward could be found for the future.

The Chairman of the Council noted that the amendment from the Green Party had not been debated and the Monitoring Officer confirmed that unless anyone else moved or seconded the amendment it would not be voted on.

Councillor Richard Somner confirmed that he was going to offer Members of the Opposition the opportunity to discuss those matters that related to transport and countryside through the Transport Advisory Group.

Councillor Rick Jones commended the strong financial management of the Council and the production of such a positive budget in the current extreme circumstances. The proposed budget was positive for his ward particularly around investment in the Council Strategy for community support engagement which helped his community’s resilience and in particular the partnership with the voluntary sector.

Councillor Steve Ardagh-Walter welcomed the chance to build on progressing work on the Environment Strategy over the coming years.

Councillor Dominic Boeck confirmed that he would be happy to discuss youth worker services with the Opposition but there was a big shift in the way that abuse services had been funded and he was keen to undertake a review of how the Council could maintain strong links and support young people after the age of 18 where they became liable for Council Tax yet were unable to afford it. The Service would also be announcing exciting news in relation to the Holiday Activities Programme for children. The Government had provided funding but it was proposed to deliver the summer programme in partnership with schools and local organisations and he would ensure that the Corn Exchange had the opportunity to participate in the programme if they wished.

Councillor Graham Bridgman stated that is was disappointing that the Opposition parties had left the Chamber but he stressed the point that the Council was governed by the Constitution which limited the length of meetings to 10.30pm. At times it was necessary to cut debate in order to meet that deadline and the Council had an absolute legal obligation to set a budget. He stressed the point that the only way that the Council had been able to set a balanced budget with only a 1.99% Council Tax increase was because of the regrettable deaths of some residents which had had an impact on the Adult Social Care budget. It was not a position that he would have liked to be in. Councillor Lynne Doherty concurred with the comments made by Councillor Bridgman and she commended the budget which was about the recovery process from Covid and supporting residents through it.

The 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, Peter Argyle, Jeff Beck, Dennis Benneyworth, Dominic Boeck, Graham Bridgman, Jeff Cant, Hilary Cole, James Cole, Lynne Doherty, Clive Hooker, Gareth Hurley, Rick Jones, Alan Law, Tony Linden, Ross Mackinnon, Tom Marino, Graham Pask, Garth Simpson, Richard Somner, Jo Stewart, Andy Williamson, Howard Woollaston (23)

ABSTAINED:

Councillor Geoff Mayes (1).