Agenda and minutes

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any personal, disclosable pecuniary or other registrable interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

The Monitoring Officer and Executive Director for Resources advised that all Members had completed an application for a Grant of a Dispensation in relation to any beneficial interest in land within the Authority’s area. The dispensation was granted to allow all Members to speak and vote on the budget items.

A number of personal interests had been declared in advance of the meeting in relation to the agenda items, they had been published on the website and were on display on the door of the Council Chamber. These interests, as well as those declared during the meeting, were as follows:

Members of the Executive to answer questions submitted by members of the public in accordance with the Council Procedure Rules contained in the Council's Constitution.

Details of the public question and answer session is available from the following link: Q&As.

It was agreed that a question standing in the name of William Beard would receive a written response, given that he was unable to attend the meeting.

Purpose: To determine financial planning assumptions for future years and align these with the Council Strategy to ensure that strategic objectives are delivered. The MTFS highlights the overarching key issues facing the Council’s finances and references the scenarios and wider uncertainties concerning the Council’s future revenue streams in light of national and local economic factors.

Council considered a report (Agenda Item 4) concerning the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) for the Financial Years 2026-2030.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Iain Cottingham and seconded by Councillor Jeff Brooks:

“That Council approves the Medium-Term Financial Strategy”.

Councillor Cottingham introduced the report and highlighted that the document set out the financial plan for the Council for the next four years and that it was aligned to the approved Council Strategy. In addition, it also detailed known issues and risks concerning income and expenditure at the point when it had been written. He also discussed The Fair Funding Review 2.0 which had resulted in a £28m funding reduction to West Berkshire over the next three financial years – reducing retained business rates from the equivalent of 30 pence in the pound to 13 pence. The result of this would be that Council Tax payers would be required to fund 84 per cent of Council services, compared to the historic average of 70 per cent. However, the Government had also made two announcements about Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and School Grants after the finalisation of the budget papers. Therefore, the Emergency Financial Support (EFS) that had been requested would likely be the worst-case scenario.

Council noted that, faced with significant financial pressures, an increasing number of local authorities had been struggling to keep a balanced budget. 36 Councils had requested EFS, totalling £1.5bn for the 2026/27 financial year. These Councils were run by a range of different political administrations in both rural and urban areas.

West Berkshire Council had received confirmation that it would receive £20m of EFS for the current financial year, 2025/26, and £30m for the upcoming financial year, 2026/27. This would be used to provide financial resilience after the Council’s reserves had been depleted due to the cost pressures experienced in adult social care and children services. An example of these increasing pressures was that the costs of the top 25 packages for children with SEND increased by 18 per cent per annum, up to £320k per child. For these reasons, it was noted that the Council would be requested to approve the full 2 per cent increase in Council Tax and the full 2.99 per cent increase in the adult social care precept. 

Members stressed that the EFS that the Council had received was not a grant, but was borrowing and would need to be repaid, with interest. In addition, in response to a question about the discrepancy between the figure of reserves presented in the MTFS and the Investment and Borrowing Strategy, Councillor Cottingham confirmed that this was a cross-casting error, with reserves confirmed as being £13.01m.

Council agreed that the financial landscape for local councils was very tough. However, several Members indicated that this position had been made worse by some of the decisions of the Administration. The comments of the Section 151 Officer were also noted, who stated that without EFS the Council would have to declare effective bankruptcy with a Section  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Purpose: To consolidate the investment and borrowing strategy for the year ahead by detailing how and where the Council will invest and borrow in the forthcoming year, within a particular framework. This strategy is monitored throughout the year, with a mid-year report going to the Governance Committee as well as an annual report being presented to Members.

Council considered a report (Agenda Item 5) concerning the Treasury Management and Investment and Borrowing Strategy for 2026/27.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Iain Cottingham and seconded by Councillor Jeff Brooks:

“That Council approves and adopts the proposed Investment and Borrowing Strategy for 2026/27.”

Councillor Cottingham introduced the report and highlighted that it was critical for the Council to manage risk in a prudent way and that the report clarified where the Council would borrow and invest its money to meet its cash flow requirements. He also provided some examples of the rigorous treasury management controls proposed, such as that the Council would keep a weighted average of £10m in liquid cash throughout the financial year and that no more than 30 per cent of its borrowing would be short term (i.e. less than one year). In addition, the report clarified that the High Needs Block and EFS projections for borrowing would remain below their boundary levels for 2026/27, but that the impact of the recently announced Government reforms to SEND and the High Needs Block had not yet been quantified due to the limited time between their announcement and this meeting.

Members noted that the capital programme would be funded through external borrowing, internal cash, and capital receipts received from the divestment of assets – disposal of the commercial property portfolio, along with Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) support, would also be used to fund the Grazeley Solar Farm Project which would, in turn, also support the Council’s net zero policy. The weighted cost of borrowing for the Council was just under 3.7 per cent, with the current PWLB rate being around 5.4 per cent. Overall, the aim for 2026/27 was to keep the cost of borrowing below 4.2 per cent.

Some Members criticised the disposal approach taken by the Administration, highlighting a point raised by CIPFA that it could cost the Council over £1m per year in lost revenue. Others criticised the nature of the commercial property portfolio itself, stressing that residents of West Berkshire expected the Council to be investing in the district, not in other areas across the country. In response, it was mentioned that the property portfolio policy had been devised and implemented by the previous Conservative Administration, and that the current Administration’s policy was of disposal. Although they would do this at speed, they did not want it to come at the expense of cementing a loss on the properties.

A point was made that the property portfolio had remained largely unchanged since 2023, despite claims that disposals were funding the transformation programme. Councillor Cottingham then clarified that these figures were not up to date, and that the properties in Guisborough had been disposed of.

Overall, as Council considered that the Investment and Borrowing Strategy was prudent and capable of supporting the Capital programme, they agreed to approve the recommendations.

The motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

Purpose: To outline the Capital Strategy period and the supporting funding framework, providing a high-level overview of how capital expenditure, capital financing and treasury management activity contribute to the provision of local public services along with an overview of how associated risk is managed and the implications for future financial sustainability.

Council considered a report (Agenda Item 6) concerning the Capital Strategy and Supporting Programme for the financial years 2026/27 - 2029/30.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Iain Cottingham and seconded by Councillor Jeff Brooks:

“That Council approves the Capital Strategy appended to this report and its sub appendices:

(a) Appendix A – Capital Strategy

(b) Appendices B & C – Capital Programme for financial years 2026/27-2029/30

(c) Appendix D – Flexible Use of Capital Receipts Policy”

Councillor Cottingham introduced the report and highlighted that the Capital Strategy showed how the Council would use capital expenditure towards public services in West Berkshire. The principal sources of funding for these projects would be from capital receipts, borrowing, grants, and Community Infrastructure Levies (CIL) and Section 106 funding.

The Programme sought to build and improve the district’s infrastructure, investing £171m over the next four years (£49m coming from Council and £122m from external funding). Some of the key areas of focus would be the turning of Chestnut Walk from an unused care house into emergency accommodation (worth £1.1m), the provision of Falklands school classrooms (worth £2.8m), an education capital enhancement programme (worth £3m), Brookfields classrooms expansion (worth £1.2m), active travel infrastructure (worth £1.8m), and for River Lambourn net neutrality (worth £2.1m). Other Members also highlighted several other key projects in the district that would be brought forward from the Capital Strategy, such as the provision of sporting facilities, improved bus services, road resurfacing, ICT systems, and rural and urban economic development.

Councillor Cottingham informed Council that the programme to derisk speculative property investments would continue with a structured disposal plan, reinvesting the proceeds in areas that would generate a better return. This was despite the point raised by some Members that the property portfolio had consistently generated income from the Council every year.

Some Members raised concerns about the involvement of Sovereign Network Group (formerly Sovereign Housing) in the Council’s housing projects, indicating that they had a policy of selling off vacant homes and that residents had raised issues around the maintenance of their properties. In addition, on young people and schools, a question was asked about if enough investment was being made in school capacity, ensuring that children could be taught in their local communities, rather than having to travel. In response, the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee were encouraged to examine this aspect of the Programme.

The proposed investments in schools and renewable energy were welcomed. However, some wanted the projects to be more quickly actioned. It was also requested that the Administration should clarify the position of the Grazeley Solar Farm and bring it forward to Council so that it could be properly debated.

In response to a point about the description of some of the project titles being repeated over several projects, Council noted that this was due to the detailed activities relating to statutory duties.

Questions were raised about the projects that had not made it onto the Capital Programme. Some projects, such as the Faraday Road Football Ground,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Purpose: In accordance with the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and Local Government Act 2003, the Council must set a balanced budget annually by 11^th March.

Before the start of this item, Councillor Nick Carter joined the meeting. 

Council considered a report (Agenda Item 7) concerning the Revenue Budget for the Financial Year 2026/27.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Iain Cottingham and seconded by Councillor Jeff Brooks:

“That Council approves the 2026/27 Council Tax requirement of £136.48 million, requiring a Council Tax increase of +2.99% with a +2.0% Council Tax precept ring-fenced for Adult Social Care.

And that Council:

1        Approves the proposed General Fund net budget requirement of £210.9 million itemised in Appendix B.

2        Approves the fees and charges disclosed in Appendix C, the Council notes the additional in year fees. The charges may be introduced by the Executive during the course of the financial year.

3        Approves the savings disclosed in Appendix F and the investments disclosed in Appendix E.

4        Notes that a budget consultation was undertaken between 1st December 2025 and 12th January 2026. The consultation responses are disclosed in Appendix I.

5        Notes the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) allocations totalling £136.52 million and agree that the Schools Block of £74.09 million is allocated to schools using the local formula agreed by the Schools Forum on 19th January 2026. The outline DSG budget by block is detailed in Appendix H. Members are asked to note that the expenditure budget set is more than income funding available, and it is therefore anticipated that the cumulative High Needs Block (HNB) deficit will be increased by +£16.98 million in 2026/27, with the cumulative balance at March 2027 forecast to be £47.67m million. The cost of financing the HNB is factored into the revenue capital financing requirement for 2026/27 and drives part of the Council’s EFS request.

6        Request that the Executive ratifies the EFS request to Central Government of £50 million, split between £20 million attributable to 2025/26 to provide resilience to the reserves position, and £30 million required to balance the 2026/27 revenue budget.

7        Approve a 100% Council Tax discount for Care Leavers aged 18-25 who reside in West Berkshire.”

Councillor Cottingham introduced the report and highlighted that the budget set the Councils expenditure and Council Tax bill for West Berkshire residents for the 2026/27 financial year. Council noted that they were legally required to set a balanced budget and that the funding sources were derived from council tax, retained business rates, revenue grants, and EFS.

The total budget proposed amounted to £210m and would be used to deliver day to day services such as Adult Social Care, Children Services, Temporary Accommodation, Highways maintenance, and more. There had been numerous meetings to identify efficiency savings in order to reduce the amount of EFS needing to be requested. As the Administration did not view this as free funding – the cost of EFS borrowing totalled 10 per cent of the revenue budget per annum – they were doing everything possible to remove financial dependence on Central Government.

As Councillor Cottingham indicated that the Administration did not want to be the agents of austerity on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.