Agenda item

(Councillor Jeff Brooks declared a personal interest in Agenda item 18 by virtue of the fact that his wife worked at the Watermill Theatre. As his interest was personal and a not disclosable pecuniary interest  he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter. He noted, however that id a debate on the Watermill Theatre arose he would leave the chamber, not take part in the discussion or vote on the matter).

(Councillor Bill Drummond declared a personal interest in Agenda item 18 by virtue of the fact that his wife was a clinical lead for older people with mental health issues for West Berkshire Health, NHS Trusts . As his interest was personal and not a disclosable pecuniary interest  he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 18) concerning the Council’s 2014/15 revenue budget.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Alan Law and seconded by Councillor Gordon Lundie:

That the Council:

(1)       in accordance with Council Rules of Procedure 4.9 and 4.16 (Appendix L refers), the Council’s decision of 12 December 2013 in relation to not transferring funding to Town and Parish Councils under the Council Tax Reduction Scheme be rescinded.

(2)       notes that the following are the amounts for the year 2014/2015 in accordance with regulations made under Section 31B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended (by the Localism Act 2011):-

(a)       60,599.03 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 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.

(3)       Calculates that the Council Tax requirement for the Council’s own purposes for 2014/15 (excluding Parish precepts) is £76,563,245

(d)       notes that the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2014/2015 in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, amended by the Localism Act 2011:-

(a)       £293,947,118 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)       (£213,886,715) 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)        £80,060,403 being the amount by which the aggregate at 4(a) above, exceeds the aggregate at 4(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)       £1,321.14 being the amount at 4(c) above (Item R), all divided by 2(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)       £3,497,158.33 being the aggregate amount of all special items (parish precepts) referred to in Section 34(1) of the Act (as per Appendix K).

(f)         £1,263.44 being the amount at 4(d) above less the result given by dividing the amount at 4(e) above by the amount at 2(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.

5.         notes that for the year 2014/2015 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 K.

6.         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 2014/15 for each part of its area and for each of the categories of dwellings."

Councillor Law reported that he was proposing a 0% Council Tax rise for 2014/15 despite a £3.67m reduction in the Council’s Revenue Support Grant (RSG). This was against a background of a £2.2m pressure arising from an increase in wages, inflation in contracts and an increase in demand led services.

Councillor Law explained that the first recommendation had been included in order to rescind the decision made at the December Council meeting not to transfer any funding to the Town and Parish Councils under the Council Tax Reduction Scheme. At the time the decision had been made it had been explained that if there was a material change in circumstances the decision might need to be rescinded. Following a budget review and clarification as to the level of RSG the Council would receive it was now proposed to transfer 75% of the RSG component of the Council Tax Support Scheme to the Town and Parish Councils. Ongoing funding would be on a diminishing sliding scale. This had been done in light of the suggestion made by Graham Hunt (of Newbury Town Council) speaking on behalf of some of the other Town and Parish Councils. As a consequence some of the parishes had decided to reset their precepts and a new Appendix K had been circulated after the agenda had been produced. In addition it had also been agreed to insert the words ‘are the’ between the words ‘following’ and ‘amounts’ in recommendation 2.

Councillor Law proposed that the new Appendix K and the change of wording (set out above) be treated as an Amendment. The Amendment was seconded by Councillor Lundie.

The Amendment was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

AMENDMENT 2: Proposed by Councillor Jeff Brooks and seconded by Councillor David Allen:

That the Council:

“agrees the proposals set out in the Liberal Democrat Amendment to the Council budget for 2014/15”

Councillor Jeff  Brooks opined that the proposals in the Administration’s budget included a wide range of cuts to services for the district’s most vulnerable residents. The amendment the Opposition were proposing would, in his opinion, reduce some of that impact.  Councillor Brooks noted that the amendment would require changes to be made to the car parking ticket machines which would allow variable tariffs to be set. He was also concerned about reductions in funding to the Corn Exchange which he felt was a very significant asset for the district. He felt that the proposed changes to the library opening hours would only achieve small savings and were therefore not  something that he would be supporting.

Councillor David Allen asked Members to reconsider some of the savings proposals in light of some of the consultation responses received and petitions that had been submitted to the Council (including the petition relating to Pangbourne Library and On Street Parking in Newbury). He was concerned that some of the proposals to reduce funding for Early Intervention Programmes might achieve a short term gain but that they would result in bigger costs to the Council and individuals in due course.

Councillor Keith Woodhams raised concerns about cuts to the road safety, road maintenance and public transport budgets. Councillor Woodhams noted that every road traffic accident attracted significant costs and it was therefore important to invest in education programmes for young people that could help to decrease the number of accidents. Councillor Woodhams also stressed the need to protect rural transport given the nature of the district.

Councillor Roger Hunneman was concerned about the impact the proposed savings proposals would have on West Berkshire’s vulnerable residents. He therefore proposed setting up a £50k transitional support fund to provide support for those suffering hardship following the introduction of the amended ‘fairer contributions policy’.  Councillor Hunneman noted that up to 800 residents currently on housing benefit might now have to contribute to the cost of being cared for in their own homes. This policy would be means tested which could put some residents off and it was possible that the Council would lose contact with them. He felt that it was important to retain the fund until all affected residents had been assessed.

Councillor Hunneman noted that 411 clients had waited for more than 3 months to have their assessments undertaken and he was therefore proposing additional investment of £50k to fund 1.5 fte employees in the Adult Social Care Team to help reduce the waiting times.

Councillor Gordon Lundie noted that the amendments proposed by the Opposition were not significant, as they only totalled £391k of a £121m budget, especially when compared to the £700k of amendments that had been made as a direct result of the consultation undertaken in respect of the savings proposals. He therefore challenged the Opposition to raise areas where they felt the Administration was failing throughout the year. Councillor Lundie felt that the amendments had failed to address the areas that needed changing and therefore there was no reason to revisit the budget that was being proposed.

(Councillor Richard Crumly left the meeting at 8.12pm).

Councillor Alan Law reported that he had written to the Council’s external Auditor the previous year in respect of the Council’s reserve levels. The Auditor had raised no concerns about the Council’s reserve levels and had in fact endorsed them. Furthermore the Auditor felt that the Council had appropriate controls in place. The only issue that Councillor Law was aware of pertained to the Council’s self insurance fund and he would ask the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission to look into this matter with a view to them making a recommendation to the Executive.

Councillor Brooks maintained that the savings proposals would impact negatively on vulnerable residents and that they would be detrimental to  the District.

Prior to the vote being taken the 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.

The Amendment was put to the vote and declared LOST.

FOR the Amendment:

Councillors David Allen, Jeff Brooks, Billy Drummond, Roger Hunneman, Mollie Lock, Royce Longton, Gwen Mason, Geoff Mayes,  David Rendel, Julian Swift-Hook, Tony Vickers, Keith Woodhams (12)

AGAINST the Amendment:

Councillors Peter Argyle, Howard Bairstow, Pamela Bale, Jeff Beck, Brian Bedwell, David Betts, Dominic Boeck, Paul Bryant, Virginia von Celsing, George Chandler, Keith Chopping, Hilary Cole, Roger Croft, Sheila Ellison, Marcus Franks, Dave Goff, Paul Hewer, John Horton, Carol Jackson-Doerge, Graham Jones, Alan Law, Tony Linden, Gordon Lundie, Tim Metcalfe, Joe Mooney, Irene Neill, Graham Pask, James Podger, Andrew Rowles, Garth Simpson, Anthony Stansfeld, Quentin Webb, Emma Webster, Laszlo Zverko (34)

ABSTAINED:

None

The debate then returned to the substantive motion.

Councillor Pamela Bale thanked Councillor Hilary Cole for listening to the case that had been made in respect of opening hours for Pangbourne Library. Councillor Bale hoped that the residents of Pangbourne would take up Councillor Cole’s proposal to make the library into a community hub. If the usage figures were to increase it was possible that the opening hours could be extended in the future.

Councillor Bale noted that there were no proposals in place to cut rural bus services as yet. Se noted that the Council had a duty to provide services to people in rural areas and the Council would continue to recognise the work undertaken by voluntary groups. She also explained that the Council had listened to comments pertaining to Sunday car parking charges and as a consequence had decided not to implement weekday charges and would instead only be increasing Sunday charges to £1.50.

Councillor Joe Mooney felt that this was a good and prudent budget. He reminded Members about the significant savings made in the Adult Social Care arena and he thanked Steve Duffin and his team for all their hard work that had made the savings possible. Councillor Mooney encouraged all Members to familiarise themselves with the impact that would be created by the Better Care Fund as well as the emerging Care Bill. He noted that the staff that worked in Adult Social Care were very dedicated and that the Council should be very proud of them.

Councillor Irene Neill stated that the proposed budget represented good value for money. Not all savings proposals equated to a cut in services provided. Some services had been brought together where they overlapped and placement costs had been reduced in some areas and despite costing less they had benefited both young people and their carers.

(Councillor John Horton left the meeting at 8.30pm)

Councillor Graham Jones noted that in order for the Coalition Government to improve the nation’s finances it had to reduce the funding available to local authorities. He therefore felt that this was a good budget given the constraints as the money being spent matched the Council’s resources.

Councillor Hilary Cole reported that the Council had listened to the feedback it had received from residents in three specific areas in her portfolio. As a result of the feedback the reduction in funding to the Corn Exchange had been reprofiled over a five year period. A business plan was being developed for Shaw House which would result in it offering a wide range of activities in the future. Although it had been necessary to make a slight reduction in the opening hours for libraries their role in the community was changing. It was hoped that in the future they could become community hubs where a range of services including those provided by the Council could be accessed.

Councillor Gordon Lundie was pleased to announce that a 0% increase in Council Tax was being proposed for the both the 2014/15 and 2015/16 financial years. A savings plan totalling £5.6m was proposed which would encompass both front office (1/3) and back office (2/3) functions. The Administration had to make a number of difficult decisions but they were necessary in order to produce a balanced budget. The proposals had been consulted on and as a result of the feedback received £700k of changes had been made to the original plan. The Council were also proposing using around £1m of reserves to redress some of the damage incurred by the recent flooding. Councillor Law then commended the budget to Council for approval.

It was agreed that a separate vote would be undertaken on the first recommendation

Recommendation 1 was put to the vote and declared CARRIED

(This item received unanimous support)

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

Prior to the vote being taken the 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 Motion

Councillors Peter Argyle, Howard Bairstow, Pamela Bale, Jeff Beck, Brian Bedwell, David Betts, Dominic Boeck, Paul Bryant, Virginia von Celsing, George Chandler, Keith Chopping, Hilary Cole, Roger Croft, Sheila Ellison, Marcus Franks, Dave Goff, Paul Hewer, Carol Jackson-Doerge, Graham Jones, Alan Law, Tony Linden, Gordon Lundie, Tim Metcalfe, Joe Mooney, Irene Neill, Graham Pask, James Podger, Andrew Rowles, Garth Simpson, Anthony Stansfeld, Quentin Webb, Emma Webster, Laszlo Zverko (33)

AGAINST the Motion

Councillors David Allen, Jeff Brooks, Billy Drummond, Roger Hunneman, Mollie Lock, Royce Longton, Gwen Mason, Geoff Mayes,  David Rendel, Julian Swift-Hook, Tony Vickers, Keith Woodhams (12)