Agenda item

To consider and recommend to Council the 2015-16 Revenue Budget.

(All Members had been granted a dispensation to speak and vote on Agenda Item 17)

(Councillor Jeff Brooks declared a personal interest in Agenda item 17 by virtue of the fact that his wife was employed at the Watermill Theatre. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 17) concerning the 2015/16 revenue budget

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

That the Council:

“The Council resolve as follows:

(1)     That it be noted that the following amounts for the year 2015/2016 in accordance with regulations made under Section 31B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended (by the Localism Act 2011):-

(a)     62,083.05 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.

(2)     Calculate that the Council Tax requirement for the Council’s own purposes for 2015/16 (excluding Parish precepts) is £78,438,210.

(3)     That the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2015/2016 in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, amended by the Localism Act 2011:-

(a)     £302,969,234 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)     £220,913,960 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)     £82,055,274 being the amount by which the aggregate at 3(a) above, exceeds the aggregate at 3(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)     £1321.70 being the amount at 3(c) above (Item R), all divided by 1(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)     £3,617,064.40 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 3(d) above less the result given by dividing the amount at 3(e) above by the amount at 1(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)     That it be noted that for the year 2015/2016 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)     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 K as the amounts of Council Tax for 2015/16 for each part of its area and for each of the categories of dwellings”.

Councillor Lundie stated that the report should be read in conjunction with the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy 2015-2018 (MTFS) also included on this agenda. The report highlighted the fact that for West Berkshire residents there would be a Council Tax freeze in 2015/16.  Councillor Lundie noted that this was the fourth year out of five that a Council Tax freeze had been in place and that since 2009 Council Tax had only increased by 3.9% in total.

Councillor Lundie noted that the Council’s net revenue budget was £122.86m. Despite a cut in funding of around 20% in the Revenue Support Grant and additional pressures of £6m arising out of the implementation of the Care Act the Council would be maintaining services such as libraries and children’s centres which some other authorities were closing.

The pressures on the budget would lead to a savings programme of £5.91m in 2015/16. In the period since 2010 the Council had put in place a programme to remain within budget which had delivered savings of around £31m. This programme of controlled expenditure would continue for the period of the MTFS 2015-18.  Councillor Lundie explained that the Council would be required to draw on reserves (£2m) during the forthcoming financial year to buy time in order to mitigate the shortfall of government funding arising from the Care Act. Councillor Lundie lamented the fact that the authority was only able to retain £18.5m of the £82m that was collected locally from business rates.

It was noted that the precept amount for Newbury Town Council had updated following confirmation of their actual requirement. This would affect the amount of Council Tax attributable to the Newbury area and had therefore been corrected in Appendices K3 (page 266) and K4 (page 268). No other parishes had been affected.

Councillor Keith Chopping noted that the Adult Social Care budget comprised around 37% of the Council’s total revenue budget. This covered a number of services including Older People (£14m), Adults with Learning Difficulties (14m), Adults with Mental Health Disabilities (£2m) and Adults with Physical Disabilities (£3m). Currently the Council had around 1800 clients. Around 100 residents currently resided in the Council’s care homes.  The Council had to work with a range of agencies including health, the police and the voluntary sector to deliver services to its clients. The Council continued to provide a good service despite the level of savings it was having to make.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld stated that the police precept would be set at 1.99% following agreement by all members of the Thames Valley Police and Crime Panel.

Councillor Jeff Brooks explained that his group had decided not to submit an amendment to the budget that year, as based on previous experience, it would not be accepted. Councillor Brooks stated that he would have liked to have seen a ‘root and branch’ review of the budget being undertaken.

He noted that budget made provision for inflationary increases of 1.5%. He remained of the view that if there was a professional procurement team in place they would have managed to reduce this requirement. He also stated that a plan needed to be put in place to ensure that Shaw House was commercially viable. He also noted that, as in previous years, the Resources Directorate were predicting an underspend of around £416 and the budget should therefore be reduced by £300k. He felt that if the savings from these three areas were taken they would deliver savings in excess of £1m which would prevent some of the cuts set out in the budget having to be made.

Councillor Brooks drew Members’ attention to the Unison Comments and their concerns about the impact on vulnerable people and those with protected characteristics. Unison was of the opinion that an Equalities Impact Assessment was required and that this had not been undertaken.

Councillor Brooks lamented that the budget did not include any innovative ideas for income generation. Councillor Brooks accepted the need to use reserves to meet the funding gap created by the introduction of the care Act.

Councillor Roger Hunneman stressed the need to have an adequate budget in place for Adult Social Care in order to deliver the good quality of service the residents of the District deserved.

Councillor Alan Macro was concerned about some of the risks associated with some of the savings in the Children and Young People area. In particular he highlighted the savings set out in the training budget, the Youth Offending Team, the Reduction in Placement Spend on Looked After Children, Support for Families with Disabled Children, some of the one off changes in provision for vulnerable young people, Place Planning Transport, Therapies and Other Health Related Services and CAMHS. Councillor macro stated that some of these savings were very high risk for a minimal reward and he therefore queried the need to take them up.

Councillor Keith Woodhams raised concern about the £85k saving in relation to bus subsidies. He noted that there was no information available currently as to which services would be cut. He stated that the Council should be promoting more use of public transport to ease congestion.

Councillor Paul Bryant welcomed the fact that Council Tax would be frozen and stated that he supported the fact that the authority would not be indulging in ‘vanity projects’.

Councillor Gwen Mason was concerned about the proposed savings associated with the CAMHS budget. She stated that poor mental health could have a negative impact on young people’s self esteem and could lead to episodes of self harming and even suicide. She questioned if it would be worth the risk associated with highly vulnerable young people for such small levels of saving.

Councillor Mollie Lock was concerned about the proposed savings associated with Children’s Centres. She queried what impact the shared management arrangement would have on the provision of good development plans.

Councillor Graham Jones reminded Councillor Brooks that the Administration had accepted one of the Opposition’s proposals in their alternate budget the previous year.

Councillor Irene Neill agreed that she too would not, ordinarily, want to make some of the savings set out in the Children and Young People’s area but there was a funding gap, arising from the implementation of the Care Act, which had to be met.

Councillor Roger Croft stated that the Council Tax freeze should be celebrated as it impacted on all residents including the vulnerable, the disadvantaged and those on low or fixed incomes.

Councillor Garth Simpson responded to Councillor Woodhams comments on savings associated with bus subsidies by explaining that it was always more expensive to subsidise a bus than a traveller. The Council would always seek to find ways to mitigate the impact on people’s lives.

Councillor Tony Vickers noted that the budget was usually based on the Council Strategy but that this year they had not been brought to Council for adoption simultaneously. He felt that the Strategy should be in place to build the budget on.

Councillor Alan Law stated that the delivery of the Council Strategy was referenced in the Medium Term Financial Strategy. The emerging Strategy was currently out to consultation and would form the framework for future decision making. Councillor Law reiterated that the Council would have to draw on reserves for a one off payment to cover the implications of the implementation of the Care Act.

Councillor Law noted that the 1.5% provision for inflation was as a result of some historical clauses in contracts. He reminded members that a root and branch review had been undertaken in the Highways team during this financial year. He highlighted a number of innovative schemes that the Council was implementing including the Superfast broadband project, flood prevention schemes, Parkway and the London Road Industrial estate development.

Councillor Gordon Lundie stated that the best way to protect residents was to keep bills down and he therefore asked Members to support this revenue budget.

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 Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

FOR the Motion

Councillors Peter Argyle, Howard Bairstow, Jeff Beck, Brian Bedwell, Dominic Boeck, Paul Bryant, , George Chandler, Keith Chopping, Hilary Cole, Roger Croft, Richard Crumly,  Adrian Edwards, Sheila Ellison, Marcus Franks, Manohar Gopal, Paul Hewer, John Horton, Carol Jackson-Doerge, Mike Johnston, Graham Jones, Rick Jones,  Alan Law, Tony Linden, Gordon Lundie, Tim Metcalfe, Irene Neill, Graham Pask, James Podger, Andrew Rowles, Garth Simpson, Anthony Stansfeld, Ieuan Tuck, Virginia von Celsing, Quentin Webb, Emma Webster, Laszlo Zverko (36)

AGAINST the Motion

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