Agenda item

The purpose of this paper is to consider and recommend to Council the 2023-24 Revenue Budget, which proposes a Council Tax requirement of £117.5m, requiring a Council Tax increase of 2.99% and an Adult Social Care precept of 2%. The Council Tax will raise £3.3m, the precept will raise a further £2.2m, and an increased taxbase will raise a further £1.8m. At a 4.99% Council tax increase, the budget is balanced, after using £1.8m of reserves that have been specifically set aside. 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 report also proposes the Fees and Charges for 2023-24 as set out in Appendix F, the Parish Expenses as set out in Appendix G and recommends the level of General Reserves as set out in Appendix E.

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 7) which recommended to Council the 2023-24 Revenue Budget which proposed a Council Tax requirement of £117.5m, requiring a Council Tax increase of 2.99% and an Adult Social Care precept of 2%. The Council Tax would raise £3.3m, the precept would raise a further £2.2m, and an increased taxbase would raise a further £1.8m. At a 4.99% Council Tax increase, the budget was balanced, after using £1.8m of reserves that have been specifically set aside. 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 Council was focussed on delivering services to residents and businesses that supported the overall Health and Wellbeing of the district, and assisted in the increased cost of living and continued recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic, building on the recovery strategy and improving the quality of services provided. The Revenue Budget supported this through the allocation of funds to core investment in the Council’s strategies and through making revenue funding available to deliver the Capital Strategy.

The budget was supported this year through a financial settlement announced at the Autumn Statement that provided additional funding to the Council for social care at a time of historically high inflation as well as increased demand on services. At the same time, the Council faced significant pressures from the wider economy; as mentioned, inflation was at very high levels with interest rates also rising recently and forecasts from the Bank of England of a sustained recession for the UK economy.

The Council recognised the need to support the most vulnerable. The Council had set up a cost of living hub in 2022 to support residents, and the focus of the 2023-24 budget was supporting the most vulnerable by minimising any impact on front line services that were so crucial for the people and businesses of the district. This had been funded by utilising almost all earmarked reserves outside of the minimum level of general fund reserves, reshaping Council services, managing vacancies, increasing some fees and charges in line with inflation and delivering efficiencies. There was a Government funded £25 reduction on Council Tax for all Council Tax Reduction scheme claimants. The Revenue Budget sought to manage all of these demands whilst achieving financial balance.

The budget detailed the investment for the year ahead to deliver the Council Strategy, the ambitions in the Capital Strategy and to support core Council Services. This included investment in approved strategies for example Adult Social Care, the Environment Strategy, the Digital and Customer Engagement strategies and prevention work. The paper also included savings proposals, other income sources and the use of specific reserves to ensure the Council had a sustainable financial footing. The budget also allocated revenue funding to deliver the Capital Strategy that had a substantial amount of investment in infrastructure for the year ahead. The Council was proposing to support the budget with a £1.8m contribution from reserves; these were largely from specific reserves, for example the residual Covid-19 non-ring-fenced grant, Council Strategy reserve and Collection Fund reserves.

The report also proposed the Fees and Charges for 2023-24 as set out in Appendix F, the Parish Expenses as set out in Appendix G and recommends the level of General Reserves as set out in Appendix E.

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

“That the Council resolves as follows:

1)    That Council approves the 2023-24 Council Tax requirement of £117.5 million, requiring a Council Tax increase of 2.99% with a 2% Council Tax Precept ring-fenced for adult social care.

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

3)    That the Parish Expenses of £17,880 are approved as set out in Appendix G.

4)    To provide a £25 reduction to Council Tax for all Council Tax Reduction claimants, funded from the Exceptional Hardship Fund (EHF). The EHF has been set up by West Berkshire Council to cover the shortfall between the Council Tax Liability and the award of Council Tax Reduction. We recognise the importance of protecting our most vulnerable customers. An EHF was created to ensure that we protect and support those most in need. It is therefore intended to help in cases of extreme financial hardship and not support a lifestyle.

5)    That it be noted that the following amounts for the year 2023-24 in accordance with regulations made under Section 31B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended (by the Localism Act 2011):-

a)    67,392.41 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 J 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 2023-24 (excluding Parish precepts) is £117,472,381.

7)    That the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2023-24 in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, amended by the Localism Act:-

a)    £393,450,213 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)    £270,969,869 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)    £122,480,344 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)    £1,817.42 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)    £5,007,963 being the aggregate amount of all special items (Parish precepts) referred to in Section 34(1) of the Act (as per Appendix J).

f)      £1,743.11 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)    That it be noted that for the year 2023-24, 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 J.

9)    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 J as the amounts of Council Tax for 2023-24 for each part of its area and for each of the categories of dwellings.”

Councillor Mackinnon said he was pleased to present the Revenue Budget for 2023/2024. This was his fourth budget as Finance Portfolio Holder and it had been the most challenging especially as inflation was at its highest level for over 40 years. He paid tribute to officers for their work on preparing the budget. His instincts were to leave as much money as possible in residents’ pockets and when possible to freeze or cut taxation. The last few years had been very challenging and it was costing more each year just to provide the same level of services. 

Councillor Mackinnon referred to 71% of the Council’s income coming from Council Tax and the Adult Social Care precept. To meet the growing demands and increased cost a Council Tax increase of 2.99% and an Adult Social Care precept of 2% was proposed. The majority of residents who took part in the budget consultation supported this increase. Cost for both adults and children’s services continued to increase and required an extra £10m in the budget compared to last year.  This was the first time in three years that this Administration had recommended an increase in Council Tax to the maximum allowed. The proposed budget had been supported by utilising a specific earmarked amount of reserves whilst maintaining the level of reserves above the recommended minimum amount.

Thanks to Government funding the Council was able to provide a £25 reduction in Council Tax to all Council Tax Reduction Scheme claimants. Councillor Mackinnon informed that the budget provided for extensive investment to achieving the aims in the Council Strategy.   He confirmed that there was support for areas still being affected by the pandemic. He explained how the budget also contained savings and income generation proposals totalling £9.1m to help fulfil the Council’s responsibilities to residents to be as efficient as possible and provide value for money. Just as in previous years none of the proposed savings would result in cuts to frontline services.

Councillor Mackinnon noted that the Section 151 Officer was required to make a recommendation of the minimum level of the general reserve for non-specific items and risks, and this year that recommendation had been £7m. The recommended level of reserves for this year had been proposed at £7.2m. The budget proposed the right balance between investing in services and infrastructure whilst keeping finances on a stable footing. 

AMENDMENT: Proposed by Councillor David Marsh and seconded by Councillor Steve Masters.

Original text:

“Newbury Sports hub running costs budget required from September 2023 (£30k)”

Proposed amendment:

£25,000 for additional road safety officer to implement School Streets programme (part year from September 2023)

£5,000 contingency for watering trees on council land in the event of another drought

Total £30k to be fully funded by saving £30k on “Newbury Sports Hub running costs” (part year from September 2023)”

Councillor Marsh said that the original motion asked to increase the numbers of civic enforcement officers to help with enforcement outside schools, but as the parking review was taking place that included staffing levels it was felt that that was the best place to look at this rather than an amendment. They would be making the appropriate suggestion to the review.  He said that the other proposals were funded by using money proposed for the Newbury Sports Hub as he did not think that would be required given the level of opposition, this might be wrong and thus could be funded elsewhere from revenue. He said that with regards to the proposed watering contingency for trees, there was no point agreeing to plant new urban trees if they were left to die in a hot summer like the one we had just had. He mentioned how the fire brigade had been asked to undertake training in Goldwell Park using their hoses to water trees and how volunteers had come out to water trees. 

With regards to the proposed additional road safety officer to implement the School Streets programme, Councillor Marsh said that as a Member of the Transport Advisory Group he had received an excellent report on how successful the trial had been in Calcot and he wanted to see it extended across the district.

Councillor Masters said that he hoped the willingness of Members to look at individual amendments would continue. As previously mentioned the school streets programme trial had been a success and there was an ambition to roll it out across the district. It would help with the health and wellbeing of children, improve air quality outside schools and help reduce asthma. 

Councillor Mackinnon said that most people would struggle to disagree with the two proposals. With regards to road safety outside schools, he recanted a story about how he had an unfortunate conversation with a parent who had parked dangerously outside a school. Although he supported the proposal he said that regulations needed to be brought forward to give the Council powers to fully implement it. With regards to the watering of trees he said that he had been informed that when the Council awarded a contract to plant trees it should include watering in the event of extreme weather.

The Amendment was put to the vote and duly RESOLVED.

FOR the Amendment:

Councillors Rick Jones, Alan Law, Adrian Abbs, Steve Ardagh-Walter, Phil Barnett, Jeff Beck, Dennis Benneyworth, Dominic Boeck, Graham Bridgman, Jeff Brooks, Jeff Cant, Hilary Cole, James Cole, Jeremy Cottam, Carolyne Culver, Lynne Doherty, Billy Drummond, Clive Hooker, Owen Jeffery, Tony Linden, Ross Mackinnon, Alan Macro, Thomas Marino, David Marsh, Steve Masters, Andy Moore, Biyi Oloko, Erik Pattenden, Claire Rowles, Garth Simpson, Richard Somner, Joanne Stewart, Martha Vickers, Tony Vickers, Andrew Williamson, Keith Woodhams and Howard Woollaston

AGAINST the Amendment: None

ABSTAINED from voting on the Amendment:

Councillor Geoff Mayes

Councillor Jeff Brooks said that with regards to his comments on the budget, if you looked at his speeches over the years there were several parts of the same speech that would be recognised by those in the room. He referred to his previous calls on the Administration to undertake a zero based budgeting exercise which challenged spend on every item, role and expense in each department. He stated that a key benefit of building the budget from the bottom upwards was that it focused attention on the actual resources required to produce an outcome rather than a percentage increase or decrease in the budget compared to the previous year and hoping for last minute grants.  His recommendation was an approach to budgeting that started from the premise that no cost or activity should be factored in to a budget just because it was present in a previous period, and that everything to be included must be considered and justified.

Councillor Brooks also felt that the report did not contain enough detail on the proposals and gave some examples where not enough narrative had been provided to justify the savings. He also highlighted the risks posed by the assumptions over inflation, interest rates, the affect of the war in Ukraine and increased energy prices. The Council might be able to borrow on fixed term rates but there were still impacts on the budget as was case in the first quarter with the energy crisis. This budget was forecasting an overspend of over £5m making it necessary to raid the reserves taking them down to a dangerous level.

Councillor Marsh said that he was concerned about the savings proposed by managing vacancies. He felt that not recruiting to vacancies would have an adverse effect on service delivery. For example he mentioned that yellow lines in his ward were on the list to be painted but after years waiting officers say they were short staffed. He said that there were too many departments struggling within the Council. 

Councillor Abbs said that the Liberal Democrats had many concerns about the budget but they had not put down any amendments as experience had shown over the last 18 years that the Administration would not listen to any amendments.  He did mention that the Liberal Democrats planned to talk to partners such as Readibus, that they would remove the green bin tax, they would protect the vulnerable with an additional council tax exemption and they would listen to members from all sides of the chamber so they could deliver a budget that respected good ideas. 

Councillor Masters mentioned that there had been cross party working as evidenced at this meeting with a number of tabled amendments being adopted. He said that since 2020 amendments had been voted down on block but a number of Members had said that if some items had been voted on individually then they would have supported them.  He thanked the S151 officer for his help in finding funding options for the amendments and the Chairman for allowing a vote on separate items.

Councillor Alan Macro said that with regards to the saving and the review of care packages there was a similar saving last year and asked if this had been achieved and if it was achievable again in this budget. With regards to health funding for clients with mental health needs he believed the project was going slowly and wondered if it would be completed in the financial year.

Councillor Jo Stewart replied that the review of care packages was undertaken every year as clients circumstances changed. With regards to the proposed budget she said that work was ongoing with service providers in Adult Social Care to get a fair outcome in light of inflationary pressures. With regards to recruitment there continued to be challenges and agency costs continued to be high.  Work was underway to explore how the Council could do more to attract people to permanent positions. Pressures on Adult Social Care would continue and the Health and Wellbeing Board were considering how best to support an ageing population. 

Councillor Tom Marino referred to comments that the Administration never listened to proposed amendments but amendments had been accepted at this meeting.  It was hard to listen to proposed amendments when they do not come to you for due consideration.

Councillor Owen Jeffery said that he was glad that Council had approved the school streets officer and that there was some cooperation across the Chamber as it did not happen very often. 

Councillor Pattenden said that the opposition were part of scrutiny and it was their role to question the Administration. He referred to the list of proposed savings and asked if the Administration were making the same mistakes that they had made in the past such as cutting the Readibus service without consulting service users.

Councillor Graham Bridgman said that he recalled the opposition proposals to remove the green bin charge but when asked what would be cut to make up the shortfall there was no answer. With regards to scrutiny he said the Administration did listen but were also entitled to respond and question how alternative budget proposals were to be funded. He said that with regards to the Adult Social Care budget this would benefit from increased spending in health care by the NHS and discussions with them were ongoing.

Councillor Dominic Boeck said that he was pleased to see the investment being made in children’s social care and family hubs as well as the additional funding to special needs and school transport. Since the pandemic it was concerning to see the demand for mental health services for young people increase the way it had across the country and in West Berkshire. He was pleased to see that that they had been able to propose funding for additional staffing. He mentioned that it was a shame that the Liberal Democrats had not brought forward any proposed amendments.

Councillor Biyi Oloko said he supported this forward thinking Revenue Budget.  In response to suggestions to concentrate on zero based budgeting he was of the view that this was a thing of the past and not being considered by world economies.  The administration had managed the budget effectively .

Councillor Doherty, as seconder to the report, said that she also wished to thank officers for their work on the budget as it had been the most difficult one to balance that she had seen in her eight years on the Council.  

Councillor Doherty said that she was proud of all the work West Berkshire Council had done over the last four years. The Council Strategy focused on residents’ priorities such as investing over £2m ensuring vulnerable children and adults achieve better outcomes or investment in maintaining the green district.  . It had always been the aim to maintain a low Council Tax but due to external circumstances they had to propose the increase.

Councillor Mackinnon thanked Members for participating in the debate this evening.  He mentioned that over the years he had disagreed with Councillor Brooks’ views on zero based budgeting and said that the Council had many statutory functions that needed to be funded. With regards to last year’s budget and the impact of inflation he said that not even the Bank of England had foreseen the sharp increase in energy prices and had been predicting a fall in inflation. In year mitigations had been undertaken and overspends brought under control. With regards to reserves he reiterated that they were proposed to be at a level above the minimum advised by the S151 Officer. 

The Motion was put to the vote and duly RESOLVED.

FOR the Motion:

Councillors Rick Jones, Alan Law, Steve Ardagh-Walter, Jeff Beck, Dennis Benneyworth, Dominic Boeck, Graham Bridgman, Jeff Cant, Hilary Cole, James Cole, Carolyne Culver, Lynne Doherty, Clive Hooker, Tony Linden, Ross Mackinnon, Thomas Marino, David Marsh, Steve Masters, Biyi Oloko, Claire Rowles, Garth Simpson, Richard Somner, Joanne Stewart, Andrew Williamson and Howard Woollaston

AGAINST the Motion:

Councillors Adrian Abbs, Jeff Brooks, Owen Jeffery, Alan Macro, Andy Moore, Erik Pattenden, Martha Vickers, Tony Vickers and Keith Woodhams

ABSTAIN:

Councillors Phil Barnett, Jeremy Cottam, Billy Drummond and Steve Masters