Agenda item

Purpose: Full Council must set a balanced budget for the 2024/25 year ahead by the 11^th March 2024. This is to ensure that the Council has the resources set aside to achieve its objectives and to ensure that Council Tax bills can be issued to residents across the district before the start of the new financial year. This report details the budget proposals for the year ahead that form the basis of the 2024-25 revenue budget and detail the respective Council Tax proposals and resolutions.

The Council considered the report (Agenda Item 7). Full Council must set a balanced budget for the 2024/25 year ahead by the 11 March 2024. This was to ensure that the Council had the resources set aside to achieve its objectives and to ensure that Council Tax bills could be issued to residents across the district before the start of the new financial year. This report detailed the budget proposals for the year ahead that formed the basis of the 2024-25 Revenue Budget and detailed the respective Council Tax proposals and resolutions.

The report included various appendices to support Members in the decisions before them. In advance of this budget paper the Council had run a budget consultation exercise (further information in Appendix J) where, following a meeting of the Executive on the 23 November 2023, a range of proposals had been consulted upon. Other appendices to the report included the overall savings proposals, budget investment, fees and charges, and changes and items relating to the setting of Council Tax. There were appendices on levels of reserves, which were particularly important for this Revenue Budget given they were forecast to be below the minimum level set by the s151 officer.

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

That the Council:

“Approves the 2024-25 Council Tax requirement of £124.2 million, requiring a Council Tax increase of 2.99% with a 2% Council Tax Precept ring-fenced for adult social care.

Approves the Fees and Charges as set out in Appendix G and the appropriate statutory notices be placed where required.

Approves the Parish Expenses of £18,510 as set out in Appendix H.

Note the following amounts for the year 2024-25 in accordance with regulations made under Section 31B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended (by the Localism Act 2011):-

(a)      67,867.50 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.

Calculates that the Council Tax requirement for the Council’s own purposes for 2024-25 (excluding Parish precepts) is £124,203,641.

Notes that the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2024-25 in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, amended by the Localism Act:-

(a)      £408,064,670 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)      £284,963,208 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)      £123,101,462 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)      £1,813.85 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)      £5,629,081 being the aggregate amount of all special items (Parish precepts) referred to in Section 34(1) of the Act (as per Appendix K).

(f)       £1,730.91 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.

Notes that for the year 2024-25, Police and Crime Commissioner for Thames Valley & the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service had issued precepts to the Council in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 for each category of dwellings in the Council’s area as indicated in Appendix K.

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 2024-25 for each part of its area and for each of the categories of dwellings.

Notes that the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act contained a provision to amend the definition so that from the financial year 2024-25 a long-term empty home only needed to be empty and substantially unfurnished for one year to be liable for a premium. The Bill also contained provision that an unoccupied and furnished home (second or holiday home) only needed to be unoccupied for one year before being liable for a premium providing that one year’s notice has been given. The recommendations are therefore as follows:

(a)      The ability to charge the additional 100% premium from 1st April 2024 once the property has been unoccupied and unfurnished for more than one year.

(b)      The ability to charge the additional 100% premium from 1st April 2025, having given one years notice in March 2024, once a second/holiday home has been unoccupied and furnished for more than 1 year.

Approves the fees and charges as set out in Appendix G.

Councillor Cottingham presented the report. The revenue budget was a financial representation of the Council’s strategic plan.

The Council had a legal requirement to set a balanced budget, but also a duty to protect the district’s finances and maintain the Council as a going concern. Moving forward this included the need to rebuild the Council’s depleted reserves while at the same time ensuring the delivery of a number of different services to residents.

The impact of high inflation was felt across the country in 2023/24. The Council’s costs increased and there was a significant increase in demand for social care, with client numbers well beyond the forecast level. Demand also increased for special educational needs and home to school transport. The increase in the cost of living unfortunately created an increased need for temporary accommodation.

The new Administration began its work on the revenue budget eight weeks after taking office in May 2023. At that time the Council had a projected overspend of £8m which would have exceeded the level of reserves held at that time of £7.2m. The work that had since been undertaken had brought the Council back from the brink of bankruptcy. The forecast overspend had reduced to £3.3m, leaving £3.9m in reserves.

Councillor Cottingham described the considerable strain to the Council’s finances from increased social care and education costs which equated to a rise of £28m between 2021/22 and 2024/25. However, the revenue budget proposed increased investment of £12.4m to help the most vulnerable.

Cost savings and increases to income were sought in the region of £14.5m and a comprehensive consultation exercise was held on some of these proposals and the responses received were carefully considered. Meetings were held as part of the consultation and this included the business community where support to businesses was discussed as was the potential for a higher proportion of business rates being retained to support the local area.

Councillor Cottingham thanked the respondents to the consultation which proved to be a very worthwhile process. The feedback from residents was listened to and decisions were made to not adopt some proposals. These included decisions to maintain gully clearing, maintain the frequency of dog and waste bin collections and continuing contributions to community transport.

The Council Tax increase for 2024/25 was proposed at 2.99% with an additional 2% for the Adult Social Care precept. A total of 4.99%.

Investment was planned. In addition to helping the most vulnerable, investment was proposed for home to school transport, family support workers and to enable a reduction to the green waste charge.

As stated earlier, the Council’s reserves had reduced considerably. This was not sustainable, the Council needed to spend within its means. The majority of local authorities were facing financial challenges and some might be unable to balance their budget. It was important to increase the Council’s financial resilience and the prudent step was proposed to put £1.9m into general reserves in 2024/25, with the intention of bringing the reserves level up further in future years.

In conclusion, Councillor Cottingham stated that the revenue budget would meet the Council’s commitments which included helping the most vulnerable and reducing the green waste charge. The consultation feedback had been listened to and action had been taken on this.

AMENDMENT: Proposed by Councillor Ross Mackinnon and seconded by Councillor Dominic Boeck:

Original text: Chargeable Garden Waste (£100k investment – to reduce charge to £55)

Proposed amendment:

1.      “Remove the saving from reducing the garden waste charge by £3, and instead increase the charge by £3, generating £201k extra income compared to the proposed budget

 

2.      Reduce the number of Executive allowances payable from 10 to 9, saving £10k (so £211k in total)

 

3.      Remove the savings of:

• FTE in the Emotional Health Academy (£45k);

• Planning Enforcement resource (£46k); and

• reducing bridge maintenance (£80k).

 

Total £171k

 

4.       Balance of £40k to increase the General Fund”

 

Councillor Mackinnon felt these were sensible and measured amendments for consideration. On the green bin charge, the expectation was that the Administration would be stopping this, but instead it was to be phased out over four years, starting with those least able to afford it. However, those individuals might not make use of this discretionary service. Therefore any cut would be felt by all users of the service. The Manifesto commitment was not sensible and was not being met.

The increase proposed in the amendment would generate additional income of £201k. This could be used to help avoid making difficult cuts to other services. The amendment proposed that savings related to the Emotional Health Academy, Planning Enforcement and bridge maintenance could be removed.

The amendment also proposed reducing the Executive to nine Members. The Leader was not in attendance and held only a small portfolio, the number could therefore be reduced to make a saving.

Councillor Mackinnon also commented on the proposal to remove green bin stickers. He did not feel this was a practical proposal that could be implemented on the ground.

 

Councillor Abbs described the high number of requests he had received from residents to remove the green bin tax. The charge was being phased out as had been promised.

Councillor Stuart Gourley stated that the green bin charge was a barrier to people doing the right thing. Phasing this out would help residents and the environment. Removal of the plastic bin stickers would reduce officer time and be good for the environment. Councillor Gourley added that waste collection crews knew their areas well and were clear on which residents were eligible for green waste collections. He did not support the amendment.

Councillor Howard Woollaston stated that the garden waste collection service was popular and well used. In comparison to other local authorities, West Berkshire’s charge was one of the cheapest available. A small increase to the charge would generate income. It was not appropriate for non-users of the service to subsidise the cost of those who made use of it through Council Tax payments if the charge was removed.

Councillor Tony Vickers agreed with the concerns raised in relation to planning enforcement, a matter on which residents were unhappy. He pointed out that planning enforcement suffered a severe cut by the Conservative Administration some years ago. It was not a statutory service, however a report would be coming through to consider improvements to enforcement processes.

Parish and town councils, as well as the district council, had a role in enforcement. It was Councillor Vickers intention to encourage local communities to come forward to alert the Council of enforcement concerns in order to assist professional officers.

Councillor Paul Dick received many complaints relating to enforcement from residents who were frustrated by the situation. Breaches did get reported by residents and parishes but these went into a ‘black hole’. This lack of action could result in further enforcement breaches and could be seen by residents as a lack of care from the Council. The Council needed to act on the information they received. Planning enforcement needed to be in place with the necessary level of resource.

Councillor Richard Somner explained that his parish was very engaged in and well aware of planning developments in the area. Residents reported enforcement concerns to their parish. This was not the issue. The difficulty was the limited time available to enforcement officers to do the work required across the district. Officers needed to be supported, but recruitment and retention had been a challenge in this area. They were already reliant on the intelligence they received from parish councils.

While not statutory, planning enforcement was a high priority and solutions needed to be identified.

Councillor Brooks explained that the green waste charge had been in existence since 2018 after the ability to do so was introduced by the Government. Prior to that it was covered by Council Tax payments.

The Administration was phasing this charge out. It was not right for the cost of the service to be within the Council Tax and then taken away, unless a resident was willing and able to pay for it.

The Executive needed ten Members to cover the many portfolio areas the Council had responsibility for. Councillor Brooks stated the intention for the Council to be run more smoothly, with transformation of services playing an important role in that. It could therefore become possible to reduce the number of Executive Members in time.

Councillor Dennis Benneyworth recalled previous comments by Councillor Brooks, when the Liberal Democrats were in Opposition, that the routine rejection of amendments was not serving residents. It was looking likely that the Conservative amendments would be rejected.

The proposed reduction in the green bin charge of £3 was only a token gesture, saving residents the smallest of amounts on a weekly basis. This Manifesto pledge was not successful. Many of the pledges that had come through were started by the previous Administration.

Councillor Jeffery stated that if the Liberal Democrats had not inherited such severe financial problems then so much more could be delivered. The limited level of planning enforcement was an inherited situation.

The green bin charged would be scrapped over time. This was only the first step in doing so.

Councillor Boeck clarified that the reduction in planning enforcement resource was a Liberal Democrat proposal. He added that parishes were already monitoring their local areas and reporting concerns.

The reduced FTE in the Emotional Health Academy was greatly concerning.

Finally, he gave the view that the Executive only had nine Members in any case.

Councillor Mackinnon referred to the comments of financial difficulties being inherited and in response pointed to the many pressures that had been felt such as high rises in inflation and increasing levels of demand. He pointed out that the Administration was proposing cuts to key areas, such as planning enforcement and bridge maintenance.

Councillor Mackinnon felt the Executive could be reduced to nine Members and a £10k saving made. He asked why no ideas from the Opposition could be accepted, as was looking to be the case.

The Conservative amendments were put to the vote.

FOR the Amendment:

All Members of the Conservative Group.

AGAINST the Amendment:

All Members of the Liberal Democrat Group and Councillor Adrian Abbs.

ABSTAINED: Councillors Carolyne Culver and Clive Taylor.

The amendments were declared LOST.

AMENDMENT: Proposed by Councillor Clive Taylor and seconded by Councillor Carolyne Culver:

Original text: Chargeable Garden Waste (£100k investment – to reduce charge to £55)

Proposed amendment:

“To cancel the reduction in the Green Bin Charge by £3 per annum and retain the existing charge.

To retain the Green bin labelling that indicates that the Green bin charge has been paid (£43k).

To transfer the saving from the above (£57k) to the Adult Social Care transport budget.”

Councillor Taylor pointed out a £3 reduction in the green bin charge would do very little to help families manage their budgets. It would take many years to remove the charge with such small reductions. He questioned the timing of phasing out the charge with such a challenging financial situation and a number of priorities needing to be met.

Removing the green bin labels would make it impossible for contractors to identify those who had paid and those who had not. The level of sign up for the charge could well decrease if all bins were collected regardless.

Councillor Taylor next referred to the consultation comments received from highly concerned residents on the proposed saving to the Adult Social Care transport budget. This was of significant importance to residents. The service helped reduce social isolation and the Council should support the most vulnerable residents in the district. The amendment therefore proposed putting the £57k saving highlighted into the ASC transport budget.

Councillor Culver acknowledged that originally, the Green Party opposed the introduction of the green bin charge. However, they were willing to change their view. The charge brought in vital revenue and the Council could not afford to lose this money. The service was, in the main, used by those with larger homes and gardens. It was far more important to help ASC clients than it was to reduce the bin charge by £3.

The removal of green bin labels was not practical and could create chaos. Bins could well be emptied regardless and those who paid the charge could think again if bins were collected either way.

The removal of transport from ASC care packages would be an example of introducing a charge for a service that had previously been provided without a charge. No different to the criticism made regarding the green bin charge.

The equality impact assessment for the ASC transport proposal raised concerns. It conflicted with the Council’s key strategic priorities. The reduction could cause greater social isolation, it could negatively impact on residents with the protected characteristics of age and disability. If clients were unable to pay the charge for transport and not attend day centres for example then that could create a cost in another area of the service with additional support becoming needed.

Councillor Mackinnon supported the amendment, noting its similarity to the Conservative Group amendment. He felt that the proposal to put savings to the ASC transport budget was a worthy use of funding.

Councillor David Marsh found it difficult to see how the proposal to remove the green bin stickers could work in practice. As already described it could result in reduced income.

The eventual removal of the green bin charge would create a situation where people without gardens were subsidising the cost of those with gardens through their Council Tax payments.

The £57k should be put to ASC transport.

Councillor Kander felt that the Liberal Democrat budget had served to unite opposition groups. He was in favour of the amendments relating to the green bin charge. ASC transport was of great benefit to residents.

He felt the removal of the bin stickers would only achieve a tick in the box against the Administration’s Manifesto. In addition, he added that people able to pay for green bin collections would continue to do so.

Councillor Brooks responded to the points made relating to the green bin stickers. Advice received on this matter suggested this would work well. However, if it proved unsuccessful then they would be reintroduced.

Councillor Brooks also commented on the small number of amendments proposed by the Conservative Group, limiting the potential for amendments to be accepted.

Councillor Brooks felt that the amendment could now be put.

Councillor Nigel Foot referred to points made that the Administration were responsible for budget decisions in the here and now. He felt that the ‘elephant in the room’ was the fact that the Government was not providing adequate funds for services such as ASC transport.

Councillor Abbs reflected on the 100 day pledges of the newly elected Administration in May 2023. Voters were clear that the green bin charges should go. He would be abstaining on this amendment.

Councillor Alan Macro stated that financial pressures being felt had forced difficult decisions such as on ASC transport that would have been avoided if possible. However, he pointed out that many areas already levied a charge for this transport and West Berkshire Council was rare in not doing so.

Consultation comments on this matter had been reviewed and the potential to cap the charge had been looked at. Unfortunately, this was not possible due to current software restrictions, but the charge had been reduced on the back of the consultation from £5 to £3.75 per trip.

Councillor Martin Colston referred to the concerns raised that residents without gardens could subsidise those who did if there was no green bin charge. However, Council Tax payers contributed to a number of areas that they might not use.

Councillor Boeck responded to that point by stating that if there was no charge then lower paid residents not receiving green waste collections would be subsiding those who did through their Council Tax payments.

Councillor Taylor felt the amendments were sensible and contained many merits. He hoped they would find support.

The Minority Group amendments were put to the vote.

FOR the Amendment:

All Members of the Conservative Group, Councillor Carolyne Culver and Councillor Clive Taylor.

AGAINST the Amendment:

All Members of the Liberal Democrat Group.

ABSTAINED: Councillor Adrian Abbs.

The amendments were declared LOST.

Councillor Gourley commented that this was an extremely challenging budget to deliver when considering the current financial climate and the budget situation inherited from the Conservative Administration, which included reduced reserves. However, this budget would deliver for West Berkshire’s residents and would avoid any major impacts on those services working to tackle climate change and achieve net zero.

It was the intention to help residents save money and support them to do the right thing when it came to the environment.

Councillor Jo Stewart thanked the Administration and the Council’s officers for their work in proposing a balanced budget. She acknowledged this was a challenging task, particularly when considering social care pressures. However, there were likely to be tougher years ahead.

Pressures relating to health and social care costs could not be solved by local authorities. A major overhaul of the system was needed by the Government who needed to listen to the concerns from local authorities, particularly with the ageing population and complex levels of need.

Councillor Stewart felt that some of the saving and income proposals were sensible. She highlighted the proposal to claim income from other local authorities who accessed the Council’s excellent shared lives scheme. She felt that income could be achieved in other areas.

Some proposals were however concerning. Proposals for the sensory needs team being an example. People should be supported to live independently in their own homes for as long as possible. The sensory needs team played a key role in this. The waiting list to this service had grown to 77 in January 2024, compared to 39 in the previous year. She hoped the saving would not exacerbate this waiting list.

The excellent reablement service also helped people to continue to live independently, helping residents on discharge from hospital. She hoped that the proposed saving would not result in higher costs for long term care in future years.

Councillor Macro gave thanks to staff in Adult Social Care for their work to reduce expenditure. This was in the region of £1m.

On the sensory needs team proposal, he clarified that the post proposed for removal was an administration role and would not therefore impact on waiting times.

The reablement service was indeed excellent, but it was costly in comparison to the service provided by other local authorities. The aim moving forward was to provide this service to residents who would feel the most benefit from it.

Councillor Macro explained that the ASC budget for 2023/24 was not sufficient. It did not budget for the high client base, inflationary increases or the pay award. This was why savings, reluctantly, needed to be implemented. Ideally this would not be the case.

Consultation had been undertaken on the proposal to transfer the operation of Council care homes to independent providers. This found broad support and this approach would help avoid closures.

Care homes fees would be increased following consultation. The same proposal had been agreed a year ago but could not be implemented as consultation had not taken place.

Councillor Macro concluded by advising of the proposal to recruit a shared lives officer. This would be a valuable role giving support to clients and their carers.

Councillor Abbs agreed it was appropriate to lobby Government on the social care system and increasing costs. He intended to bring a motion to Council in order to take this step.

Councillor Mackinnon responded to the points made about the budgeting of the Conservative Administration. The level of reserves in May 2023 were £3.5m higher than the position in May 2019. Reserves would go up and down depending on the financial situation. They were drawn on in times of need (as was their purpose) and increased when possible. Reserves had to be called upon during Covid.

Points had been made about the challenges posed by the Council’s finances with funding not available for some areas. However, the Administration had been willing to worsen the situation by spending £1.7m on the local plan withdrawal.

Councillor Mackinnon noted that no investments were planned for the Council priority of a prosperous and resilient West Berkshire. Spend on the Faraday Road football ground was mentioned in the report but this meant that the commercial regeneration planned for this land would no longer happen.

Councillor Tony Vickers commented that expenditure in his portfolio was largely business as usual. He clarified that as the local plan would not be withdrawn, there would be no associated investment required. He reported that planning fees could be increased and factored into budgets.

Turning to climate change, Councillor Tony Vickers pointed out that no savings were proposed against the priority area of tackling the climate and ecological emergency. This was an incredibly serious issue that needed to be addressed and the Council needed to provide leadership. Delays to plans in this area would only serve to create further costs down the line. This was an emergency and need to be treated as one. He was pleased to have Councillor Gourley and the excellent team of officers working on this area.

Councillor Heather Codling repeated that one of the most important duties of the Council was in looking after the most vulnerable, but the increased complexity of need was placing significant pressure on budgets. However, Councillor Codling reported that the number of children in care had stabilised and there had been a reduction in social work agency staff from 30% to 20%. These two factors assisted the budget situation.

The Council was recruiting more factors carers, this was an important area of investment. The home to school transport budget was also increasing. She supported this excellent budget.

Councillor Denise Gaines commented on the extremely wet start to 2024 which had created concerns over flooding. Residents had been listened to and the decision taken to maintain spend on gully clearing. She clarified that £300k of capital funding had been allocated for essential works and improvements on bridges. A £10k saving was not being taken on community transport, another example of listening to the consultation feedback.

Councillor Gaines turned to the concern of the number of empty homes, particularly concerning when many families living in West Berkshire needed a home. As described earlier in the debate, temporary accommodation was a high cost. Therefore, from 1 April 2024, homes empty for a year or more would be charged a 100% premium on their Council Tax. It was hoped that this step would encourage the home owners to occupy or sell the property. Further, it was the intention to charge individuals with a second or holiday home the 100% premium. This would be in place from April 2025 once the statutory one year notice had been given.

This was a challenging budget, but there was every intention to make it work.

Councillor Janine Lewis stated that one of the Council’s statutory responsibilities was ensuring that residents had access to exercise and education to benefit their health. This included funding identified to help prevent cardiovascular disease, an initiative that cut across different Council services. A more joined up approach would achieve benefits in other areas of activity. This would help people from across the District benefit from the Council’s services.

Councillor Brooks stated that the Administration was beginning to deliver on its Manifesto and the Council Strategy. They were rolling back the green bin tax, football had been brought back to Faraday Road, Community Forums had been introduced and the Scrutiny Commission was being effectively chaired by Councillor Carolyne Culver, an opposition Councillor.

Post the election the Liberal Democrats had faced a ‘perfect storm’ but they had weathered it through much hard work. He was proud of colleagues and the budget they had produced which protected services. The hard work would continue in order to make a real difference to people’s lives. This was just the start of the journey.

Councillor Cottingham repeated the point that it was absolutely key to set a balanced budget whilst still delivering services. Councillors were elected to serve the community they lived in and there was a real desire for the Council to succeed. West Berkshire Council would focus on protecting the most vulnerable and increasing its financial resilience.

In accordance with the provisions outlined in the Constitution, the vote on the Revenue Budget would be recorded. The names of those Members voting for, against and abstaining were read to the Council as follows:

FOR the Motion:

Councillors Antony Amirtharaj, Phil Barnett, Jeff Brooks, Patrick Clark, Heather Codling, Martin Colston, Iain Cottingham, Laura Coyle, Billy Drummond, Nigel Foot, Denise Gaines, Stuart Gourley, Owen Jeffery, Janine Lewis, Alan Macro, Erik Pattenden, Justin Pemberton, Vicky Poole, Christopher Read, Matt Shakespeare, Stephanie Steevenson, Louise Sturgess, Martha Vickers and Tony Vickers.

AGAINST the Motion:

Councillors Dennis Benneyworth, Dominic Boeck, Paul Dick, Clive Hooker, Paul Kander, Jane Langford, Ross Mackinnon, Richard Somner, Jo Stewart and Howard Woollaston.

ABSTAINED:

Councillors Adrian Abbs, Jeremy Cottam, Carolyne Culver and Clive Taylor.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.