Agenda item

Purpose: The Council must set a balanced budget for the 2025/26 year by 11 March 2025. The budget acts as an indicator that the Council has set aside sufficient financial resources to achieve its objectives and to ensure that Council Tax bills can be issued to residents across the district prior to the start of the new financial year. This report details the budget proposals for the year ahead that form the basis of the 2025/26 revenue budget and detail the respective Council Tax proposals and resolutions.

Council considered a report (Agenda Item 7) concerning the Revenue Budget for 2025/26.

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

“1.      That Council approves the 2025/26 Council Tax requirement of £131.64 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 G and that the appropriate statutory written notices be placed where required.

3.       That it be noted that the following amounts for the year 2025/26, in accordance with regulations made under Section 31B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended (by the Localism Act 2011), are as follows: -

(a)      68,511.33 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

4.       Calculate that the Council Tax requirement for the Council’s own purposes for 2025/26 (excluding Parish precepts) is £131,638,354.

5.       That the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2025/26 in accordance with Sections 31A to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, amended by the Localism Act: -

(a)      £447,851,588 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)      £309,920,765 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)      £137,930,823 being the amount by which the aggregate at 5(a) above, exceeds the aggregate at 5(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 specified in the Act)

(d)      £2,013.25 being the amount at 5(c) above (Item R), all divided by 3(a) above (Item T specified in the Act), 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)      £6,292,469 being the aggregate amount of all special items (Parish precepts) referred to in Section 34(1) of the Act (as per Appendix J)

(f)       £1,921.41 being the amount at 5(d) above less the result given by dividing the amount at 5(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 relate.

6.       That it be noted that for the year 2025/26, Police and Crime Commissioner for Thames Valley and 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 Council’s area as indicated in Appendix J.

7.       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 2025/26 for each part of its area and for each of the categories of dwellings.

8.       That the Council approves the fees and charges amounts disclosed in Appendix G.

9.       That the Executive ratifies the Exceptional Financial Support request to Government of £16m.”

Councillor Cottingham introduced the report and highlighted that the Council had a statutory obligation to set a balanced budget. The funding for the revenue budget was derived from council tax, retained business rates, and grants. The Council was not permitted to borrow to cover current, day-to-day, expenditure. The net budget was £187m and would deliver statutory services to West Berkshire residents and ranged from waste and recycling to housing and education.

He confirmed that the Council had not found the process of setting a balanced budget straightforward, emphasising the exponential increase in funding that was required to support the most vulnerable – rising from £78m for child and adult social care in 2023 to £105m in 2025/26. To offset this rising cost, the Council had previously used their reserves, which had subsequently been driven down to only £3.6m. Despite the £14.5m in savings targeted, the Council still required EFS of £3m from Central Government to balance the budget. As the Council were in receipt of EFS, they would need to show financial responsibility and so this could limit so of the decisions they would otherwise have liked to take. Councillor Cottingham thanked the Minister for their support with the EFS.

Due to the savings identified in the prosed budget, a consultation was conduction with the public and the Council received over 1,700 responses. Councillor Cottingham brought Members attention to the equality impact assessment that had been conducted for all the areas consulted on. He also clarified that no matter the outcome of the resource centre review, the Council would ensure that the same level of care would be received by its users. 

Overall, the proposed revenue budget for 2025/26 resulted in a council tax increase of 2.99% and an increase in the adult social care precept by 2%.

AMENDMENT: In the name of the Minority Group, proposed by Councillor David Marsh and Seconded by Councillor Carolyne Culver:

“Original Text:

Planned Revenue Budget: Financial Year 2025/26

Proposed amendment:

Adult social care resource centres: remove this item from the budget, pending further information. If the council’s bid for EFS is successful, the claimed savings can, if necessary, be supported by the EFS.”

Councillor Marsh introduced the proposed amendment and highlighted that many local residents depended on the resource centres and wanted clarity from the Administration as to what impact it would have on the users and staff, if the sites were to close. He expressed the opinion of residents who used the services at the centres that the consultation on the proposals was insufficient. In addition, the uncertainty around if the sites would be outsourced or closed had caused significant strain on carers, users, and staff and could result in carers having to pay significantly more for the service and travel greater distances. Several other Members concurred with the points raised by Councillor Marsh.

A point was made that some Members did not believe they could vote to keep this proposal in the budget due to the insufficient information around the proposal. The report did not specify what option was being targeted, whether it was ‘exploring options with the external market’ or ‘closure of the three sites’. The specific savings figure presented was also questioned as these options could produce different figures.

A Point of Order was raised about the legality of voting on this proposal but the Interim Executive Director (Resources) and Monitoring Officer was satisfied that there was enough certainty in the proposal to proceed.

In response to the amendment, it was highlighted to Council that the proposal was to explore options to see if there was a more efficient way of providing these services. If these services could not be provided through the private or voluntary providers, the service would remain in place. Although a suggestion was made to use the EFS to continue to provide the service, Councillor Cottingham stressed that they needed to follow the conditions of those funds and demonstrate financial prudence.

Overall, Members noted that the proposal was only committing to explore options, not close the resource centres.

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

The Minority Group amendment was declared LOST.

AMENDMENT: In the name of the Conservative Group, proposed by Councillor Ross Mackinnon and Seconded by Councillor Richard Somner:

“Original Text:

Planned Revenue Budget: Financial Year 2025/26

Proposed amendment:

Remove savings from the Revenue Budget, Appendix E:

a)       Three-weekly general refuse collection from households, £150,000

b)       Reduction in winter gritting, £40,000

Removal of these savings will cost £190,000.

Reduce Capital Financing costs by £116,643.

Capital financing cost savings of £116,643 will arise from the amendments to the Capital Strategy detailed above, leaving £73,357 to be funded.

Reduce Communications and Performance costs by a total of £73,357.

The Council’s Communications and Performance units together cost £990,400 before recharges in the 2024-25 Revenue Budget. It is proposed that £73,357 of efficiencies are found in these areas.”

Councillor Mackinnon introduced the proposed amendment and highlighted that it would see two savings removed, the three-weekly general refuse collection (for £150k) and the reduction in winter gritting (for £40k). He emphasised that these were very basic services and that these savings proposals would be too significant of a degradation.

On the consultation for the three-week refuse collection, Councillor Mackinnon critiqued the range of options provided by the Council and indicated that three versions of ‘yes’, one ‘maybe’, and one ‘no’ was not a fair way to get informed about resident’s views. Those who indicated they could cope with the change should not have been included in the positive responses and therefore, the agreed was significantly lower than advertised by the Administration. On gritting, he also noted that 67 per cent of respondents disagreed with reduction. As this reduction could be a safety hazard, Councillor Mackinnon expressed his opposition to these savings proposals. Some Members also indicated that there could be a risk of increased fly tipping, which would then generate more costs for the Council.

In response to a point about three-weekly refuse collections, Members of the Administration confirmed that there had been some concerns, but that as there was now curb side collections for items such as clothes, glass, and plastics, there would be a reduced need for general waste collections. Members also indicated that residents understood the need to reduce general waste and that this would be a driver to increase the use of the recycling bin. It was also indicated that the Administration would be happy to address concerns from young parents or those needing regular medical waste disposal on a case-by-case basis.

Members also noted that that not implementing these savings would result in a need to find alternative savings.

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

The Conservative Group amendment was declared LOST.

Debate returned to the substantive motion.

Continuation of meeting: Proposed by Councillor Billy Drummond and Seconded by Councillor Jeff Brooks.

RESOLVED: In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Part 3, point 10.8, the Council supported the motion that the remaining business could be concluded by 10.30pm, and therefore proceeded with the agenda item.

Some Members highlighted other solutions to three weekly bin collections, including more technical methods (such as the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) way of separating recyclables) and that they would like to more capital investment negotiated from the Council’s provider, Velia. However, other Members disagreed with the MRF method and indicated that separating waste at a centre risked cross contamination and therefore increase costs and difficulty of separation.

Council noted that there would be a rise in the cost of the green bins, increase for Council tax bands E, F, G, and H, but lowering for bands A, B, and C, and remaining the same for band D. This was noted as being a reversal of the Liberal Democrat election commitment. However, the Administration indicated that this could allow the Council to fund further investment whilst ensuring that only those who could afford it, paid the increased charge.

At this point, Councillor Jane Langford left the meeting.

Members then also highlighted foster care and adolescent support than would be provided in the budget and the work that the transformation team had done to support the proposals outlined for 2025/26.

On savings, Members commended the proposal for a single savings figure to go across all the directorates, but the freeze in Officer training budgets was raised as a concern.

Overall, Council recognised that difficult savings and efficiencies were needed, although some Members believed that some of the savings found, such as with resource centres, gritting, and waste collection were not appropriate.

The substantive motion was put to the vote. 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:

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.