Agenda item

Purpose: In accordance with the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and Local Government Act 2003, the Council must set a balanced budget annually by 11^th March.

Before the start of this item, Councillor Nick Carter joined the meeting. 

Council considered a report (Agenda Item 7) concerning the Revenue Budget for the Financial Year 2026/27.

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

“That Council approves the 2026/27 Council Tax requirement of £136.48 million, requiring a Council Tax increase of +2.99% with a +2.0% Council Tax precept ring-fenced for Adult Social Care.

And that Council:

1        Approves the proposed General Fund net budget requirement of £210.9 million itemised in Appendix B.

2        Approves the fees and charges disclosed in Appendix C, the Council notes the additional in year fees. The charges may be introduced by the Executive during the course of the financial year.

3        Approves the savings disclosed in Appendix F and the investments disclosed in Appendix E.

4        Notes that a budget consultation was undertaken between 1st December 2025 and 12th January 2026. The consultation responses are disclosed in Appendix I.

5        Notes the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) allocations totalling £136.52 million and agree that the Schools Block of £74.09 million is allocated to schools using the local formula agreed by the Schools Forum on 19th January 2026. The outline DSG budget by block is detailed in Appendix H. Members are asked to note that the expenditure budget set is more than income funding available, and it is therefore anticipated that the cumulative High Needs Block (HNB) deficit will be increased by +£16.98 million in 2026/27, with the cumulative balance at March 2027 forecast to be £47.67m million. The cost of financing the HNB is factored into the revenue capital financing requirement for 2026/27 and drives part of the Council’s EFS request.

6        Request that the Executive ratifies the EFS request to Central Government of £50 million, split between £20 million attributable to 2025/26 to provide resilience to the reserves position, and £30 million required to balance the 2026/27 revenue budget.

7        Approve a 100% Council Tax discount for Care Leavers aged 18-25 who reside in West Berkshire.”

Councillor Cottingham introduced the report and highlighted that the budget set the Councils expenditure and Council Tax bill for West Berkshire residents for the 2026/27 financial year. Council noted that they were legally required to set a balanced budget and that the funding sources were derived from council tax, retained business rates, revenue grants, and EFS.

The total budget proposed amounted to £210m and would be used to deliver day to day services such as Adult Social Care, Children Services, Temporary Accommodation, Highways maintenance, and more. There had been numerous meetings to identify efficiency savings in order to reduce the amount of EFS needing to be requested. As the Administration did not view this as free funding – the cost of EFS borrowing totalled 10 per cent of the revenue budget per annum – they were doing everything possible to remove financial dependence on Central Government.

As Councillor Cottingham indicated that the Administration did not want to be the agents of austerity on behalf of the Government, they had looked to protect the most vulnerable in West Berkshire and actually increased funding to key areas such as Adult and Children’s services and temporary accommodation by £19m. He also highlighted that the Council was expecting to keep its reserves above the minimum recommended level set by the Section 151 Officer.

From the responses to the residents’ survey, the top five priority services were identified as roads, education, children’s services, waste and recycling, and housing and homelessness. The Administration had also listened to the feedback and so would not cease the provision of the Adult Respite in the Community (ARC) programme, nor would they proceed immediately with the extension of peak charges for the Henwick Worthy Sports Ground.

As the total council tax funding requirement was £136.5m, a 2.99 per cent increase in the basic rate and 2 per cent increase in the adult social care precept was proposed. This would equate to a total council tax increase of 4.99 per cent for 2026/27.

AMENDMENT: In the name of the Minority Group, proposed by Councillor Adrian Abbs and seconded by Councillor David Marsh:

Original Text:

The Revenue Budget for 2026/27.

Proposed Amendment:

“Council resolves to adopt the following approach for the 2026/27 financial year and beyond:

1.               Partnership with Parish and Town Councils on Non-Statutory Services

In order to provide a credible and immediate mechanism to reduce pressure on West Berkshire Council’s general fund and to limit the reliance in year on EFS, Council will cease to provide non-statutory local services by September 2026 subject to a rapid consultation with all relevant bodies.”

Councillor Abbs introduced the proposed amendment and highlighted that it had been submitted before the Council had secured EFS worth £30m. He informed Council that the funding hole had been produced by a rising demand in social care and the funding reductions of the Fair Funding Review 2.0 settlement. Between 2024/25 to 2028/29, the Council would potentially have to borrow £140m in EFS. The interest payments on this would amount to £91m, resulting in an annual repayment charge in excess of £12m – every £1m taken in EFS would cost the Council £604k over the lifetime of the loan.

Councillor Abbs also highlighted that the entirety of the funding received by the Council through residents’ council tax was used by only two statutory services, Adult Social Care and Children’s Services. The amendment therefore proposed to cease provision of non-statutory services and have them devolved down to the Town and Parish Councils. This level of Local Government was not under the same financial constraints as the District Council as there was no limit to the amount that they could increase their precept by before needing to confirm it via a referendum.

Due to its serious financial position, these savings could be extremely valuable to the Council. If approved, the amendment would protect key services through their devolution, which could even be contracted back through WBC, whilst removing the possibility of the Council issuing a section 114 notice (declaring effective bankruptcy).

However, the majority of Members opposed this amendment.

Members highlighted that this proposal would put a significant and unfair pressure on the Parish and Town Councils in the District. The average reserves for Parish Councils ranged between £50k-£100k and these had been built up in order to provide for one off or emergency costs, not day to day operations. If they were forced to use them for devolved services, it was indicated that they would have no funds available for emergencies. This was also not accounting for all those reserves that had been specifically earmarked for certain projects.

In addition, it was emphasised that the Parish and Town Council level of Local Government ran mainly on volunteers, with many clerks being part time. The burdens of taking over the non-statutory services form WBC was agreed to be pushing them too far.

A point was also raised about Council Tax as some Members believed that this proposal was a way to circumvent the Council Tax rules. If the services were devolved, Parish Councils would need to increase their precepts to cover it. However, as they were not bound by the same limits as the District Council, they could raise their rates by well over 4.99 per cent. Ultimately then, residents could see a significant increase in their council tax bill whilst seeing a potential reduction in services.

Council was also informed that there was already a catalogue of services that West Berkshire had been offering to Parish and Town Councils. However, the current form of devolution was done voluntarily, through consensus, and Members believed that the proposed amendment would essentially be forcing these services on the Parishes. 

In addition, a point was raised about the practicality of the amendment, that if it was approved, it would require a complete overhaul of the budget papers. Therefore, the final budget would only likely be ready well into the financial year. Additionally, it was highlighted that the parishes had already approved their precepts for this financial year, potentially leaving a very large service hole.

Some Members welcomed the principal of the amendment, that local people should have a say and be more involved in the provision of local services. However, the majority of Members did not support its adoption.

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.

Debate returned to the substantive motion.

For some residents, it was felt that council tax had been increasing whilst services had been reduced. However, it was stressed that the increased costs of Adult Social Care and Children’s Services had grown to dominate the Council’s budget and, as these were statutory services, other services had suffered.

Despite these financial pressures, the Council’s Children’s Services had been rated ‘Good’ by the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) and 95 per cent of schools had received a ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ rating. However, some Members asked if the proposals in the budget, rather than simply maintaining the current position, would really provide measurable improvements for children and young people.

In addition, Council welcomed the news that the Government had agreed to write off 90 per cent of the High Needs Block deficit and overhaul SEND provision. As this was a substantial reason behind the requirement to ask for EFS, this reduction would be a needed financial ease.

On Adult Social Care, the last Care Quality Commission (CQC) review gave the Council a ‘good’ rating, and 90 per cent of respondents to a survey indicated that the services provided had improved their lives. Due to increased life expectancy and more people entering adulthood with complex care needs, the requirement for funding had been increasing. However, the Administration had been taking steps to provide this statutory function as effectively as possible whist reducing costs. 

In response to a point about the small number of residents that had responded to the budget consultation, it was suggested that the Resources and Place Scrutiny Committee could be more involved in the process from an earlier stage, potentially going into the community to gain qualitative feedback on the budget proposals and areas of potential improvement.

In response to the proposed budget, the Opposition Group proposed a collaborative approach to dealing with future budgets. As the Council found itself in a very difficult financial position, with a number of the reasons for this being out of the Administrations control, the Leader of the Opposition Group, Councillor Ross Mackinnon, suggested that they could bring their Groups skills into the budget decision making and implementation process. This would help to ensure that targets were met and strategies were fully implemented. In return they were willing to take a share of the responsibility for those decisions.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Jeff Brooks, emphasised that the Opposition Group had lost the last election, and that the Liberal Democrat Administration had been elected to implement their Manifesto. Therefore, they would not accept a coalition. A point was also raised that the Conservatives had previously been in control of the Council and had not solved the problems currently facing the Council.

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.