Agenda item

To consider the Council’s proposed Revenue Budget for the 2026/27 financial year.

The Committee considered the report (Agenda Item 10). The report detailed the budget proposals for the 2026/27 financial year and supporting Council Tax proposals and resolutions.

Councillor Iain Cottingham (Portfolio Holder for Finance and Resources) advised the Committee that this budget had been an incredibly challenging one to set. A considerable amount of work had been undertaken and a robust process followed in order to bring it forward. There had been focus on statutory services within Adult Social Care and Children’s Services, where increased pressures were being felt.

Non-statutory services would however be maintained for residents, even though this meant there was the need to seek Exceptional Financial Support (EFS). The Administration wanted to maintain such services.

The proposed General Fund net budget requirement for 2026/27 was £210.9m. This was an increase from £192m (2025/26 Q3 outturn).

Attention was drawn to the results of the resident consultation. The level of response was relatively low, but responses identified roads/highways as the top priority, followed by Education and Children’s Services.

A question was asked regarding the ‘Collection fund deficit on Council Tax’. It was clarified by Shannon Coleman-Slaughter (Service Director for Finance, Property and Procurement, and Section 151 Officer) that the Council Tax collection rate had fallen. The cost of living was a significant contributing factor. These figures were derived from statutory returns, comparing anticipated collections with actual year-end outcomes, with the resulting deficit accounted for within the MTFS.

Councillor Cottingham acknowledged that the Council could be more robust in pursuing outstanding Council Tax debt, but efforts were on working with residents and supporting those in need of financial support. However, there was also the need to balance fairness to all taxpayers.

The issue of parish precepts was raised, noting that some parishes had managed to keep increases to a minimum, but it was queried whether these would need to increase should greater devolution be sought. Councillor Cottingham explained that services would not be devolved to parishes without funding. It was clarified that any devolution of services to parishes would be “pull” from parishes rather than “push” to. This linked to local government reorganisation and the potential for more proactive collaboration with parish councils. This would help to ensure that devolution empowered rather than distanced local communities.

The potential for unintended consequences of savings elsewhere in the budget was raised, such as increased referrals, exclusions, or care costs for children and young people. It was explained that the Council had protected external costs for children’s services, with a £4.4 million increase in the budget for that area. Detailed analysis had been undertaken between colleagues in Finance and Children’s Services to ensure that budgeting was realistic.

It was noted that transformation funding had enabled investment into the commissioning team and this was allowing the Council to commission care placements in expectation of need and helping to control costs. Positive relationships were also being built with providers. Joseph Holmes (Chief Executive) added that the Government had introduced a new prevention grant for children, with prevention a key aspect to achieving long-term financial sustainability.

Discussion on the importance of modelling the impact of savings in one area on outcomes in another was continued. Mr Holmes explained that analysis was ongoing to ensure that a saving identified in one area did not have a negative impact on another service provided to residents, which could result in additional costs being incurred in future. Reference was made to work with Public Health in order to achieve a ‘health in all policies’ approach as a way of preventing this.

It was queried whether the areas of risk facing the Council had been sufficiently taken into account and whether costs could exceed assumptions. In response it was explained that the budget included a 3.5% salary increase and a 4.8% increase for some Adult and Children’s Social Care services. The budget was described as being both prudent and realistic, with provision for known risks such as the continued operation of care homes and resource centres. The potential was however acknowledged for unexpected pressures to occur, for example from a high-cost residential care placement.

The schedules of fees and charges were discussed, noting that Public Protection Partnership (PPP) discretionary charges were increasing by over 7%, while West Berkshire’s own discretionary charges were rising by 4.8%. It was explained that the PPP’s fees were agreed jointly with Bracknell Forest and Wokingham Borough Councils as part of the joint partnership. These fees were also influenced by the average hourly rate for service provision.

The issue of planning enforcement fees was raised and it was felt that charges could be brought in cases of upheld enforcement breaches. It was explained that all fees and charges were being subject to a comprehensive review and there was the potential to extend these as it was important to ensure that cost recovery was being achieved. However, Clare Lawrence (Executive Director for Place) explained that planning fees were set nationally and were restricted. New legislation could increase the criteria for planning fees, but it was currently not possible to issue a charge for enforcement work or for the development of the Local Plan. Fines for enforcement breaches could be levied, but these were at a low level and did often serve as a deterrent. The Council could access proceeds of crime funding in certain cases, and had done so successfully in the past.

It was noted that other charges for planning services included provision to levy a charge for providing advice not covered by any of the listed categories. The Committee felt the use of this could be explored for the setting of planning fees.

The ability of the Planning Service to cover its costs was discussed, with it being confirmed that, at present, planning fees did not cover the full cost of processing a planning application, especially for minor and household applications. It was hoped that new legislation would allow local authorities to set fees at a level that achieved greater cost recovery.

It was noted that the Council was highly dependent on Council Tax in comparison to many other local authorities. A growth in Council Tax from development would be beneficial, although a concern was raised that Council Tax income might not be sufficient to cover increasing costs of a growing population. It was suggested that modelling on this point could be explored by scrutiny in future.

The potential for further scrutiny of revenue-raising opportunities was discussed, which could take place through a task and finish group.

The results of the resident consultation were referred to. While it was noted that roads and transport were the top concerns for residents, people-related services (such as social care) consumed the largest share of the revenue budget. It was suggested that the Council could do more to communicate this to residents to help widen understanding of this point.

The need to utilise the Council’s assets was discussed, with Shaw House cited as an example where greater commercial use was being promoted. Mr Holmes confirmed that asset utilisation was a key theme in the Finance Improvement Plan, and that the Council was actively seeking to increase income and reduce costs from its property portfolio. This included, but extended beyond, the disposal of assets.

The importance of consulting staff for ideas on savings and income generation was discussed. Mr Holmes confirmed that staff were encouraged to come forward. A staff suggestion scheme was in place, with ideas reviewed by the Senior Leadership Team every four weeks. The role of technology, such as AI, in improving productivity and generating savings was also being explored.

RESOLVED that the report be noted. It would next be considered by Executive on 12 February 2026, followed by Budget Council on 26 February 2026.