Agenda item

The Chairman invited Councillor M Tett, Leader of Buckinghamshire Council, to introduce the report to Members on the proposed 2022/23 revenue budget and capital programme for Buckinghamshire Council.  It was noted that the Council Tax Resolution (Appendix 4) was found in the supplementary agenda pack.

 

The following key points were highlighted:

 

-          Councillor Tett thanked all those who had helped shape the budget, this included majority members of the Portfolio Challenge groups, Cabinet Members, the cross-party Budget Scrutiny Inquiry Group, the Chief Executive and her Senior Leadership Team as well as the Section 151 Officer.

-          The budget had been prepared in a time of uncertainty, with the effects of Covid still present and the unexpected Omicron variant that appeared last December having further impacted Council services and finances. Areas of uncertainty which would have far reaching budgetary implications included social and economic recovery; the Levelling Up White Paper; uncertainties around social care, both in volume and complexity and the potential instability in the provider market;levels of commuting and the effect on parking income, and future office working styles. There were further uncertainties around inflation, and energy costs.

-          The Council had to respond to these changes and support residents as they occurred. This would involve a significant focus on retraining and new skills to enable people to transition into jobs in new growth sectors of the economy.

-          Part of the uncertainty from Covid meant that just a one-year Revenue budget had been produced for 2021/22. A four-year Capital Budget had, however been produced. This year a return to a three-year Revenue budget was proposed to give greater certainty to services, residents and community and voluntary groups. The overall revenue budget, with each Portfolios element expanded, could be found in Appendix 1, whilst the overall Capital Programme could be seen in Appendix 2.

-          Details of all proposed budget changes could be found in Appendix 3.

-          The Council had only been given a one-year financial settlement by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. This brought significant risk as it was suspected that one of the key reasons for a single year settlement was the prospect of a reform of the financing of local government.

-          Whilst Covid had disrupted some services, the Council had delivered a number of key achievements. Councillor Tett highlighted the new Chilterns Lifestyle Centre, £100m Road and pavement investment programme, launch of the Climate Change Strategy with 550,000 trees being planted, statement of intent to move to electric waste vehicles, new EV charging points, excellent flytipping enforcement, welcoming some of the Afghan refugees and the Helping Hand programme which supported financially challenged residents.

-          Many Councils had seen income streams decrease significantly and incur vast expenditure. Councillor Tett acknowledged a number of other local authorities had been issued a section 114 notice, highlighting the importance of prudent and wise spending of tax payers money.

-          Adults and Children’s Social Care remained the two biggest areas of expenditure, representing approximately 60% of all non-school service expenditure. Whilst central Government claimed costs for Adults Social Care, including the social care precepts, would be ‘cost neutral’, there were areas that remained to be discussed. This included the impact of the removal of the ability of the care sector to cross subsidise between bulk purchases by Councils and self-funders as well as the ability of Councils to meet the ‘Fair Cost of Care’ which was expected to be higher than the rates Councils currently pay.

-          To mitigate risks, cautious contingencies had been proposed. Within the budget there were proposals for near £44m of efficiencies and savings, along with some increased income from charges which would be very challenging to deliver.

-          Due to the pressures of increased expenditure a small amount of unallocated General Fund Reserves would be used to balance the budget in 2023/24, although it was anticipated this would be a one off occurrence. General Fund reserves were forecast to be £47m (2022/23) then £45.6m for 2023/24 and 2024/25 respectively.

-          Over £524m would be spent over the next four years through an ambitious Capital Programme. The Council was committed to clearing every drain annually, commencing the regeneration of town centres, providing affordable housing, purchasing more energy efficient waste vehicles and working on the provision of a new Household Recycling Site in the north of the county.

-          Within the budget there was a commitment to strategic projects such as the Ring Roads around Aylesbury, the Abbey barn scheme and the Aylesbury Eastern Link Road, amongst others.

-          The Basic Council tax increase proposed was 1.99% despite general inflation in excess of 5%, in addition to which the Council would be accepting the Government’s proposal to raise a Social Care precept of 2%. After 2022/23 the budget assumed that the Social Care precept would be capped at no more than 1%. Both of these taxes equated to an extra £1.23p per week for an average Band D Council tax payer. The recently announced Council Tax Rebate would help with the rising energy costs for those residents paying council tax in properties up to and including Band D. A discretionary fund was expected to target people in need who were above or below the eligibility.

 

Councillor Tett commended the budget to Council and moved the recommendations as per the report.  This was seconded by Councillor S Bowles.

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rules, the Chairman then invited Councillor Lambert, as Leader of the Alliance Group (main opposition group) to comment on the budget proposals. The following main points were noted:

-          Mr Lambert thanked the Budget Scrutiny Inquiry Group for their work in scrutinising the Revenue Budget and Capital Programme in addition to thanking officers across services for their efforts throughout the various challenges of the past year.

-          That savings identified in the unitary business case were not yet being realised, and whilst the budget was balanced for 2022/23, reserves would be required for 2023/24.

-          A concern was raised that decisions were being made by a small number of Members and that the proposed budget did not reflect all Members’ priorities.

-          That Community Boards were key for local engagement and there was disappointment that the Boards funding had been reduced during the current financial year and within the proposed revenue budget for 2022/23 onwards. This affected the ability to fund important community projects and the Council’s relationship with partners.

-          That the Better Lives Strategy did not match with the Government intention to allow private paying residents access to the same rates paid by the local authority, and that as a result the Council would require a significant amount of additional expertise on the care market. The budget did not include an allowance to employ a number of additional procurement specialists.

-          That more should be done to transfer assets to town and parish councils under covenants to improve areas such as playing pitches and outdoor gyms which improve health and wellbeing, thus reducing burden on public health spend. Further, expedited devolution would enable the removal of ‘special expenses’ lines within the budget.

-          VCS organisations were key to delivering key aspects of support to residents and should have a good level of consistent grants throughout the revenue budget period.

-          That additional investment was required within the Childrens’ and Education portfolio on targeted support to reduce the attainment gap within Buckinghamshire.

-          That climate change should have been a line item included within every portfolio’s budget.

-          That additional work was required to ensure adequate infrastructure was in place across Buckinghamshire for high level EV charging.

-          Further detail should have been contained in the budget around the Household Recycling Centre plans in Buckingham and Princes Risborough.

-          The Buckinghamshire Local Plan required stability in the workforce producing it and more should have been included within the budget around planning recruitment and ‘grow your own’ schemes.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor Lambert for his comments and invited Councillor Wilson to speak on behalf of the IMPACT Alliance grouping.  The following main points were noted:

-                 Councillor Wilson thanked the Officers for their hard work on the budget.

-                 Concern was expressed that the budget had been presented prior to a new Corporate Plan being produced. Further concern was that 40% of the Councils performance KPIs for the latest quarter were amber or red rated, of which 75% were red.

-                 That Cabinet Members had promised to deliver strategies that had indeterminate delivery dates and opportunities to achieve savings were being delayed. Councillor Wilson used the example of repurposing or fully leveraging council owned properties needing to be expedited.

-                 Better Buckinghamshire savings should be delivered and then delivered again. Where a service achieved a saving in year 1, it should not be presumed that these services continually receive the same budget year on year.

-                 That special expenses should not be labelled ‘special’ indefinitely and removing these would free up headroom for vital services.

-                 That Adult and Childrens Social Care was moving in the right direction and the Social Work Academy was an excellent initiative which could be developed further.

-                 With so many community organisations reliant on Council funding, Community Board and Voluntary Sector Grant, cuts could have significant consequences for children, communities and the environment.

-                 Concerns were raised that EV charging funding levels bore no resemblance to the scale of the requirement; that funding was inadequate for the local plan if there were to be significant changes in the upcoming White Paper; and around the modelling presumptions for the uptake of green waste collection in High Wycombe.

-                 That a more urgent approach to Climate Change was required. Members and residents required education, cross portfolio working was key, brown before green was needed for developments, vehicle emissions needed to be minimised through better transport policies and tighter roadwork windows and a reduction in food use should be encouraged. The Climate Change and Air Quality Strategy needed to be costed and funded correctly.

 

At the conclusion, the Chairman thanked Councillor Wilson for his comments.

 

The Chairman then opened up debate on the budget and invited questions and comments from Members. The following issues were highlighted and responded to by the Leader or Cabinet Members:

 

-        Playing pitches and devolution of assets to town and parish councils.

-        The importance of meaningful well paid jobs and access to training for residents across Buckinghamshire.

-        Special expenses and the High Wycombe Governance review of the unparished area.

-          EV charging points and the allocated £200k per annum contained within the budget.

-          The large percentage increases of Aylesbury and Amersham Town Councils precept levels respectively.

-          The new Domestic Abuse Act, its importance to vulnerable families and its budget implications.

-          Investments in roads and pavements.

-          Community Boards and their important roles in supporting the Council’s localism agenda, including what they could achieve on the budgets proposed.

-          The heavy traffic congestion in Aylesbury and importance of the link roads.

-          £12m electricity grid re-enforcement works commencing this coming year in and around Aylesbury

-          Pockets of deprivation within Buckinghamshire.

-          Children’s Services continuing to improve on their ‘needs requirement to be good’ Ofsted rating.

-          The significant capital investment in growing school place capacity.

-          The proposed household recycling centre in the North of the county to support the housing growth in the area.

 

The Chairman thanked everyone for their questions and comments and reminded members that there was a legal requirement for a recorded vote to be taken on the budget. The Chairman also informed Members that he intended to take a recorded vote, en bloc, for all of the budget recommendations. 

 

The vote was recorded as follows:

 

FOR (78): Councillors Adoh, Anthony, Ashman, Bagge, Baum, Birchley, Blamires, Bond, Bowles, Bracken, Branston, Brazier, Broadbent, Broom, Brown, Butcher, Caffrey, Carington, Carroll, B Chapple, S Chapple, Chaudry, Chilver, Cornell, Cranmer, Culverhouse, Dhillon, Dormer, Egleton, Gomm, Goss, Hall, Harker, G Harris, C Harriss, Heap, Hogg, Mahboob Hussain, Irwin, Jackson, Jones, Jordan, Kelly, King, A Macpherson, I Macpherson, Mahon, Marshall, Martin, W Matthews, Mohammed, Mordue, Naylor, Newcombe, Ng, Osibogun, Poll, Rand, Rouse, Sandy, L Smith, Stanier, Stannard, Strachan, Summers, Tett, Thompson, Town, Towns, A Turner, M Turner, Waite, Wallace, M Walsh, Waters, Whyte, Winn and A Wood.

 

AGAINST (21): Councillors Baughan, Christensen, Cooper, Dixon, Drayton, Fayyaz, Gemmell, Guy, I Hussain, Majid Hussain, T Hussain, Khan, Knight, Lambert, Morgan, Poland-Goodyer, W Raja, G Smith, M Smith, Wassell and Wilson

 

ABSTENTIONS (4): Councillors Cllrs Bates, O Hayday, Stuchbury and Wheelhouse

 

RESOLVED –

 

(1)          That the Revenue Budget and Capital Programme (Appendices 1-3) be approved.

(2)          That the Council Tax Resolution (Appendix 4) be approved.

(3)          That the ‘Special Expenses’ budgets, precepts and associated services for Aylesbury Town, High Wycombe Town and West Wycombe Church Yard (Appendices 5 & 6) be approved.

(4)          That Cabinet be delegated authority to make decisions to add up to £100m to the capital programme, to be funded by Prudential Borrowing.

(5)          That the Council Tax Reduction Scheme Policy (Appendix 7) be approved.

(6)          That authority be delegated to the Leader, in consultation with the s.151 Officer, to make any technical changes to the Council Tax Reduction Scheme as required from legislation concerning the £150 Council Tax Energy Rebate Scheme, together with any changes required to implement any new discretionary schemes linked to the discretionary funding allocated

 

Note: Councillors I Darby, P Fealey and G Hollis left the meeting prior to the recorded vote taking place.