Agenda item

To receive a report from the Chief Executive, Monitoring Officer, and the S.151 Officer:

 

a)    Budget Addendum (Pages 105 - 108)

b)    Budget 2025/26 and Medium Term Financial Strategy 2025/26-2027/28 Report and Appendices (Pages 109 - 284)

c)    Extract of the minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held on 4 February 2025. (Pages 285 - 288)

d)    Notes from the budget briefings with Trade Union representatives, and representatives of non-domestic ratepayers (Pages 289 - 292)

e)    Report of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee meeting held on 28 January 2025 - consideration of the draft Budget. (Pages 293 - 300)

f)     Proposed amendments to the budget

                      i.        Amendment A - Cllr Jon Hubbard - Free Swimming (Pages 301 - 302)

                    ii.        Amendment B - Cllr Jon Hubbard - Reablement Services (Pages 303 - 304)

g)    Report of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee meeting held on 13 February 2025 - consideration of draft Budget Amendments (to follow)

 

The Chairman introduced the item and provided details of the reports which had been circulated. She explained the procedures to be followed for consideration of the budget, including debate on any proposed amendments.

 

She then invited Cllr Richard Clewer, Leader of the Council, to present the proposed budget.

 

Cllr Clewer proposed a motion to adopt the recommendations as set out in the Summons. This was seconded by Cllr Nick Botterill, Cabinet Member for Finance, Development Management, and Strategic Planning.

 

Cllr Clewer stated that the finances of Wiltshire Council were in good shape, despite a challenging backdrop caused by issues such as the Covid-19 pandemic and war in Ukraine. He thanked Wiltshire Council’s officers, Overview and Scrutiny committees, his Cabinet and group for their hard work over the past four years. He stated that the administration had delivered in numerous areas, including improving service delivery, decreasing fly tipping, reducing potholes, keeping all of Wiltshire’s libraries open and cutting emissions. He stated that the budget would only require an increase of 4.5 percent in council tax when most other authorities were raising funds by the maximum 4.99 percent.

 

Cllr Clewer contrasted the financial position of Wiltshire Council with other authorities he stated were being forced to sell assets or seek extraordinary financial support to balance their budgets. However, Cllr Clewer underlined his disappointment with some aspects of central government policy towards Wiltshire. These included a reduction in grant funding of £6.2 million, an 84 percent increase in Wiltshire’s housebuilding targets, insufficient funding for the High Needs Block, and rejection from the priority stream for the creation of strategic authorities as requested at the meeting on 9 January 2025.

 

Cllr Clewer criticised the lack of any proposed amendments to the budget at the meeting, though argued the cumulative value of previous proposed amendments in other years would have reduced the council’s budgetary reserves.

 

The Chairman then invited Cllr Graham Wright, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee, to comment on the proposed budget and present the report of the meeting of the committee held on 28 January 2025. Cllr Wright also presented the report from the meeting on 13 February 2025 held to discuss budget amendment proposals.

 

Cllr Wright explained that both meetings had included questions and comments designed to explore the impact and implications of any budget proposals or amendments. He thanked the three select committees for discussing aspects of the budget related to their remits, and for the scrutiny undertaken by the Financial Planning Task Group, and commended his report to Full Council.

 

The Chairman then invited group leaders to comment on the proposed budget.

 

Cllr Ian Thorn, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, stated that it was important that people did not pay additional tax unless it was absolutely necessary.  He also took the opportunity to thank the council’s officers for the role that they played in financial management, stressing the importance of public service.

 

He argued that amendments put forward by the Liberal Democrat Group in previous years had been to protect vulnerable people, and that for this year should his group win the election on 1 May 2025 a new budget plan would be brought forward rather than seek to make minor adjustments at this meeting.

 

Cllr Thorn criticised the council administration for what he said was failure to deliver enough council homes, and complacency around the High Needs Block funding. He argued that the £15 million of savings identified in the budget would feel more like cuts. Furthermore, he felt that council policies had pushed responsibility for service delivery to towns and parishes, and it was therefore unreasonable for them to be criticised by the Leader for raising precepts to cover those additional costs. He also criticised the late withdrawal of the Gypsy and Traveller Site Development Plan agenda item.

 

Cllr Ernie Clark, Leader of the Independent Group, thanked officers for preparing the budget and asked for the amendments put forward by Cllr Hubbard to be given a fair hearing. He made comments on the lower than maximum council tax increase in an election year.

 

Cllr Ricky Rogers, Leader of the Labour Group, thanked the administration for their work over the past four years, including in reducing the council’s carbon footprint and repairing potholes. However, he expressed concerns about the number of services that were being contracted out by the council, rather than being run in-house. He highlighted that contract inflation was £17 million in 2024/25 and would be £13 million in 2025/26, costs he argued that would be avoided by the council had it been running those services directly.

 

Cllr Rogers also encouraged the council not to try to find savings by weakening the terms and conditions of staff, criticising the budget passed in 2022 as counterproductive. He praised efforts by the current Chief Executive for resolving the dispute over terms and conditions and for agreeing compensation to those employees affected by a tribunal decision against the council.

 

Opportunity was provided for group leaders to move any amendments not listed on the agenda, with none being moved.

 

Amendment A

The Chairman then invited Cllr Jon Hubbard to move and present Amendment A as set out in the Summons. This was seconded by Cllr Ian McLennan.

 

Cllr Hubbard explained that his amendment was simple and affordable and would bring back free swimming during school holidays at council run swimming pools. He stated that a 0.115 percent increase in council tax, equivalent to four pence per week for a Band D property, would allow children to swim safely and improve their health and wellbeing. He noted that costs would add up for poorer families, who currently struggled to afford childcare during the holidays and that the proposal would remove a financial barrier for them. Cllr Hubbard argued that whilst he also did not like to raise council tax, the money would be an appropriate investment in young people and Wiltshire’s future.

 

Cllr Clewer, Leader of the Council, responded to the amendment, which he did not accept to incorporate to his original budget motion. He highlighted that swimming was on the national curriculum and that initiatives were in place to help lower income families with costs, such as the FUEL Programme and Household Support Fund. He stated that the evidence from when Wiltshire Council used to provide free swimming during holidays was that it did not encourage additional children to swim but subsidised those that were going to swim anyway. He believed that it was not fair to increase the tax burden on poorer people to subsidise a service that was primarily used by people from more affluent backgrounds.

 

Cllr Ian Thorn, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, stated that he sympathised with the amendment and it would be for his group to determine if they felt it could be supported and had a chance of passing.

 

Cllr Ricky Rogers, Leader of the Labour Group, stated that he would support the amendment.

 

The Chairman then opened debate on Amendment A.

 

Comments made in support of the amendment included that the poor state of rivers meant that they were not safe places for children to swim. Some Members felt that there was a lack of investment in youth services in general and that the amount of swimming provided as part of the national curriculum was insufficient to teach all children to swim properly. It was also argued that lower income families on the edge of the benefits system would benefit from the programme.

 

Comments in opposition to the amendment included concerns that the scheme was poorly targeted and would disproportionately benefit richer urban families, while increasing the tax burden on those that were less affluent. Some Members were also worried that there might not be sufficient capacity, or parking available for more people to use the pools. It was argued that central government had introduced a free-swimming scheme in 2009, but it was later withdrawn as it was found to represent poor value for money. The requirement for the scheme was questioned by some, suggesting that there had been an increase in the level of physical activity of people under 16 in Wiltshire and that their activity levels were above the national average. It was highlighted that a new swimming pool was being constructed as part of the new leisure centre in Trowbridge, so investment was being provided to increase swimming.

 

Other comments made during the debate included praise for Cllr Hubbard for putting forward a fully costed amendment, including by those who opposed it.

 

Cllr Hubbard, as mover of the amendment, then responded to the comments made during the debate. Cllr Hubbard stated that funding for the original scheme had been withdrawn in 2011. In response to challenges that the additional service would benefit primarily middle-class people, he highlighted the low additional cost per property of the amendment. He also observed that many children failed the government’s target of being able to swim 25 metres by the end of Key Stage 2, and that the actual provision was not necessarily as extensive as some argued.

 

Cllr Clewer, as mover of the original budget motion, then responded to the comments made in debate. He explained that although he had sympathy for the amendment, he did not feel that it was well targeted. He considered there was insufficient evidence was available that the most in need would benefit to be able to justify the proposed increase in council tax.

 

There was then a vote on the proposal as follows:

 

Votes for the amendment (21)

Votes against the amendment (59)

Votes in abstention (6)

 

In accordance with the constitution there was a recorded vote. Details of the recorded vote are attached to these minutes.

 

The Chairman then adjourned the meeting for lunch at 13:20 and the meeting resumed at 14:15.

 

Amendment B

The Chairman then invited Cllr Hubbard, to move and present Amendment B, as set out in the Summons. This was seconded by Cllr Caroline Corbin.

 

Cllr Hubbard argued that additional investment in the reablement service would be a wise use of public money as it would relieve pressure on hospitals. He stated that evidence suggested that 91 percent of people that received reablement were able to stay in their homes for an additional three months. The proposed increase in council tax, equivalent to £6.42 per year for the average Band D household, would provide an additional 540 hours of care per week. He argued that investing this money proactively would help to save far more money further down the line and would give people greater independence.

 

Cllr Clewer, Leader of the Council, as the proposer of the original budget motion, stated that he was not willing to accept the proposal as a friendly amendment. He agreed that the reablement service did an extremely good job and stated that Wiltshire Council was in the process of absorbing the Home First programme which was providing an additional £2.3 million into reablement. He argued the reablement service had not suggested a need for the additional funding, and there may be insufficient capacity to utilise the increase. Therefore, he argued, spending more money at this time would not have the benefit proposed. He challenged Cllr Hubbard’s figures, stating that 82 percent of people that received reablement were able to stay in their homes for an additional three months, not 91 percent.

 

Cllr Ian Thorn, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, stated that it would be a matter for his group if they felt the amendment could be supported. Cllr Ricky Rogers, Leader of the Labour Group, stated that his group would support the amendment and thanked Cllr Hubbard for bringing it forward.

 

The Chairman then opened debate on Amendment B.

 

Comments made in support of the amendment included that there was strong demand to keep people in their homes for longer and increase their independence, which also provided financial benefits to the council.

 

Comments made in opposition to the amendment included that the council was already focussing on preventative work to avoid the requirement for formal support to be put in place. It was noted that the current reablement budget, before the reallocation of funding from Home First, was £5.7 million and Wiltshire Council was rated as good in their provision of adult social care. Concerns were also raised about further raising the tax burden at a time when residents were facing financial pressures.

 

Some Members stated that, although they supported additional spending, they did not believe that the proposal was the most effective way to spend it at the current time. It was argued that the needs of the wider health and care system needed to be considered, and that funding needed to be invested at the point where it could have the greatest impact on the patient pathway. Other comments included that the private sector would be able to deliver the reablement service more efficiently than the public sector.

 

Cllr Hubbard, as mover of the amendment, then responded to the comments made during the debate. He reiterated the benefits that the additional funding could bring, arguing that the extra money could be spent on third party provision if there was not currently capacity to spend it in-house.

 

Cllr Clewer, as mover of the original budget motion, then responded to the comments made in debate. He argued that the evidence suggested that capacity was in place to deliver the reablement service without additional funding. He argued evidence also indicated that it would be more efficient to run the service in-house than contracting it out.

 

There was then a vote on the proposal as follows:

 

Votes for the amendment (15)

Votes against the amendment (60)

Votes in abstention (9)

 

In accordance with the constitution there was a recorded vote. Details of the recorded vote are attached to these minutes.

 

Budget Debate

There being no further amendments, the Chairman returned to debate on the

original budget motion as moved by the Leader.

 

Comments made in support of the motion included that it was a prudent, evidence-led budget that built upon previous successes by housing people, protecting people and keeping them safe. The budget would see significant investment in services, including an 8.3 percent increase in the funding available to adult social care. 

 

Reference was made to the council delivering an outstanding children’s services rating, keeping all of Wiltshire’s libraries open, increasing leisure centre membership by 15 percent, ensuring public safety through public space protection orders, and inspecting 816 premises for food safety over the past year. The amount of money that Wiltshire Council had to spend on temporary accommodation was also contrasted favourably with neighbouring authorities, and there was praise for the Pause programme working with women who had previously had children taken into care.

 

Comments were made supporting the lower than maximum increase in council tax, comparing Wiltshire with neighbouring authorities and may town and parish councils. and the even higher increases at a number of town and parish councils. Some Members also criticised the lack of alternative budget options from non-administration Members to consider.

 

Comments made in opposition to the budget included that the administration had mismanaged expenditure and failed to properly invest in services to support vulnerable people. There was also criticism that services were being reduced and others, such as street cleaning, were being pushed on to town and parish councils.  Some members commented that areas of savings identified in the budget were described in a vague fashion and that they would welcome greater clarity in the papers in future to better understand the impact of the proposed changes.

 

Other comments made included that raising the council tax below the maximum permitted level, whilst positive for residents, could suggest to central government that Wiltshire did not require any additional grant funding. A suggestion was also made that the council tax could have been raised at an even lower amount with greater efficiencies, such as selling some council officers and reducing allowances. Another comment criticised alleged disparity in highways finding levels between Area Boards, to which the Cabinet Member responsible for Highways did not agree, and that allocations were transparent and appropriate.

 

Cllr Clewer, as mover of the original budget motion, then responded to the comments made in the debate. He stated he was confident that increasing council tax by a lower amount than permitted would not lead to Wiltshire being penalised in future central government funding calculations, as they had to create a formula that applied to all councils. He was also of the view that proposed savings had been set out clearly.

 

In conclusion, the Leader argued the budget was evidenced based, competent, and would deliver for residents.

 

At the end of debate, it was therefore,

 

Resolved:

 

That Council agree:

 

a)    That a net general fund budget of 2025/26 of £527.420m is approved;

 

b)   That the Council Tax requirement for the council be set at £368.818m for 2025/26 with a Band D charge of £1,886.99, an increase of £1.56 per week;

 

c)    That the Wiltshire Council element of the Council Tax be increased in 2025/26 by the following:

 

       i.         A 2.5% general increase;

      ii.          Plus a levy of 2% to be spent solely on Adult Social Care;

 

d)   That the Extended Leadership Team be required to meet the revenue budget targets for each service area as set out in Appendix 1 to this report, for the delivery of council services in 2025/26;

 

e)    That the Extended Leadership Team be required to deliver the revenue savings plans for each service area as set out in Appendix 1 to this report, over the MTFS period 2025/26 to 2027/28;

 

f)     That the changes in the fees and charges as set out in Appendix 4 are approved;

 

g)   That the Capital Programme 2025/26 to 2031/32 is approved;

 

h)   That the Capital Strategy set out in Appendix 2 is approved;

 

i)     That the Schools Capital Programme 2025/26 to 2030/31 in Appendix 3 is approved, including the proposal recommendations included and set out in that appendix;

 

j)     That the DSG budget as approved by Schools Forum is ratified;

 

k)    That the Medium Term Financial Strategy, the forecast balanced budget for 2025/26 financial year and the MTFS 2025/26 to 2027/28 is endorsed.

 

In accordance with the constitution there was a recorded vote.

 

Votes for the motion (58)

Votes against the motion (22)

Votes in abstention (3)

 

Details of the recorded vote are attached to these minutes.

 

The Chairman then adjourned the meeting from 16:15 to 16:30.