Agenda item

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

 

a)    Addendum to the Budget

b)    Budget 2024/25 and Medium-Term Financial Strategy 2024/25-2026/27 Report and Appendices

c)    Extract of the minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held on 6 February 2024.

d)    Proposed amendments to the budget

                      i.        Amendment A - Cllrs Gavin Grant and Ian Thorn: Area Boards

                    ii.        Amendment B - Cllrs Gavin Grant and Ian Thorn: Blue Badge Parking

                   iii.        Amendment C - Cllrs Gavin Grant and Ian Thorn: VisitWiltshire

e)    Report of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee meeting held on 25 January 2024 - consideration of the draft Budget.

f)     Report of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee meeting held on 12 February 2024 - consideration of draft Budget Amendments (to follow)

Budget Introduction

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

 

He then invited Cllr Richard Clewer, Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Military-Civilian Integration, Heritage, Arts, Tourism, Health and Wellbeing, to present the proposed budget.

 

Cllr Clewer proposed a motion to adopt the recommendations as set out on Pages 82-83 of the Summons. This was seconded by Cllr Nick Botterill, Cabinet Member for Finance, Development Management, and Strategic Planning.

 

It was stated that nearly three years ago the administration had been elected on a clear manifesto of policies, which had been incorporated into a formal business plan for the council. He considered that the administration had delivered on those policies, highlighting Local Plan proposals that new houses should be zero carbon, reduction in fly tipping, progress on delivering over a thousand new council houses, being ahead of schedule on making the council carbon neutral by 2030, investment on roads, pothole repairs, renovating and expanding leisure centres, construction of the Silverwood SEND academy, reducing the number of homes required by the Local Plan, support for the council’s reablement and other investments and actions.

 

Cllr Clewer reported that the budget identified in detail savings that would be required, without cutting council services or utilising reserves, with the plans extending forward three years. He noted that many other local authorities were in very difficult financial positions requiring emergency funding from government, but this was not the case in Wiltshire. He praised Members and Officers for having made tough decisions to plan for the long term, transforming services and focusing on prevention and early intervention, which was especially important due to nearly 60% of the budget being spent in adult and social care. He commended that despite financial pressures faced the council was still able to invest and was seeking to further improve enforcement in planning. He criticised amendments that had been proposed in previous years, which he stated would have left the council in a less robust financial position.

 

Details were also provided of the additional funding the government had announced after the initial publication of the budget papers, and how this was proposed to be utilised including on upgrading rural play areas and additional investment in SEND and children’s services early help and prevention support.

 

Scrutiny Comments and Group Leader Responses

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 25 January 2024 to discuss the budget proposals. Cllr Wright also presented the report of the meeting of the committee held on 12 February 2024 to discuss submitted budget amendment proposals.

 

Each meeting had included questions and comments designed to explore the impact and implications of any budget proposals or amendment proposals, following formal or informal meetings of the three select committees to discuss the budget as it related to their remit, and consideration by the Financial Planning Task Group. Cllr thanked all those who had participated in the scrutiny process, and Cllrs Ian Thorn and Gavin Grant for providing their amendments for discussion and scrutiny.

 

Public Participation

A statement was then received from Dawn Wilson, Chair of the Pewsey Vale Tourism Partnership, regarding funding in respect of Visit Wiltshire.

 

Group Leader Responses

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

 

Cllr Ian Thorn, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, thanked officers for their professional support to the group in preparing amendments which would be moved by Members of his group, those involved in the scrutiny process for their comments, and Cllr Grant for his role in presenting the amendments. He noted some of the proposals had been rejected by Council in previous years, but he considered that where benefits existed the group would seek to persuade Council once again. He thanked the people of Wiltshire and town and parish councils, for all they contributed to the county.

 

In response to the Leader’s presentation of the budget he criticised what he saw as political reference to other authorities’ financial struggles, particularly where political change had occurred with them quite recently. He noted the large influence of central government on local government financing.

 

Cllr Thorn commented on the additional funding which had been announced, and proposals for its allocation, but that delivery was the most significant factor, and the funding needed to be well spent. He talked about the huge challenge of adult social care, and questioned how long local government could bear the costs. He also raised the Stone Circle council owned company, and the potential risks for councils when operating such entities, though he supported the aim of developing more council owned homes. He confirmed he did not support the budget as proposed.

 

Cllr Ricky Rogers, Leader of the Labour Group, thanked the Leader for his speech and the work undertaken to deliver a balanced budget. He stated all Members were elected to represent their communities, and it was important to express the views and concerns of their residents. He discussed the inefficient use of resources in dealing with potholes, and the limited capacity to address the issue even where funding was in place. He gave examples of confusion in management of council resources. He criticised the model of local government privatising many functions, and highlighted costs associated with contract inflation for services which were not delivered in house.

 

Cllr Rogers raised the 2% social care levy, noting comments from Prime Ministers on plans to address problems in social care which he said had not materialised. He raised concerned that for decades local government had been able to address local matters such as grass cutting and gully clearing proactively rather than reactively, but that this no longer seemed to be the case, pointing to flooding in Salisbury as a consequence.

 

In relation to the Housing Revenue Account he noted rents were increasing a further 7.7%. He said the rent had increased over 20% in the last four years, and criticised the formula which was used to set the increases for people who could not afford it. Finally, he said that savings from staff terms and conditions from two years ago had still not been made, noting there was ongoing dispute with one trade union, and criticised management actions made in response to that dispute without reference to Members.

 

Opportunity was provided for Group Leaders to move any amendments not listed on the agenda. None were moved.

 

The meeting then entered into debate on the budget proposal from the Leader. Before discussion began, a break was taken for lunch from 12:50-13:50.

 

Amendment A

The Chairman then invited Cllr Gavin Grant, to move and present proposed Amendment A, as set out in the Summons. This was seconded by Cllr Gordon King.

 

Cllr Grant explained that the amendment involved an additional £3000 funding to each Area Board for social welfare funding, and central funding of a further £36k for additional applications by the Boards. He stated most Area Boards utilised all their current wellbeing funding budgets, and he argued that such spending was an effective use of resources as it often unlocked further funding for the community from other sources.

 

He noted high increased in requests for support, and argued there was a demonstrated need. He gave details of the funding arrangements for the amendment, and he stated that the particular reserve allocation did not touch upon planning enforcement. He stated the budget involved making decisions about priorities, and with families and communities struggling he argued the amendment sought to address this and enable Members to direct funding most effectively through their local knowledge.

Cllr Grant also thanked the officer team for their technical support in preparing his three amendments.

 

The Chairman then invited comments from Group Leaders on Amendment A.

 

Cllr Richard Clewer stated he did not support the amendment, which he did not consider was evidence based, and would use funding otherwise proposed for enforcement activity which needed more resourcing.

 

Cllr Gordon King supported the amendment, highlighting the positive community role of the Area Boards, stating the proposal would enable them to have a bigger impact in their areas.

 

Cllr Ricky Rogers welcomed the amendment, and stated he would support if it was clear that the responsible officers, who looked after multiple community areas, had the capacity to deal with increased in application activity as a result of increased grant funding.

 

Amendment A Debate

The Chairman therefore opened debate on Amendment A.

 

Comments made in support of the amendment included that there was a great deal of local demand, with the Area Boards best placed to identify isolated pockets of deprivation within their areas who would benefit from even a small increase in available funding. It was argued the voluntary sector, supported by the council, would be an effective means of combating the cost-of-living crisis and assisting some of the most vulnerable, with grant awards also leveraging other funding to assist local areas. It was suggested this approach to tackling counter need was a solution to over centralisation in the council.

 

Comments made against the amendment included that evidence had not been provided of a demonstrated need for the funding, which it was argued had no longer term plan and no indication of how or the cost of its administration, and that without a strategy in place it would not be an effective use of council funding.

 

Other comments in debate included that the three submitted amendments represented a very small proportion of the proposed budget and did not have a significant impact, and that more funding for Area Boards was a good thing, but lacking criteria the proposal was not sufficiently clear.

 

Cllr Grant, as mover of the amendment, then responded to comments made in debate. He argued that there was clear evidence of local demand for additional funding to support local welfare, and that with all grant funding allocation it was not possible to identify in advance specifically where the funding would be spent. He stated the increase was modest in terms of the overall budget but would have an impact in improving lives, and that officers would be able to resolve any questions regarding administration of the additional funding.

 

Cllr Richard Clewer, as mover of the original budget motion, then responded to the comments made in debate. He stated that the council’s current evidence-based approach was working well, and that not supporting the amendment did not mean there was not support for the Area Boards or the work they undertook. He argued the council worked with the voluntary sector effectively, but that expending the limited resources available required proper assessment of where money would come from and the impacts of utilising it, not simply highlighting areas where more funding might be considered beneficial, which led to poor financial management.

 

There was then a vote on the proposal as follows:

 

Votes for the amendment (28)

Votes against the amendment (57)

Votes in abstention (2)

 

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

 

The vote was therefore lost.

 

Amendment B

The Chairman then invited Cllr Gavin Grant, to move and present proposed Amendment B, as set out in the Summons. This was seconded by Cllr Gordon King.

 

Cllr Grant noted the debate on the same issue at the budget meeting in 2023, calling the rejection of the proposal a fundamental mistake. He argued holders of Blue Badges should be able to park freely in council car parks and stated several other authorities had such a policy. He said Blue Badge holders were not all well-off, and that many faced additional cost challenges as a result of conditions which qualified them for use of a Blue Badge.

 

The Chairman then invited comments from Group Leaders on Amendment B.

 

Cllr Richard Clewer stated he did not support the amendment, noting the change regarding Blue Badges took place 2 years ago. He stated most Blue Badges were issued due to mobility issues associated with age, not reasons of poverty. He argued appropriate adjustments needed to be in place, such as moving parking machines closer to disabled parking, and providing additional time for those with Blue Badges, which had been done.

 

Cllr Gordon King supported the amendment and stated many Blue Badge holders found it more difficult to organise themselves comfortably for parking matters compared to those without a Blue Badge. He argued the amendment provided people who would be struggling with more freedom.

 

Cllr Ricky Rogers supported the amendment. He added a comment regarding ongoing disputes with council management and parking officers.

 

Amendment B Debate

The Chairman therefore opened debate on Amendment B.

 

Comments made in support of the amendment included that being able to park on double yellow lines was not a substitute for the convenience and safety of using proper car parking spaces and should not be encouraged, that the current policy was an unnecessary burden, that reasonable adjustments such as the moving of parking meters were not always in place or may be broken, that the current charging was effectively a penalty on those with Blue Badges, that the amendment had a small financial cost but would have a big impact on those affected which included vulnerable people, that Blue Badges were not free, and those using them had fewer options for travel as they could not for example use most buses.

 

Several comments were made criticising the Leader of the Council for his comments regarding Blue Badge holders, arguing that many Blue Badge holders did not qualify due to age related mobility issues but that the badges had been issued to people of all ages due to various conditions, and that the argument put by the Leader was inaccurate and out of touch.

 

Comments made against the amendment included that it was not clear that it would significantly advantage those with Blue Badges, that the funding being used was needed for other priorities, that Blue Badge holders were able to park on double yellow lines, that the original purpose of Blue Badges when first brought in was not related to financial assistance but to health and mobility, that the financial impact was unclear, and that car parks were being updated to be more accessible for those with disabilities.

 

Cllr Grant, as mover of the amendment, then responded to comments made in debate. He stated that data was not held on the income generated from the current policy for Blue Badge holder parking, so it was not possible to strictly address this, so the amendment was based on estimates from Finance officers, with the amendment stated to be financially viable.

 

Cllr Richard Clewer, as mover of the original budget motion, then responded to the comments made in debate. He highlighted the ringfenced funding from parking revenue to support bus services, and that many local authorities also charged for Blue Badge parking. He stated that on data he had seen most, not all, Blue Badges were issued for age related mobility issues, which did not ignore that there were others issued for different reasons. To address concerns that not everyone in receipt of a Blue Badge required the financial assistance of free parking he stated it would be ideal if it was possible to identify those who were struggling but this was not the case, and he added that he had met with disability groups who had not raised the main problem as one of finance, but mobility and access.

 

There was then a vote on the proposal as follows:

 

Votes for the amendment (28)

Votes against the amendment (54)

Votes in abstention (4)

 

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

 

The vote was therefore lost.

 

Following the vote a point of personal explanation was raised by Cllr Jon Hubbard, arguing that government figures on why Blue Badges were issued did not support the Leader’s position.

 

Amendment C

The Chairman then invited Cllr Gavin Grant, to move and present proposed Amendment C, as set out in the Summons. This was seconded by Cllr Gordon King.

 

Cllr Grant explained that the contract with Visit Wiltshire was coming to an end or already ended, and the amendment allowed for partnership working with an equivalent body if necessary. He noted comments received under public participation raising concerns around not having a local visitor economy partnership in place, not based solely within the local authority. He stated there were risks of not being able to work with bodies such as Visit England or Visit Britain as a result, which given the importance of tourism to the economy would be detrimental to Wiltshire. He argued the council should continue to support a body with the expertise and knowledge necessary to deliver for the sector.

 

The Chairman then invited comments from Group Leaders on Amendment C.

 

Cllr Richard Clewer stated he did not support the amendment. He said the council had decided to end funding for Visit Wiltshire two years ago and to recommission at this stage would be a significant undertaking. He noted that Local Enterprise Partnership functions were now coming back under council responsibility, and the council had been looking at how to take advantage of that moving forward. He highlighted the Towns programme which included funds for a tourism strategy and argued that Wiltshire had been underperforming in relation to tourism in the Southwest of England.

 

Cllr Gordon King supported the amendment and argued that if there had been issues with Visit Wiltshire the council should have worked with them to make necessary changes. He said that the current lack of Visit Wiltshire funding would not be positive for the county.

 

Cllr Ricky Rogers supported the amendment, drawing parallels with arts funding in arguing the economies it would help generate exceeded the cost of the funding.

 

Amendment C Debate

The Chairman therefore opened debate on Amendment C.

 

Comments made in support of the amendment included that Visit Wiltshire provided a valuable service, that support had been expressed from several town and parish councils and that funding would be lost without Visit Wiltshire. It was argued that the decision was not good for economic development, and that the council may not have the expertise or capacity to undertake the same functions. It was stated that the administration did not support bringing in house functions in many other service areas.

 

Comments made against the amendment included that many tourism sites existed which people used, that funding for Visit Wiltshire had not been intended to be permanent and that it did not represent value for money. The delivery of Wiltshire based applications for tourism information was highlighted, with support for the work that could be undertaken by officers to support economic development.

 

Cllr Grant, as mover of the amendment, then responded to comments made in debate. He highlighted the number of website hits for Visit Wiltshire and the number of businesses involved, and argued the council’s proposals in the area may be useful but would not replace the good work which arose from Visit Wiltshire, but that the proposal provided time to develop or work with others if that was appropriate.

 

Cllr Richard Clewer, as mover of the original budget motion, then responded to the comments made in debate. He said the council had detailed plans through its Towns programmes, where the most people visited, and was developing a cohesive strategy regarding tourism and the local economy. He stated that the council had raised issues with Visit Wiltshire over many years, but that the organisation had failed to engage with the council regarding those issues.

 

There was then a vote on the proposal as follows:

 

Votes for the amendment (28)

Votes against the amendment (55)

Votes in abstention (4)

 

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

 

The vote was therefore lost.

 

A break was then held from approximately 17:20-17:35.

 

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 budget during the course of the meeting included that the council had prudent financial management which ensured continued investment in services, without the closure of libraries or leisure centres, and its focus on preventative spending reduced demand. Long-term strategies in key areas such as adult social care and reablement had led to appropriate savings in a planned way.

 

Successes were highlighted such as the council’s Children’s Services being rated as outstanding by Ofsted, and funding for flooding prevention. Highways maintenance investment was raised, and that no amendments had been proposed to increase this.

 

Other comments made included noting the limited budgetary options available to councils, and the ongoing pressures arising from inflation and cost-of-living. There was discussion of services and assets being devolved to town and parish councils, and how effectively this was managed.

 

Comments made in opposition to the budget during the course of the meeting included stating that spending on highways maintenance was below comparable authorities, and that increasing reserves when there was so much pressure on services was not the right option at the present time. There was criticism on the lack of progress on developing the Maltings site in Salisbury, and that the budget lacked ambition, with it stated many residents saw a decline in services such as planning enforcement and school maintenance.

 

Other comments made in the debate included that the council needed to improve the usage of its buildings, possibly rationalising the number of them, and raising concerns on the impact for developers on fees relating to phosphorus credits.

 

Cllr Richard Clewer, as mover of the original budget motion, then responded to the comments made in the debate.He stated comments in opposition had not suggested ways to meaningfully improve on the proposed budget and had focused on small changes only. He argued the amendments would have used money intended for enforcement. In relation to the Maltings development, he said it was not viable on the basis originally planned, and further consideration would be needed following completion of the river park project. He addressed comments relating to Stone Circle, the cost of borrowing, additional funding for children with SEND, and ongoing engagement with trade unions.

 

In conclusion it was argued the budget was evidenced based and focussed on prevention, delivering effectively to tackle pressing issues whilst ensuring savings for the future.

 

At the conclusion of debate, it was therefore,

 

Resolved:

 

a)         That a net general fund budget of 2024/25 of £490.298m is approved;

b)        That the Council Tax requirement for the council be set at £351.077m for 2024/25 with a Band D charge of £1,805.73, an increase of £1.65 per week;

c)         That the Wiltshire Council element of the Council Tax be increased in 2024/25 by the following:

                        i.   A 2.99% 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 2024/25;

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 2024/25 to 2026/27;

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

g)        That the Capital Programme 2024/25 to 2030/31 is approved;

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

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

j)          That the Medium-Term Financial Strategy, the forecast balanced budget over the 2024/25 and 2025/26 financial years and the MTFS 2024/25 to 2026/27 is endorsed.

 

In accordance with the Constitution there was a recorded vote.

 

Votes for the motion (57)

Votes against the motion (18)

Votes in abstention (7)

 

Details of the recorded vote are attached to these minutes.