Agenda item

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

 

Details of the budget process are attached.

 

10a) Budget 2023/24 and Medium-Term Financial Strategy 2023/24 - 2025-26

10b) Extract of the minutes of Cabinet held on 31 January 2023.

10c) Proposed amendments to the budget – reports to overview and scrutiny

 

·       Amendment A (HRA Rents)– Cllr Ricky Rogers – in respect of Budget recommendations i-k, specifically j.

·       Amendment B (Blue Badge parking charges) – Cllrs Gavin Grant/Ian Thorn - in respect of budget recommendations a-f and L

·       Amendment C (Council Tax Relief) – Cllrs Gavin Grant/Ian Thorn - in respect of budget recommendations a-f and L

·       Amendment D (CAB Rent)– Cllrs Gavin Grant/Ian Thorn - in respect of budget recommendations a-f and L

·       Amendment E (Friendship and Lunch Clubs) – Cllrs Gavin Grant/Ian Thorn - in respect of budget recommendations a-f and L

 

10d) Reports of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee meetings held on 24 January 2023 and 7 February 2023.

10e) Notes of the meeting with Group Leaders and Trade Union representatives and non-domestic ratepayers on 8 February 2023.

10f) Budget Addendum Report – Updated Budget Proposals Page 405-6

 

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 of any proposed amendments. He then invited Councillor 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. Councillor Clewer proposed a motion to adopt the recommendations as set out on pages 406-409 of the Summons. This was seconded by Councillor Nick Botterill, Cabinet Member for Finance, Development Management and Strategic Planning.

 

Councillor Clewer drew attention to the Budget Addendum Report included in the Summons which outlined the late update from Government regarding the final Local Government Finance Settlement and how the updates affect the previously published budget and the proposals to be moved. He detailed some of the work carried out by government, council officers, voluntary sectors, Members and his administration in overcoming the challenges of delivering services through the impact from the invasion of Ukraine, continued Covid recovery, the death of the Queen, and the ongoing cost-of-living crisis. The financial strain that local authorities across the country were facing was described and additional details as to the financial status and proposed budgets of neighbouring authorities were highlighted to provide further context to the proposed budget.

 

Councillor Clewer then emphasised the four guiding themes of the Business Plan in preparing the budget, and that focus and investments into preventative work and tackling long term systemic problems was critical to limiting pressure and driving the organisational operation of Wiltshire Council and the budget itself. A rigorous and prudent approach to developing the budget had been followed, to focus activity where it was most needed with understanding of the implications across all parts of the council. 

 

Specific details were set out with it stated budgets were increasing in all service areas, including an extra £11m into Living and Aging well, £6m into Education and Skills, and £2.3m into Planning. It was explained that due to the increases to inflation, if the standard calculation was applied, social rent would be increased by 11.7% but central government had intervened and stated that the increase could not exceed 7%, and the council was proposing to increase social rents by this figure.

 

Capital investment and programmes over the next 7 years were detailed. It was explained that the administration had worked to develop a more accurate capital programme with a better profiling spend to ensure that there was a greater understanding of when and where to spend the £1.1bn of investments into Wiltshire. Councillor Clewer raised the issue of reserves and highlighted that prudence and tight financial control were critical and underpinned the success of the Council and that £13.1m would be released from reserves to address the key priorities and strategic long-term issues of the county. Noting the proposed amendments included with the Summons he criticised the scale of the proposals due to their very small impact on the total budget.

 

In conclusion, Councillor Clewer stated that the presented budget for the next 3 years was stable and fully costed with no use of reserves to balance the accounts and provided a clear vision to modernise and transform services, focussing on preventative work, tackling deprivation and maintaining critical infrastructure, and recommended Council approve the proposal.

 

Scrutiny Comments

The Chairman then invited Councillor Graham Wright, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee, to comment and present the report of the meeting of the committee held on 24 January 2023 to discuss the budget proposals. Councillor Wright at the same time presented the report of the meeting of the committee held on 7 February 2023 to discuss budget amendment proposals.

 

Each meeting had included a series of questions and comments from Select Committee chairs and others, with extensive discussion of the effect and deliverability of the budget and proposed amendments, and drew attention to the full report included in the Summons. Thanks were given to all Scrutiny Committee Members, Officers, Cabinet Members, Financial Planning Task Group Members and those Councillors who had submitted amendments. He commended the level of scrutiny that had taken place throughout the year and particularly relating to the formal budget and amendment proposals.

 

The Chairman also invited Councillor Pip Ridout, Chairman of the Financial Planning Task Group, to comment. Councillor Ridout provided assurance as to the extensive and rigorous scrutiny process undertaken, including briefings to all Members, Task Group meetings, and the great many questions which were submitted and reported to the Management Committee.  She added her thanks to those already given by the Leader, Andy Brown, S151 Officer, and the rest of the Finance team.

 

Public Participation

The Chairman explained that one statement and two questions from the public had been received as set out in the Agenda Supplement, with the details of supplementary questions received below.

 

Question P23-03 – Colin Gale – Rushall Parish Council

A written response was provided as detailed in the Agenda Supplement. Mr Gale asked a supplementary question relating to the Town and Parish Council four-yearly election cycle costs, such as how to explain the proposed precept increase to electorates and criticising the level of consultation prior to the decision. Councillor Ashley O’Neill, Cabinet Member for Governance, IT, Broadband, Licensing, Staffing, Communities and Area Boards thanked Councillor Gale for his statement and questions. Councillor O’Neill referred to the written responses included within the Agenda Supplement and noted that Wiltshire Council had historically absorbed the costs incurred solely for electoral activity that related to City, Town and Parish Councils who had their own precepting ability, and the introduction of the charges would bring Wiltshire in line with other Councils. Details as to the specific financial impact to Rushall Parish Council were given and Councillor Gale was encouraged to contact the Wiltshire Council Elections Team directly for further information.

 

Group Leader Responses

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

 

Councillor Ian Thorn, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, thanked Councillor Clewer, Andy Brown, S151 Officer, Lizzie Watkin, Director of Finance, Councillor Gavin Grant and Officers for their hard work and commitment in preparing the budget and those assisting with preparation of the proposed amendments, and all council staff for their work through the year, and the support of residents and businesses. He commented upon some of the issues raised by the Leader in his budget speech, such as the role of Visit Wiltshire and the removal of its funding base, and some of the points made by the Leader were commented upon; namely, the role of Visit Wiltshire and its funding base for future years and the criticisms of neighbouring Councils. The financial strain that local government was facing was reiterated and the challenges that all local authorities were navigating was emphasised in respect of the necessity that central government recognised those challenges and supported councils in delivering vital services.

 

Further thanks were given to officers for the work undertaken in supporting residents during the cost-of-living crisis and emphasis was given as to the continued challenge of reaching and aiding those residents most in need of help. Councillor Thorn accepted that the yearly preparation of the budget was not a simple task and welcomed the achievement of a balanced budget despite the economic climate and landscape. However, he stressed that some of the proposed savings were detrimental to the poorest and most vulnerable residents with few positive impacts felt. He stated that he could not support the recommendations as they stood and welcomed the debate with regard to the proposed amendments.

 

Councillor Ernie Clark, Leader of the Independent Group, stated that he would observe the debate before reaching any conclusions.

 

Councillor Ricky Rogers, Leader of the Labour Group, thanked the Leader for his introduction to the budget. He expressed disappointment that there were no details as to the impacts to residents for the proposed 7% rise on social rents, and criticised comments from the Leader regarding the parish level precepts in Salisbury. He referenced ongoing disputes between the GMB Union and the council’s corporate leadership.

 

Councillor Rogers also noted the work undertaken in delivering a balanced budget during a difficult financial year, work in tackling the climate emergency, and the production and subsequent circulation of a leaflet providing contact information for residents who needed help and advice during the ongoing cost-of-living crisis. Councillor Rogers highlighted the increase in contract inflation and questioned whether any of the services being outsourced could be or could have been handled internally by the council to aid in saving costs. Councillor Rogers referenced his upcoming amendment in context of whether he could support the budget as proposed.

 

A break was then taken for lunch between 12.55pm and 2:00pm.

 

Amendment A

The Chairman then invited Councillor Ricky Rogers, seconded by Councillor Ian McLennan, to present proposed Amendment A, as set out in the Summons.

 

Councillor Rogers explained that his amendment was to reduce the rise in social dwelling rents from 7% to 5%. This had an additional budgetary cost of £0.519m, to be funded by a decrease in the contribution to the Housing Revenue Account Reserve of the same amount to offset the reduction in rental income. Councillor Rogers stated that normally the rise was set by the Department of Levelling Up, Housing, and Communities, plus 1%, but that due to the current economic and inflationary situation councils had been given discretion on the rise, with modelling for 3%, 5%, and 7%, with the latter being the cap. He noted most councils and housing associations had set 7%, but that Swindon Borough Council had set their rate at 5%.

 

Councillor Rogers noted that increases in council tax and parish precepts, and considered that a 7% rise for social dwelling rents on top of that was an unreasonable burden. He stated he considered the council to have a well-run Housing Board and that it was an effective landlord, but pointed to feedback from his local community, where a high proportion of the social dwellings were located, asking to reject the recommendation of the board to set the rate at 7%. He read out a number of statements from local Salisbury residents. He asked council to lessen the impact on those hit hardest, and that whilst a lesser rise would affect the amount of reserves in the Housing Revenue Account, which remained significant, it would not affect the progression of development works planned.

 

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

 

Councillor Clewer confirmed he did not support the amendment. He pointed to the recommendation of the Housing Board, which included tenants and independent members, that 7% was the most appropriate rise at the time. He stated the Housing Revenue Account operated on a 30 year business plan and decisions made on it could have a significant effect over time, pointing to a previous government decision to reduce rents by 1% a year over 4 years, which had significantly hit those business plans. As such, even as a one off decision to reduce rents there would be knock-on effects, and he could not support an impact on the business plan designed to provide more council houses and a better service.

 

Councillor Thorn noted the discussion that had taken place at Overview and Scrutiny Management relating to the amendment. He did not consider that other authorities or associations raising by 7% in itself meant that a rise in Wiltshire of 5% was unreasonable. He stated he had not seen evidence the lesser rise would negatively affect the repairs budget, and supported the amendment as an opportunity to offer support where it could to residents during the ongoing cost of living crisis.

 

Councillor Wright, in place of the Independent Group Leader, stated there would be a variety of views on the amendment from the group, but he expressed his own sympathy for the amendment.

 

The Chairman then opened debate on Amendment A.

 

Amendment A Debate

Comments made in support of the amendment included that only around 1/3 of tenants would be directly affected by the amendment as they were not in receipt of housing benefit which was rising above the level of inflation and not a large impact. Comparisons were made to other local authorities which had more social dwellings yet lesser reserves, indicating Wiltshire could afford to reduce its reserves a little on this occasion. Some Members noted the importance of building more social housing, but that the amendment was providing needed help which was able to be offered.

 

Other comments were made that in most areas of Wiltshire there was not much social housing owned by the council, and so most of those in social dwellings would be facing a 7% rise as agreed by their housing association. Comparisons with private sector rent rises were made, which it was stated was less than the 7% being asked of those in social dwellings. Others commented that the economic situation was such that making a 30 year projection was not useful or to be relied upon, but the existing impacts could be seen. Some stated that it was important to note the council was the landlord and decision maker, with an obligation to look out for its tenants, and that on balance immediate action was justified given the urgent situation.

 

Comments made against the amendment included that there would be an impact on the discretionary spend, and would require the maintenance programme to be reprofiled. It was noted that the difference between the recommendation and the amendment amount to less than £2 per week, which whilst not insignificant had longer term effects on the Housing Revenue Account with a shortfall building up over the 30 year business plan to over £17m. It was also stated that the original expectation of increases of inflation plus 1% was due to the unique situation not going be met, with the 4% below inflation rise already having an impact on the maintenance and investment. There were also concerns about the impact on the council house build programme, and the ongoing financial impact that would be felt from the lack of the additional funding from one year rolling into future years.

 

Other comments in debate included that the poorest residents were in receipt of housing benefit and would not be affected by the recommendation or amendment, and that the cost of the lesser increase would therefore be met by other residents. It was also noted that those in private rents did not have the same level of security of tenure. Others pointed to the recommendation of the Housing Board itself, and the risk that all the tenants would be ultimately worse off if the investment programme was prejudiced.

 

Councillor Rogers, as mover of the amendment, then responded to comments made in debate. He acknowledged the Housing Revenue Account could be complicated, but he noted the council was part way through not at the start of the business plan. He reiterated that in most years there would not be opportunity to set a lower level of rents, if inflation was brought under control. He pointed to previous reductions which did not lead to a large detrimental impact, the level of reserves available, and that the main issue with planned development work to the housing stock was not funding, but lack of available tradesman on local government pay and conditions. He asked the council to think about those who could least afford to pay an increase.

 

Councillor Clewer, as mover of the original motion, then responded to the comments made in debate. He highlighted work undertaken to set up the housing stock to be sustainable over the long term, the constant rolling nature of the 30 year plan to keep maintenance going, to keep the stock in good condition, and to build more stock. He reiterated that losing £0.500m for this year would have significant effects on the account over the long term, and the council would not be able to undertake some works which were designed to improve standards and efficiency, which itself would lead to cost savings for all residents, such as on heating costs. He asked the council to reject the amendment, as whilst it sounded sympathetic to residents it would in fact be detrimental to their interests.

 

In accordance with the constitution there was a recorded vote.

 

Votes for the amendment (29)

Votes against the amendment (51)

Votes in abstention (3)

 

The vote was therefore lost. Details of the recorded vote are attached to the minutes.

 

Amendment B

The Chairman then invited Councillor Gavin Grant, seconded by Councillor Ian Thorn, to present proposed Amendment B, as set out in the Summons.

 

Councillor Grant explained that the amendment was to remove the income budget introduced in 2022/23 as a result of the saving included in the budget to include parking charges for Blue Badge holders. This had been estimated in discussion with council officers to have an annual impact of £0.040m. It was proposed to be funded for 2023/24 and 2024/25 from reductions in the Wiltshire Towns Funding budget. For 2025/26 it was proposed to be funded through an increase in the assumption in growth in the council tax base from 1.2% to 1.25%, which resulted in an additional £0.169m of basic council tax, which would also be utilised for other proposed amendments. He drew attention to details in the report to Overview and Scrutiny on past growth of the council tax base.

 

Councillor Grant argued that the impact of the amendment on the overall budget was very modest, but the issue had generated a lot of concern from residents of Wiltshire about the introduction of the charges following the decision at the previous years’ budget. He noted Blue Badge holders already had to pay for the Badges, and that many of them were impacted by greater expenses in their own life. He said this was recognised by the recent decision to allow an additional free hour for Blue Badge holders in council car parks. He believed the charge should be waived entirely, and that the evidence was that disabled people usually had a higher cost of living, and there was an opportunity to acknowledge the imposition of the charge should be reversed.

 

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

 

Councillor Clewer confirmed he did not support the amendment. He noted the arguments for and against the charge had been thoroughly debated at the previous years’ budget. He pointed to comments from the S151 Officer in the reports, and that other council’s such as Bath and North East Somerset also charged for Blue Badge parking. He stated that in discussion with disability groups the key issue was not charging, but impacts from mobility issues. Other comments he would save for the conclusion of the debate.

 

Councillor Thorn supported the amendment. He referenced that many residents had contacted him with concerns about the impact of the charge. He said due to difficulties in estimating parking income there was in fact reduced financial risk. In response to reference to the comments of the S151 officer he stated the Leader had noted the amounts involved were very small, this was not a proposal which would significantly effect the council’s operations, but would improve the lives of a substantial number of people.

 

Councillor Rogers stated the proposal offered a sensible funding method of limited impact, and so was minded to support the amendment.

 

Amendment B Debate

The Chairman therefore opened debate on Amendment B.

 

Comments made in support of the amendment included that many Blue Badge holders had mobility difficulties in getting to and using parking charge machines, and upgrades would take a long time to implement, whilst removing the charge could be immediate. It was stated that issue of inaccessibility had been raised prior to the decision as foreseeable. It was argued that the current policy to charge meant those who were able to be parked elsewhere in less convenient locations, and others may be discouraged from journeying.

 

Other comments were made that noted the cost of removing the charge was very small, yet not removing it disadvantaged a large number of people. Some questioned the benefit of charging Blue Badge holders, and the decision had caused upset and anxiety to a particular group. Some comments argued the lack of disabled representation on the council may have impacted the initial decision. The level of charges that would be raised was questioned, with the risk that if they continued people might not do so, and so in fact the level estimated could be lower. Examples were provided of some of those with mobility issues suffering falls and other risks, and that the council should encourage use of proper parking spaces for safety reasons. Although not all those with a Blue Badge needed financial assistance it was argued that a large proportion did. 

 

Comments made against the amendment included that not all those with a Blue Badge needed financial assistance, whereas those on universal credit for example were not proposed to have parking charges removed. It was stated that Blue Badge holders often needed more time to get in and out of their cars, and this was being recognised with the additional free parking time.  It was stated it had not been an easy decision to implement the charge, and that the opposition included proposing policies which were not helpful for motorists, which impacted use of car parks, and referenced proposals made at other local authorities.

 

The history of Blue Badges was raised, with the intention of the authorising Act stated to be focused on those with severe mobility issues, and at the time there had not been dedicated disabled parking spaces, so the policy was about on street parking. Financial support for those in need was provided by other means, with no requirement for disabled spaces to be free. The level of support provided by the council to vulnerable people, including older and mobility impaired residents, was highlighted as an indication of general support. The funding of the amendment was raised, with the purpose of the Towns Fund to assist in transforming high streets was stated to be diminished if used to fund amendments unrelated to that. The increase in the council tax base assumption to part fund the amendment was criticised, with the budget assumption the professional advice the council had received.

 

Other comments in debate included that encouraging Blue Badge holders not to park on double yellow lines, which they were entitled to do if not causing an obstruction, was positive, and not charging in the car park may be an incentive. There were also comments relating to the number of parking wardens and their associated pay, in enforcing rules in council car parks.

 

Councillor Grant, as mover of the amendment, then responded to comments made in debate. The discussion and debate at Overview and Scrutiny on the amendment, including on the proposed funding of the amendment, was highlighted. He noted the debate at the council meeting had raised issues of mobility and ability for people to pay, and stated both were relevant. He felt the decision last year to impose charges deserved to be revisited and asked for support for his amendment.

 

Councillor Clewer, as mover of the original motion, then responded to the comments made in debate. He stated financial advice was that the amendment was a risk, and that whilst small in itself if the council started to approve risky amendments on such a basis this was not a sensible approach to financial management. He stated the Towns Fund was critical for the council, and it could not be used for this purpose. The primary issue involved was mobility, and it was not the case that most Blue Badge holders were in receipt of benefits. He noted adjustments had been made to assist with the mobility concerns.

 

In accordance with the constitution there was a recorded vote.

 

Votes for the amendment (28)

Votes against the amendment (50)

Votes in abstention (7)

 

The vote was therefore lost. Details of the recorded vote are attached to the minutes.

 

The Chairman then stated that with consent of the meeting that with the exception of those proposing amendments and group leader comments, that all Members be restricted to 3 minutes speaking time during debate, rather than 5 minutes. This was agreed by the meeting.

 

Amendment C

The Chairman then invited Councillor Gavin Grant, seconded by Councillor Ian Thorn, to present proposed Amendment C, as set out in the Summons.

 

Councillor Grant explained that the amendment was to include an additional £0.350m for discretionary Council Tax Reliefs to support households in receipt of Council Tax Relief support where there was a balance of council tax to be paid, to  apply an additional £25 discretionary relief for 2023/24 only, and to include an additional £0.300m revenue budget for funding additional Council Tax Relief to support households with individuals and families hit by the cost of crisis. This was a total cost of £0.650m, proposed to be funded through use of the Collection Fund Surplus received in the 2023/24 year and reducing the contribution to the Collection Fund Volatility Reserve.

 

Councillor Grant argued the amendment was intended to give the council greater capacity to offer discretionary relief on council tax. He stated the council was in receipt of government funding to assist with council tax relief. He quoted comments on behalf of Wiltshire Citizen’s Advice regarding those just outside those protected by government funding, the people the council exercised its discretion on council tax. He stated where the council was currently forgiving 80% of someone’s council tax it would pursue the remainder, leading to court action. He said that was appropriate if someone could pay, but there were increasing numbers of people who were struggling to pay despite not being in receipt of benefits. He directed attention to comments from the S151 Officer in the report, stating that it indicated there was unallocated government funding for Council Tax Relief, and pointed to the effect on reserves.

 

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

 

Councillor Clewer confirmed he did not support the amendment. He considered the amendment utilised reserves based on assumptions and not evidence.

 

Councillor Thorn supported the amendment and the arguments Councillor Grant had set out.

 

Councillor Rogers stated the amendment was well intentioned, though he had some concerns about the impact on the reserves and would consider the debate carefully.

 

Amendment C Debate

The Chairman therefore opened debate on Amendment C.

 

Comments made in support of the amendment included that council reserves had previously been much lower, and the proposed reduction was supportable. It was argued that the use of Council Tax Relief to support communities during the cost of living crisis was a powerful and justified tool in the current circumstances. It was stated record numbers of people were accessing crisis support such as emergency charity grants and food banks, indicating the severity of the pressures many faced and the need for the amendment.

 

Comments made against the amendment included that the collection fund reserve existed because a 1% difference from a predicted collection amounted to over £3m, so the reserve was necessary to cover that or a more significant scenario. Any reduction of that reserve entailed a significant risk, and the council would need to take a swifter route to bring more monies in to account for that. The volatility of the economy in recent years due to Covid, Brexit, international war and other matters, was noted. Some comments stated there was sufficient funds allocated, the amendment had minimal impact and lacked a coherent plan.

 

Other comments in debate included seeking clarification of the £25 support element, and evidence that there would be a reduction in costs due to reduction in action taken against people for non-payment of council tax.

 

Councillor Grant, as mover of the amendment, then responded to comments made in debate. He noted the extensive discussion at the Overview and Scrutiny meeting, and stated that the amendment strengthened the relief fund, where there was no guarantee the government would continue to fund it. He reiterated the purpose of the amendment was to provide relief to those not currently receiving the 100% relief, not additional to those who were. Regarding reductions of actions against those who are unable to pay, he stated the council does take action against those who owe, and so extension of the 100% to more individuals would result in fewer actions, though the number could not be quantified.

 

Councillor Clewer, as mover of the original motion, then responded to the comments made in debate. He criticised use of reserves for one off measures, and stated the debate had indicated the costs did not add up as suggested. He did not consider the second element of the proposal was necessary, as if the relief fund was depleted in future action could be taken, rather than increase it without evidence when it was not required.

 

In accordance with the constitution there was a recorded vote.

 

Votes for the amendment (28)

Votes against the amendment (53)

Votes in abstention (5)

 

The vote was therefore lost. Details of the recorded vote are attached to the minutes.

 

Amendment D

Amendment D was set out in the Summons was withdrawn by Councillor Gavin Grant, following information from Citizen’s Advice that they did not intend to remain in the Bourne Hill Wiltshire Council offices.

 

Amendment E

The Chairman then invited Councillor Gavin Grant, seconded by Councillor Ian Thorn, to present proposed Amendment E, as set out in the Summons.

 

Councillor Grant explained that the amendment was to remove the saving included in the budget to cease grant funding for lunch and friendship clubs and to allocate the money to Area Boards to provide support to the clubs in their areas. This had a financial impact of £0.106m, which it was proposed to fund for 2023/24 through use of the Collection Fund Surplus and reduce the contribution to the Collection Fund Volatility Reserve. For 2024/25 and 2025/26 it was proposed to fund the amount through an increase in the assumption in growth in the council tax base from 1.2% to 1.25%, as also indicated for a previous amendment.

 

Councillor Grant noted Full Council had discussed the issue at its budget meeting in 2022 and had agreed to undertake a rapid scrutiny exercise in relation to the funding of the clubs. That had recommended carrying on with implementation of a new funding system, and Councillor Grant argued now was an appropriate time to review the impact of that, and whether action needed to be taken. He stated only two of the previous clubs had gone forward into the new system. He said the new tendering approach was designed more for professional care organisations than for volunteers who run the clubs. The funding was for those who qualify under the Care Act 2014, and he stated the clubs had helped people who did not qualify but still needed assistance. He stated the amendment would help maintain existing groups and encourage others. He referenced the Overview and Scrutiny report on the amendment, and stated if the amendment were passed it would be appropriate for the relevant Cabinet Member to consider the most appropriate method of allocating out the funding that would be made available to Area Boards.

 

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

 

Councillor Clewer confirmed he did not support the amendment and would comment further at the end of debate.

 

Councillor Thorn supported the amendment, and stated that if a bad decision was made then it was appropriate to revisit it, and he considered that was the case with the lunch and friendship club funding.

 

Councillor Wright, in place of the Leader of the Independent Group as a personal comment, stated he did not think the principle adopted the previous year had worked. He stated he was in favour of doing more for voluntary groups through Area Boards.

 

Councillor Rogers stated the intention had not been to save money but to have a new system for groups to bid for monies, so would listen carefully to debate on how many clubs had benefited and how many had not under the new approach.

 

Amendment E Debate

The Chairman therefore opened debate on Amendment E.

 

Comments made in support of the amendment included that the new process was slow and ineffective, with the amendment an attempt not to reverse the policy but to find common ground to support the voluntary sector. It was argued Area Boards were in a better position to consider local issues and deliver in an appropriate fashion, and should be provided the means to do so in respect of any clubs in their areas.

 

Comments made against the amendment included that the funding mechanism was not appropriate, noting comments under previous amendments around the risks of reallocating from the collection fund reserve, and of estimating a larger increase in the council tax base against the estimation of officers. It was stated that the previous funding model for the clubs had not been fairly distributed, and the amendment did not improve upon the new model or provide long term benefit. Some areas had previously had clubs but no method to apply for such funding, whereas now all areas could apply through an open system, and that the amendment would not help in the way its supporters believed. 

 

Other comments in debate included seeking clarification on the need for additional funding to be provided if, as stated by various parties, the previous decision had been to redirect funding not saving money. Another sought commitment from the Cabinet that there was opportunity to provide more support for clubs at Area Boards regardless of the outcome of the vote.

 

Councillor Grant, as mover of the amendment, then responded to comments made in debate. He noted the support provided to those with profound needs, but that the clubs in most cases were not designed to support the most vulnerable. In response to finances he stated officer advice was that the assumed increase in the council tax base through additional predicted houses was less than 100. He argued that level of precision was not possible, and the assumed increase was reasonable on the basis of previous years information. He stated the amendment was not an attempt to undo entirely the previous year’s decision, that the new framework did important work and so money was not taken from that, but new funding was needed, but the clubs were voluntary organisations providing support to people who did not qualify as having profound needs. He considered Area Boards operated without politics and were well situated to make appropriate decisions to support voluntary organisations.

 

Councillor Clewer, as mover of the original motion, then responded to the comments made in debate. He considered the advice on the increase in council tax assumptions was an insurmountable problem and the amendment could not be supported on that basis. He noted that many of the clubs were self-sustaining and did not require council support, and that some were already able to seek support, and there was a lack of evidence supporting the need for the amendment.

 

In accordance with the constitution there was a recorded vote.

 

Votes for the amendment (28)

Votes against the amendment (53)

Votes in abstention (5)

 

The vote was therefore lost. Details of the recorded vote are attached to the minutes.

 

A break was then taken from 5.15pm to 5:30pm.

 

 

 

Budget debate

There being no further amendments, the Chairman returned to debate on the
original budget motion moved by the Leader.

 

Comments in support of the budget included that it was ambitious but also formulated around a sound and solid structure within the Mid Term Financial Strategy. Some Members praised the financial discipline in the budget, which ensured good value to residents at a time of significant cost pressures. The investment in a number of areas, such as support for the vulnerable, planning and education was welcomed. It was also emphasised that rises in expenditure would sit alongside a transformational process with smarter working and greater customer engagement. Investment in early intervention work was highlighted, which was seen as an important way of improving services whilst also reducing long term costs.

 

Comments in opposition to the budget included that the below inflation rise in expenditure would lead to an overall real term cuts in services. Some Members felt that the budget lacked ambition and should have included more funding for Local Highway and Footway Improvement Groups and improved support for luncheon and friendship clubs. Concerns were also raised about the costs for elections being taken on by city, town and parish councils, with concerns about the potential impact, as well as the impact of ceasing funding to VisitWiltshire. Some Members stated that they felt that more powers should be devolved to Area Boards to give greater responsibility to Members and ensure that decision making was taken at the appropriate local level.

 

Other comments made in the debate included whether the council would be lobbying the Department for Transport to maintain or increase highways maintenance funding. Questions were asked whether there had been a decline in the take up of green bins and whether there had been an increase in fly tipping. In addition, queries were raised about the timeframe for the Trowbridge Leisure Facility Project and the delays to the Maltings development in Salisbury. Further discussion also took place about whether the council could make greater use of its unused building space, though renting or selling property. Comments were made that the proposed amendments which had been rejected had only amounted to a very small percentage of the overall budget.

 

Councillor Clewer, as mover of the original motion, then responded to the comments made in the debate.He stated the budget would provide financial stability for the next three years and contrasted the approach with the financial difficulties at other authorities and the approach proposed by those seeking amendments.

 

He reported that the council would lobby the Department for Transport for fair highway maintenance funding for rural authorities. He agreed with the principal of renting out unused council office space where appropriate. In response to a query about bins and fly tipping, the Leader noted that that fly tipping had reduced by around 30 percent. He highlighted that the delay to the Maltings development in Salisbury was due to the complexity of the project, as the council was not the landowner and that further planning was expected to take around a year. He also clarified that the Trowbridge Leisure Facility Project funding would be split over two years. The Leader praised the work of Area Boards but highlighted the importance of maintaining a strategic overview when taking decisions. In relation to VisitWiltshire, he commented that the funding given to them for marketing purposes was not an effective use of public money. He noted that it was not a statutory responsibility to support destination management organisations and that the government was moving to a more regional model and that the council was exploring alternative options.

 

At the conclusion of debate and discussion, it was then,

 

Resolved:

 

a)    That a net general fund budget of 2023/24 of £465.874m is approved;?

 

b)    That the Council Tax requirement for the council be set at £332.187m for 2023/24 with a Band D charge of £1,719.90, an increase of £1.57 per week;?

 

c)    That the Wiltshire Council element of the Council Tax be increased in 2023/24 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 2023/24;?

 

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 three-year MTFS period 2023/24 to 2025/26;?

 

f)      That the changes in the fees and charges as set out in the report are approved;?

 

g)    That the Capital Programme 2023/24 to 2029/30 is approved;?

 

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

 

i)      That the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget for 2023/24 is set at £26.401m;

 

j)      That a 7% increase is set for social dwelling rents, except for rents currently over the formula rent which will be capped at formula rent as per national guidance;

 

k)    That all service charges related to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) to cover costs and garage rents are increased by 5%;

 

l)      That the Medium Term Financial Strategy and the forecast balanced budget over the MTFS period 2023/24 to 2025/26 is endorsed.

In accordance with the constitution there were recorded votes:

 

Vote 1 – Resolutions A-H and L

 

Votes for the motion (48)

Votes against the motion (19)

Votes in abstention (11)

 

Vote 2 – Resolutions I, J and K

 

Votes for the motion (48)

Votes against the motion (22)

Votes in abstention (6)

 

Details of each recorded vote are attached to the minutes.