Agenda item

Recommendations from the Cabinet meeting held on 12th February 2020

To consider the recommendations from the meeting(s) of the Cabinet held on 12^th February 2020.

Minutes:

Pay Policy Statement

Councillor G. Denaro, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling presented the Pay Policy Statement and in so doing highlighted that the figures did not take account of the management review as the previous years’ data was used. This would be picked up in the next year’s statement. Councillor C. Hotham asked for clarification in respect of point 21 on page 95 of the agenda pack which referred to publication of the full time equivalent salary at £50k and whether this was the overall salary or the salary split between both Councils. It was understood that it was the overall salary, but Councillor Denaro agreed to confirm this outside of the meeting.

The recommendation was proposed by Councillor Denaro and seconded by Councillor K. May.

RESOLVED that the Pay Policy as detailed in appendix 1 to the report be approved.

Medium Term Financial Plan

Councillor G. Denaro, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling presented the Medium Term Financial Plan. In presenting this Budget to the Council, he advised that he was pleased at the progress that had been made over the last 12 months and, looking forward, was encouraged by the strong position that enabled the Council to maintain its current services to its residents and add to them in areas of concern, that had been highlighted by residents.

Councillor Denaro explained that when the Council started the budget process last year it was looking at a budget gap of £678K to achieve a balanced budget. This had been done with a surplus being created, as evidenced by the table on page 99 of the agenda pack, and was remarkable and gratifying with all the adjustments shown having occurred over several months.

Two particular items were highlighted, an unexpected credit of £436k for the Council’s pension funds. £236k of this was used in the budget whilst placing £200k in a pension reserve against swings the other way. He believed this was prudent and sensible. Secondly, the Council had received New Homes Bonus of £1774K which was £589k over that which had been anticipated. This was also good news as it put an additional £70k back into local communities.

In respect of Pay and Inflation costs the Council had budgeted for a 1% rise, but it was now likely to be 2%, hence the additional pressure. Within unavoidable costs was the extra community funding for New Homes Bonus, which was welcomed. However, not so welcome were the Local Plan review and Highway costs. The Council hoped to reduce its reliance on the Highway consultants from a current peak of £150k to nil over the next 2 years. The Council was continually reviewing its contract with Mott McDonald which was likely to continue until the Council had regained faith in the processes at Worcestershire County Council.

It was noted that savings and additional income have been boosted by two major issues. Following the Council’s exit from the GBSLEP rates pool, it no longer had to pay a fee of £150k. The Council had also renegotiated its joint insurance contract with the other Worcestershire Districts which had generated a saving of £130k. It was noted that the treasury savings of £437k was evidence that the Council needed to do a lot more work on scheduling its capital use. Savings from the recent Management restructure and annual savings from the enabling services totalled £99k. New expenditure of £50k had been approved to develop a District wide strategy for Parks and Green spaces which were valued by residents. £28k was being invested in the Sunrise Project, run by BDHT, £15k had been allocated to Enforcement to enable more frequent monitoring of parking round schools in mornings and evenings, however, it was noted that, with 47 schools, it may take some time to identify where this was most needed.

Councillor Denaro highlighted that working with the County Council, the Council was allocating some £50k to support The Bromsgrove Deal which would enable all libraries to become Community Hubs to support local communities and provide valuable support to the young, elderly and those in need.

The net effect of the amendments and those listed in the report was a projected surplus of £170k for 2020/21, which it was recommended be transferred to balances. The levels of reserves were confirmed at £5.4m which it was noted were deemed as being adequate by the Section 151 Officer.

The current estimated balances were £4.471m as at 31^st March 2021 which was sufficient to cover the current shortfall of £2.012m and leave a balance of £2.459m which was just over the Council’s revised target of £2m balances. However, the Portfolio Holder advised that the Council should not be complacent as many unknowns surrounded local Government funding at present and losing New Homes Bonus would have an impact.

Councillor Denaro went on to say that achieving a balanced budget with no use of balances put the Council’s finances on a firm base and enabled it to follow some of its aspirations. It had hoped to have identified some areas for use of the Council’s Acquisitions and Investment budgets, but no projects had met the financial criteria. To counter this, it was in the process of amending its strategy to allow an element of social gain to be included to counterbalance the Council’s solely financial risks. It was believed that this would be of use in the retail sector.

The Burcot Lane planning application would go to Planning Committee shortly and was expected to be signed off by Homes England. The pop-up plans for the Hanover Street area were also gathering pace. There was also an evaluation taking place of how to use the new space created by the Dolphin Centre and plans are expected to come forward shortly. The Budget also included plans to invest in testing whether a District Heat Network was viable, which would support the Council’s Green agenda.

The Council needed to help its businesses expand and find space for units in order to improve the overall wage rates for Bromsgrove Town. The Council was very successful at encouraging start-ups but not so on moving them into larger premises. It was also noted that the work being undertaken to reduce congestion in the town was paramount to getting things moving and the Council would intervene where it could - the £38 million to be spent on the A38 would also help this.

Members were advised that the papers in respect of council tax setting had been tabled, following agreement of them at the Cabinet meeting held directly before this Council meeting. The levels of tax documented in the report took account of the requirements of Bromsgrove District Council, Worcestershire County Council (WCC), the West Mercia Police and Crime Commissioner, Hereford and Worcester Fire & Rescue Authority and the various Parish Councils. The Council Tax resolutions that Council was being asked to approve detailed the statutory approvals in relation to the 2020/21 budget and the Council Tax to be recovered on behalf of WCC, the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Fire & Rescue Service.

The proposals amounted to a £5 per annum increase for Band D which was recommended for acceptance. Councillor Denaro thanked the Finance and Budget Working Group for assessing the budget process and in particular the Executive Director, Finance and Resources Service and her team for all their hard work.

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Denaro and seconded by Councillor K. May.

Councillor C. Hotham. On behalf of the Bromsgrove Alliance proposed an alternative budget recommendation/amendment as detailed in item 13 of the agenda pack. Members questioned whether this proposal was an amendment to the recommendations already proposed or a new recommendation, if it was a new recommendation, then it was highlighted that if it were accepted then there would be no opportunity to debate the substantive recommendations, if it was considered as an amendment then it would stand on its own and was totally different. Clarification on this was requested from the Monitoring Officer and Councillor S. Baxter as Leader of the Bromsgrove Alliance shared her disappointment with the matter being raised as she felt that her group hard taken the right approach to the process and provided written evidence of their amendments to the budget but were now being criticised. After some debate it was agreed that the Monitoring Officer would meet with all Group Leaders, through the Constitution Working Group, to ensure that in future years a set clear budget process was put in place. It was noted that in previous years alternative budgets had been put forward and debated prior to agreement of the budget and that this had worked effectively, with all concerned being able to debate all aspects of the budget being put forward, with this process also being discussed at the meeting the Group Leaders had had with the Chairman on Monday.

Councillor C. Hotham, went on to present the budget for the Bromsgrove Alliance, as detailed on pages 79 – 82 of the agenda pack. He took the opportunity to thank the Executive Director, Finance and Resources and her team for their help and support. The aim of the budget was to support the Town Centre and the health and wellbeing of its residents. Councillor Hotham explained each proposed change from his Group, as detailed on page 79 of the agenda pack. This included a reduction for the incremental progression and inflation figures from £456k to £290k as it was believed that an increase of 70% year on year was excessive. The cost of the review of the Plan was thought to be overly ambitious.

There were a number of new revenue bids, and the increase reflected the provision of three shopper/shuttle minibuses. Councillor Hotham referred to the BURT bus scheme which had proved successful and it was felt that similar services could be rolled out in other areas, with a circular route also being provided. This would encourage residents in the outlying areas to access the facilities in the Town Centre, the benefit being two fold and assist with the regeneration of the Town Centre. It was also suggested that fund be spent in promoting and supporting the three local museums in the district. The final additional cost for this section was in respect of free swimming being offered to all young people under the age of 18, which promoted both health and wellbeing of young people in the District.

The proposed amendments, detailed in the Bromsgrove Alliance alternative budget, were proposed by Councillor C. Hotham and seconded by Councillor S. Baxter.

Councillor Denaro, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling responded to the alternative budget amendments and provided a response on each item separately, and in the order presented:

Incremental progression - The base budget for 2022/23 & 2023/24 was the same position and did not reflect the increase in pay and inflation for 2023/24. Therefore the £456k was made up of 2 years’ worth of inflation and was therefore at a realistic level.

Unavoidable pressures - It was the intention to prepare the plan over a three year period. This provided more certainty, in terms on the housing number up to 2040 and the amount of employment land so desperately needed by existing and hopefully new employers. Even if the plan did take longer than three years to prepare it was important for officers, Members and the public in due course, to have the opportunity to debate the key issues once the necessary information to inform discussions had been commissioned.

Highways - It is crucial that the highways information required to inform the plan review was robust. It was necessary to commission independent highways advice as officers did not have the skill set to undertake such work. The use of highways consultants made sure that the appropriate information was used to inform the new plan and the allocation of parcels of land for development.

In respect of the New Revenue Bids the following comments were made:

Buses - It was considered that whilst this appeared to be an interesting option there was currently no demand data that evidenced the need for this service in the District.

Museums - There was no detail as to how this funding would be spent and therefore more information would be required to enable the Council to make an informed assessment of the use of tax-payers money to support the organisations

Free swimming - The introduction of free swimming to everyone under the age of 18 does not provide a solution to the issue of children and young adults who cannot swim. There was also no evidence that this was needed in the District.

Market - As the stalls are under the de minimis level we would have to fund this from Revenue.

Saving and additional income:

Pension - Actuarial calculations were based on a number of assumptions, and regularly see significant swings in the fund assets. Whilst it was agreed that the assumptions were prudent, based on current data, fund assets can be impacted on in an unpredicted way hence the need for the pension reserve.

Council Tax - The Council tax calculation had been made alongside a projection of growth based on numbers from the Planning department and were therefore considered to be robust.

In respect of the Minibuses project, again it was stated that no demand for the shuttle buses at present had been evidenced.

Pension Payment - It would be considered more prudent to not anticipate that this would be the case.

In conclusion, Councillor Denaro suggested that this was a wish list and confirmed that his Group would not be supporting it.

Members went on to debate the amendments proposed by the Bromsgrove Alliance and discussed the follow areas in more detail:

· The importance of a greener and healthier district and the need to ease the congestion in the Town Centre. This could be done by improving the infrastructure at a local level and improving connectivity.

· The number of positive ideas that had been brought forward, however concerns were raised in respect of the pension fund payment.

· The need for some of the suggestions to be considered in more detail before being accepted.

· Support for the free swimming for under 18 year olds – from the health and well being aspect but also water safety. This was an opportunity for all young people in the district to benefit from the local facilities.

· Reference was made to the three museums which it was not felt appropriate for the Council to support at this time as a number of them were private entities.

Councillor S. Baxter spoke in support of the amendments from her Group and expressed her disappointment in the process and highlighted the opportunity for constructive discussions to be held in order for the views and ideas of the other groups to be put forward for serious consideration in future. It was felt that often, ideas were put forward and dismissed, but further down the line were then brought forward and those who had suggested them were not given the appropriate credit. She further reiterated that buses and transport were an integral part of the district and much needed in order to support the regeneration of the Town Centre. It was understood that currently there were areas within the district which did not have access to public transport in order for them to get to the administrative hub.

In summing up Councillor Hotham reiterated the main areas of his Group’s alternative budget and highlighted that at least his Group had given some thought to how improvements could be made, which would benefit the wider community and he urged Members to work together going forward, with a view to an improved the process, to allow everyone to feed into the budget setting in future years.

As required under the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 a named vote was taken on the proposed amendment.

For the amendment: Councillors Baxter, Colella, Douglas, English, Hotham, Hughes, Hunter. Jenkins, King, Thompson and Van der Plank (11)

Against the amendment: Councillors Beaumont, Deeming, Denaro, Glass, Hession, Kent, Kriss, May, Middleton, Sherrey, Spencer, Thomas, Till, Webb, Whittaker and Laight (16)

Abstentions from the amendment: Councillors Mallett, McDonald and Rone-Clarke (3)

The amendment was lost.

Councillor P. McDonald proposed an amendment to the budget, in respect of the funds allocated to Mott MacDonald. It was suggested that the £100k should be better spent in other areas and therefore should be redistributed elsewhere, details of which were discussed during his presentation of the amendment. It was also suggested that the £50k allocated to WCC for the Library hubs could be put to better use. The amendment was seconded by Councillor H. Rone-Clarke. It was confirmed that the amendment had not been submitted in writing.

In speaking to the amendment Councillor McDonald highlighted a number of points, including:

· The cost of the work which had already been carried out – it had been well documented that this Council had not had confidence in the work of the Worcestershire County Council Highways department and had therefore engaged Mott Macdonald to “check” the information provided by WCC. The funds allocated for this purpose in the budget could be put to better use and it was not believed that there was now a need for further support from Mott Macdonald.

· Funding which had been given to WCC in order to support the hubs, which were being created within libraries. It was suggested by Councillor McDonald that the libraries were already hubs but had had funding reduced to such an extent that they were no longer able to provide the much needed services that had been provided historically.

· Councillor McDonald also questioned whether the services that were suggested to be place in the new “hubs” were actually able to provide such services due to continued cutbacks which had taken place in recent years.

· It was inferred that by this Council contributing funds, it was simply paying for the library service, which was actually the responsibility of the County Council.

· Funds used for this service, some £50k, could be put to better use within the District and be used to improve the streets and green spaces.

· It was noted that there were additional funds identified this year for the New Homes Bonus Grants Scheme which had in previous years contributed to many community projects.

· It was suggested that the budget surplus which occurred each year could be spent on services and put back into community projects in order for residents to see that something was being done for their benefit.

· The need for funds to be made available for other parks as it appeared that a large amount of the budget was spent on Sanders Park which was the main part in the district, but funds should also be put aside for outlying parks in the district which were in much need of improvement.

· Play equipment had been removed in some parks due to its age but had not been replaced.

· Funds should also be put aside to improve tree planning and address climate change, with consideration being given to installing solar panels on council buildings and the introduction of electric vehicles.

Councillor McDonald suggested that whilst residents Council Tax had been increased the services and amenities provided had decreased and that this year there was the opportunity for this to be rectified and for residents to see some “return” on what they had paid. It was an opportunity for the Council to give back to the communities and for the Council to freeze the Council Tax and not implement an increase for the first time in a long time.

Members debated the amendment put forward by Councillor McDonald and during that debate discussed the following:

· The need for such an amendment to be provided in writing rather than supported by a detailed verbal presentation.

· The importance of the Council to be brave and address the green issues and impact of climate change within the District.

· The opportunity for the Council to make a difference and invest in the District’s future.

· It was suggested that in order to debate the amendment a written statement should be provided and an adjournment taken to allow Members to consider it in more detail before making a decision.

The Leader responded by reminding Members that decisions needed to be made on the evidence and data available and when this was provided, she was happy to consider any proposals. She provided further information on how it was anticipated that the Hubs would be run and that it would be a new way of working and provide more locally based services for residents to access. Members were reminded that of the demographic of the District and in particular the percentage of those aged 75 and over and the additional care and services that many of those residents needed to access. The Leader also reiterated the importance of the roll of Mott Macdonald, when the Planning Committee were determining applications, together with the need for their support going forward in the plan-making process.

A further debate took place when Members were reminded of the circumstances under which Mott Macdonald were engaged by the Council and it was clarified that this was not due to an issue with Planning Officers but with the information provided by Worcestershire County Council’s (WCC) Highways Team. However, it was noted that WCC had not been held to account and that as time had gone on the advice received from Mott Macdonald had not been consistent and therefore if the Council was to continue with this approach it may be necessary to use a different consultant. This matter was debated at length between a number of Members putting forward views which were for and against the work being carried out by Mott Macdonald. It was suggested that it would be more cost effective for the Council to employ someone to carry out this work on its behalf rather than to use consultants.

Members went on to discuss the implications of freezing the Council Tax, as had been suggested by Councillor McDonald and whether it would be appropriate to make a re-charge against WCC for the work carried out by Mott Macdonald. It was further reiterated that there was a need for the Council to invest in its Parks and Open Spaces throughout the District, not just in Sanders Park.

Before the amendment was put to the vote Councillor McDonald confirmed that the additional funds he was suggesting to be used for the areas discussed were, the £100k allocated to Mott Macdonald and £50k for WCC for the Library Hub project, £50k for the Parks and an additional £68k from the New Homes Bonus funding received with an additional £170k from balances, which gave a total of £438k. This would be spent on £58k for an officer to carry out the work currently being carried out by Mott Macdonald, £150k for outlying parks and open spaces, £10k for trees in the District and £50k for solar panels giving a total of £438k. Councillor McDonald advised Members that whilst this was a big challenge it was the first opportunity in many years for the Council to put something worthwhile back into the communities.

As required under the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 a named vote was taken on the Medium Term Financial Plan 2020/21 – 2023/24.

For the amendment: Councillors Mallett, McDonald and Rone-Clarke (3)

Against the amendment: Councillors Beaumont, Deeming, Denaro, Glass, Hession, Jenkins, Kent, Kriss, May, Middleton, Sherrey, Spencer, Thomas, Till, Van der plank, Webb, Whittaker and Laight (18)

Abstentions from the amendment: Councillors Baxter, Colella, Douglas, English, Hotham, Hughes, Hunter, King and Thompson (9)

The amendment was lost.

Councillor R. Hunter proposed an amendment in respect of £170k being taken from reserves to be used at the discretion of the Climate Change Working Group to tackle issues that they investigate in the coming year. It was highlighted that Council agreed to set up this Group and that to date it had not made much progress, so this would be an opportunity for it to help tackle climate change and be able to invest in some worthwhile projects that would impact on the future of the District. The amendment was seconded by Councillor S. Hughes.

Councillor Baxter thought this was an excellent idea and was happy to support it, as were a number of other Members. Councillor Baxter went on to comment that she felt it was important for residents to be able to see that the Council was addressing the concerns that had been raised. It was commented that £170k was not an unreasonable figure and the Council was able to afford to do this and was an opportunity for it to make a real difference.

Councillor Denaro responded that whilst he understood the context behind the proposed amendment, he would need to see a business case for any proposal before agreeing to it. Any such business case would be considered on a case by case basis, rather than simply allocating a lump sum to the Working Group.

Councillor Sherrey, who chaired the Climate Change Working Group also commented that the Group had met on a number of occasions and received presentations from officers which had highlighted a number of projects that were already either underway or in the pipeline, which showed that work was already being done to address this matter and that these were reflected in the budget.

It was also commented that the Council did not normally ring-fence funds and therefore it was queried as to whether this was appropriate from an accounts point of view.

In summing up Councillor Hunter commented that this was an opportunity for the Council to make positive changes and he was concerned that this would be a lost opportunity. The amount he was suggesting was small in comparison to the budget as a whole, but could have a huge difference throughout the District.

As required under the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 a named vote was taken on the proposed amendment.

For the amendment: Councillors Baxter, Colella, Douglas, English, Hotham, Hughes, Hunter, Jenkins, King, Mallett, McDonald, Rone-Clarke, Thompson and Van der Plank (14)

Against the amendment: Councillors Beaumont, Deeming, Denaro, Glass, Hession, Kent, Kriss, May, Middleton, Sherrey, Spencer, Thomas, Till, Webb, Whittaker and Laight (16)

Abstentions from the amendment: 0

The amendment was lost.

Councillor C. Hotham then went on to propose a further amendment, along similar lines to that proposed by Councillor Hunter. This was for £20k to be taken from the reserves and used by the Climate Change Group as it saw fit.

Following a brief debate this amendment was put to the vote.

As required under the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 a named vote was taken on the proposed amendment.

For the amendment: Councillors Baxter, Colella, Douglas, English, Hotham, Hughes, Hunter, Jenkins, King, Thompson and Van der Plank (11)

Against the amendment: Councillors Beaumont, Deeming, Denaro, Glass, Hession, Kent, Kriss, Mallett, May, Middleton, McDonald, Rone-Clarke, Sherrey, Spencer, Thompson, Till, Webb, Whittaker and Laight (19)

Abstentions from the amendment: 0

The amendment was lost.

In debating the substantive recommendations the Leader highlighted a number of projects which would have a positive impact on the residents and District as a whole, this included the pop up Bird Box project at the old market hall site, funding for fly tipping. She advised Members that the Council was listening to residents‘ concerns and taking action where necessary and working towards making the District a better place for everyone.

Members responded with a number of comments including:

· There appeared to be nothing innovative in the budget which would allow Bromsgrove to stand out, particular reference was made for the need to take action in respect of Climate Change.

· The increase in Council Tax was not reflected in the services provided, which residents would consider had been reduced.

· Disappointment that Members had not been able to input into the budget process more positively.

In summing up Councillor Denaro assured Members that consideration would be given to the budget-setting process in order for Members to play a more active role and for the ideas which were brought forward to be considered at an earlier stage. This would give all groups the opportunity to look at things together and be more involved.

As required under the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 a named vote was taken on the proposed amendment.

For the recommendations: Councillors Baxter, Beaumont, Colella, Deeming, Denaro, Douglas, Glass, Hession, Hotham, Jenkins, Kent, Kriss, May, Middleton, Sherrey, Spencer, Thomas, Till, Webb, Whittaker and Laight (21)

Against the recommendations: Councillors English, Hughes, Hunter, Mallett, McDonald, Rone-Clarke and Van der Plank (7)

Abstentions from the recommendations: Councillors King and Thompson (2)

RESOLVED:

a) Approve the Unavoidable costs as attached at Appendix1:

2020/21 £420k

2021/22 £333k

2022/23 £289k

2023/24 £45k

b) Approve the Revenue Bids as attached at Appendix 2 and Appendix 4 (revenue implications of capital spend):

2020/21 £317k

2021/22 £226k

2022/23 £173k

2023/24 £144k

c) Approve the Identified savings as attached at Appendix 3:

2020/21 £510k

2021/22 £677k

2022/23 £746k

2023/24 £817k

d) Approve the Capital Programme bids as attached at Appendix 4:

2020/21 £166k

2021/22 £87k

2022/23 £52k

2023/24 £34k

e) Approve the capital programme as attached at Appendix 5:

2020/21 £4.371m

2021/22 £12.744m

2022/23 £3.743m

2023/24 £1.888m

f) Approve the net general fund revenue budget:

2020/21 £11.812m

2021/22 £11.572m

2022/23 £11.511m

2023/24 £11.324m

g) Approval the increase of the Council Tax per Band D @ £5 for 2020/21.

h) Approve the transfer to Balances of £170k for 2020/21.

i) Approve release of up to £72.5k from balances in 2019/20 to provide funding towards the District Heating Feasibility Study forward to Detailed Project Development (DPD) Phase.

Following the debate, Members discussed the best way forwards in future years to ensure that all groups were able to contribute positively to the budget setting process. Councillor Denaro acknowledged that there had been some interesting ideas which warranted further investigation and detailed business plans, which had not been possible when they were presented in this manner. It was agreed that the Group Leaders would meet to discuss in more detail a process for future years to ensure that all groups were involved in the budget setting process. It was also highlighted that the Overview and Scrutiny Board Finance and Budget Working Group had continued to work well and its continued role should be considered in any discussions. The Monitoring Officer was asked to look into this matter further going forward.

Supporting documents:

Recs from Cabinet 12 Feb, item 87\19 PDF 10 KB