Agenda item

Report of the Cabinet Member Finance

The Cabinet Member Finance introduced the report which summarized the revised budget for 2018/19 and the Cabinet’s final budget proposals and pay policy statement for 2019/20. Her budget statement is attached in full to these minutes.

The budget was seconded by Councillor Jordan.

The following questions were then raised by Members and responses given:

·         Cheltenham Community Lottery-the Cabinet Member Healthy Lifestyles explained that the council had been receiving advice on this from Aylesbury council and there were now 60 councils nationwide operating a lottery. A technical report on this would be submitted to Cabinet on 5 March setting out how this would operate. The estimate was that it could raise between £90- £100k a year and this would be used for strictly local charitable purposes. The proposal for next year would be for any money raised to be allocated to No Child Left Behind.

·         Budget support reserve-confirmation was received from the Cabinet Member Finance that the total use of this reserve in the proposed budget amounted to £256k. In terms of plans to build the reserve back up again she confirmed that the strategy was to put all windfall into this reserve and this practice would continue until the government had announced its decision on business rates retention.

·         Planned maintenance budget –the Cabinet Member confirmed that this was a rolling programme with works allocated in terms of priority.

 

Group Leaders were invited to address Council.

 

Councillor Harman, Conservative group leader thanked the Cabinet Member Finance and all officers for their significant contributions in preparing the budget proposals. He also thanked Paul Jones in his role as S151 Officer for his assistance in working through the conservative group amendments.

 

He wished to table the following two amendments as laid out below.

 

 

Amendment  1

CAPITAL & ONE-OFF

• Reallocate Boots Corner reserve.  Save £1.8m.  
• Invest in repaving the High St.  Cost £1.5m contribution.
• Invest in anti-Loan Sharking campaign with Gloucestershire Credit Union.  Cost £10k.
• Balance to capital reserve

REVENUE

• Move to 4-yearly elections.  Save £35k pa.
• Reduce number of Cllrs to 30.  Save £55k pa.
• Additional recycle bring site collections at peak times of year.  Cost £10k pa.
• Balance and any temporary timing differences to budget reserve shortfall, with intention of using contribution toward part funding future weekly recycling service.  £80k pa.

Amendment 2

• Town Centre Bus/Coach Station
• Cycling hub
• Additional blue badge disabled parking
• Fully pedestrianise High St.  
• Initial project investigation & planning work.  Funded by £250k from Boots Corner reserve.

Speaking to amendment one Cllr Harman highlighted the plight of those vulnerable to loan sharks and believed the £10k one-off funding proposed would, together with the monies allocated by the County Council, assist the Credit Union in providing financial advice to those in difficulties. He then referred to the council’s bring sites being overwhelmed particularly over holiday periods which could be addressed via additional collections at a proposed £10k. He felt that by reducing the cost of democracy i.e reducing the number of Councillors and having four yearly elections would drive efficiencies and signal to the public that Councillors were prepared to change.

Referring to amendment two Councillor Harman felt it was important to look at the needs of the town with more sustainable transport and an expansion of current park and ride facilities. This was particularly relevant given the indirect link to junction 10 and the bid in to central government. The proposal to fund exploratory work up to £250k with regard to further investment in the town centre in terms of central bus/coach station and a cycling hub would start the process.

The Mayor invited the Leader of the PAB group to address Council. Councillor Stennett wished to thank both the Cabinet Member Finance for her statement and officers for their work in bringing forward this budget at a time of constraint.

 

Council adjourned from 3.55-4.25 pm.

 

Councillor Harman formally proposed the amendments. The amendments were seconded by Councillor Babbage. In seconding the amendments Councillor Babbage said that the focus was on investing in the High Street by making funds available now to start improvements.

He highlighted that whilst the amount of money being proposed for investing in an anti-loan sharking campaign with Gloucestershire Credit Union was small this would effectively match the funding from GCC.

The other element he wished to highlight was the additional recycling at bring sites since at peak times of year, such as Christmas and bank holidays. Additional collections were required to greatly improve the situation.

Responding to the first amendment the Leader said his group could not support it. Firstly the council had only recently debated Boots corner and had given a firm indication to progress it. It would therefore be improper to remove the funding. If Boots Corner was confirmed as a permanent scheme it was essential that the council properly invested in that area of the High Street and the High Street as a whole. That was why it would look at achieving this collectively with the County Council.

In terms of supporting the anti-loan sharking campaign he referred to the fact that the Gloucestershire Credit Union had received an allocation from the Community Pride fund in September 2018. The Cabinet Member Finance stated that she had invited the union to a meeting but this had not been progressed on their side. Whilst he was sympathetic to its cause it was not appropriate at this stage since no information had been supplied as to how this funding had been spent. CBH was already involved in this area.

The Leader confirmed that the group did not favour four yearly elections nor reducing the number of councillors as this would represent a false saving. In any event, reducing the number of councillors to save money could only be as a result of a full local government boundary commission review.

The Leader recognised that recycling bring sites had been an issue at some peak times due to shortages of Ubico qualified drivers with the focus being to complete household collections as a priority. To address this the council was currently examining reducing garden waste collections for two weeks after Christmas in order for Ubico to have capacity to address such issues.

The following comments were made on the amendment:

·         Some Members felt that reducing the number of councillors to 30 would increase workload of existing ward Members which would then make becoming a councillor more inaccessible in terms of time commitment involved and preclude, for example, those working full time and with young families. Having two ward members also provided contingency. Having a diverse council was important but by reducing the number of councillors this would make it harder to achieve. Companionship in the ward, fill in gaps other commitments was important.

·         It was important to recognise that the funding concerned was specifically allocated to improve the quality of the public realm in the High Street which was separate to the Boots Corner issue.

Councillor Harman referred back to a meeting he had held with the credit union who felt that they did not have enough provision for the need in Cheltenham. Aggressive marketing companies existed and the situation was complex for those who were exposed to this such as those with gambling addictions.

In summing up Councillor Harman emphasised that his group had a different set of priorities for the High Street. There was a log jam over Boots Corner when really there were other challenges to be addressed and he believed the amendment would improve the position of Cheltenham.

In response to the amendment the Cabinet Member Finance referred to the loan sharking campaign and the letter Councillors had received. She reiterated how she had offered to meet with the group and felt it would be irresponsible to consider granting them more funding whilst there was no knowledge of how the community pride funding which had been awarded had been spent. In any event CBH were actively promoting their work in targeting loan sharks.

On reducing the number of councillors she believed the impact would be significant with the increase in case work and community work. In responding to a Members’ comment on the reduction in the number of County Councillors she believed that the case work of a County Councillor and a Borough Councillor was not comparable.

 

Upon a recorded vote amendment 1 was LOST

Voting

For (6) :Councillors Babbage, Cooke, Harman, Mason, Savage and Seacome

Against (25) :Councillors Atherstone, Baker, Britter, Brownsteen, Clucas, Collins, Dobie, Fisher, Flynn,Hay, Hegenbarth, Hobley, Jeffries, Jordan, Oliver, Parsons, Payne, Stafford, Stennett, Sudbury, Wheeler, Whyborn, Wilkinson, Williams and Willingham

Abstention (0)

 

Councillor Harman formally moved the second amendment. The amendment was seconded by Councillor Babbage.

In seconding amendment 2 Councillor Babbage clarified that this was separate to the Boots Corner trial but funding from the Boots Corner reserve could potentially be used to change the road layout in front of WHSmith. This amendment concerned a project to allocate funding for building a bus and coach station for Cheltenham. He referred to the commitment Gloucester had recently made to sustainable travel in this regard with its new bus station. This project would have huge benefits and include provision for a cycling hub to demonstrate Cheltenham’s commitment to cycling in the town. A central bus station would also release pressure of buses on Royal Well and additionally would remove traffic away from Pittville Street as it was not ideal buses used that route through the town. This would facilitate the full pedestrianisation of  the High Street from the Promenade up to Bath Road to include the Rodney Road section with Winchcombe Street which would greatly benefit the street scene and add to the accessibility of the town centre by including more disabled parking bays.

The amendment was to start off exploring options of this work by allocating up to £250k. He hoped that Members would see the merits of this proposal.

In responding to the amendment the Leader was sympathetic to issues with regard to improving the town transport system including encouraging cycling and looking at buses in the town however would not support the amendment. He stated that as part of the Boots Corner trial there had been an increase in blue badge parking and this would increase further.  He was supportive of upgrading the High Street as much as possible in conjunction with the County Council but there were restrictions on what could be done. He would make sure that the individual items could be looked at as part of the review of transport around the town and town centre.

Members made the following comments on the amendment:

·         It was suggested that the cycling hub could be considered at the next meeting of the cycling and walking group.

·         Members recognised there was a need for a better transport network and more focus on cycling and walking but could not support the amendment in this vague format.

·         The civic society had said that they would like the town to consider a fully pedestrianised High Street from Sainsburys to the Brewery and there would be a north south route to enable this to happen although the location of this was not yet known.

·         The correct location of a bus station was critical.

·         Whilst Members felt the ideas should be considered they did not believe that transport planning should be considered during the budget setting process nor should it be funded by moving money from the Boots Corner reserve.  They referred to the Connecting Cheltenham agenda as a more appropriate place to develop the ideas.

·         The cycling hub was welcomed but a Member felt this could be undertaken in association with the redevelopment of Cheltenham Spa station, since this major transport interchanges were where cycling hubs were usually located.

·         Pedestrianisation of the High Street was important but this should include more investment in retail outlets in the Lower High Street which, as an area, had potential.

As proposer of the amendment Councillor Harman thanked Members for supporting the ideas proposed and was pleased that debate had been provoked. It was an embryonic idea at this stage and he would discuss with his group how this could be progressed.

The Cabinet Member Finance felt that many of the ideas in the amendment would be best examined in the framework of Connecting Cheltenham for which the Systra report was expected in the spring.

Upon a recorded vote amendment 2 was LOST

Voting

For (5) :Councillors Babbage, Cooke, Harman, Mason, Seacome

Against (24): Councillors Atherstone, Baker, Britter, Brownsteen,Clucas, Collins, Dobie, Fisher, Flynn,Hay, Hegenbarth, Hobley, Jeffries, Jordan, Oliver, Parsons, Payne, Savage, Stafford, Sudbury, Wheeler, Whyborn, Wilkinson, Williams and Willingham

Absentions (1): Councillor Stennett

 

In seconding the budget the Leader stated that much of what Cheltenham had been doing was an attempt to mitigate against what was happening nationally. This was particularly true on the financial side where the council had been developing innovative ways of raising extra funding. Property investments made by the council were bringing in extra income of £1 million per annum meaning 11% on council tax. Investment in Cheltenham was a significant feature of this administration, giving the example of the high street improvement works and the new crematorium and the significant £100m investment in housing. He acknowledged that this did involve taking calculated risks but it was the right thing to do. He congratulated officers and the Cabinet Member Finance on leading on this.

 

Members then debated the substantive motion and the following points were raised by Members and responses given:

·         Members welcomed the new ways of generating income streams to avoid rationalisation of services.

·         It was noted that nothing had been specifically mentioned with regards to the urban gulls despite commitment from the Cabinet Member Development and Safety. Assurance was sought that this had not been lost. The Cabinet Member Finance confirmed that this was not a budget growth item but the task group had requested £10k that was already within the budget to help alleviate the gull problem. The Cabinet Member had agreed the £10k would be allocated as and when a plan of action was brought forward.

 

In summing up following the debate the Cabinet Member Finance believed this was a good budget for Cheltenham working within the financial constraints. She expressed her sincere thanks to each and every member of staff that worked for Cheltenham Borough Council and for those bodies who worked in partnership without whom the budget could not have been achieved. She paid particular thanks to the Executive Director Finance and Assets for lobbying the minister on behalf of the authority with regard to the negative impact of the revenue support grant (RSG) and changes to the new homes bonus which resulted in no changes to new homes bonus and additional transitional RSG funding.

 

Upon a recorded vote on the substantive motion the recommendations were CARRIED.

 

RESOLVED THAT

 

1.    the revised budget for 2018/19 be approved.

2.    Having considered the budget assessment by the Section 151 Officer at Appendix 2 the following recommendations be agreed :

3.    the final budget proposals be approved including a proposed council tax for the services provided by Cheltenham Borough Council of £209.08 for the year 2019/20 (an increase of 2.99% or £6.07 a year for a Band D property), as detailed in paragraphs 4.18 to 4.23.

4.    the growth proposals be approved, including one off initiatives at Appendix 4.

5.    the savings / additional income totalling £1,677,600 and the budget strategy at Appendix 5 be approved.

6.    the use of reserves and general balances be approved and the projected level of reserves, as detailed at Appendix 6 be noted.

7.    It be noted that the Council will remain in the Gloucestershire business rates pool for 2019/20 (paragraphs 4.5 to 4.17).

8.    the recommendations made by the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP), as detailed in paragraph 5.14 be noted.

9.    the Pay Policy Statement for 2019/20 be approved, including the continued payment of a living wage supplement at Appendix 9.

10. the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) detailed in Section 5 and Appendix 10 be approved.

11. a level of supplementary estimate of £100,000 for 2019/20 as outlined in Section 13 be approved.

Voting

For (25) : Councillors Atherstone, Baker, Britter, Brownsteen, Clucas, Collins, Dobie, Fisher, Flynn, Hay,Hegenbarth, Hobley, Jeffries, Jordan, Oliver, Parsons, Payne, Stafford, Stennett, Sudbury, Wheeler, Whyborn, Wilkinson, Williams and Willingham

Against (0)

Absentions (5): Councillors Babbage, Cooke, Harman, Mason and Seacome