Agenda item

RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED BY CABINET 9/02/16

 

The following is the recommended process to be followed for the debate relating to the Council’s Budget for 2016-17 (Agenda item 11). The rules of procedure shall be varied accordingly for this item only.

 

1 a).     The Mayor to propose suspension of the following rules of debate:

 

-           That the time limit on speeches is relaxed with regard to the following speeches:-

 

§  Cabinet Member Finance, (Finance), when moving the motion to adopt the budget being proposed by the Cabinet (“the Cabinet’s budget”), Stage 2(i).

 

§  Group Leaders when making Budget Statement on behalf of group, Stage 3(i) – (ii).

 

-           To permit the Cabinet Member Finance and Group leaders to speak more than once in the debate, (in addition to any right of reply etc), for the purpose of putting and answering questions at Stage 2(iii).

 

1 b).     The Mayor to remind Members that a recorded vote is required on any significant decision relating to the budget or council tax (including any amendments) as set out in Part 4A – Council Procedures Rule 14.5 as required by the ‘Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014’. This will apply to agenda items 11 and 12.

 

 

2.         Budget Statement and moving of motion

 

(i)         The Cabinet Member Finance shall deliver the budget statement and formally move the resolutions set out in the report of the Cabinet Member Finance. (N.B. Not time limited).
He will invite the Section 151 Officer, Paul Jones to introduce his Section 25 report.

 

(ii)        The seconder shall formally second the motion. (N.B. The seconder may reserve their speech until later in the debate prior to the closing speeches) 5 minute limit applies.

 

(iii)       Members may then ask questions of the Cabinet Member Finance (who may refer them to the Section 151 Officer when appropriate), on matters relating to agenda item 11. (N.B. members are limited to one question only, without supplementary, and the Cabinet Member Finance shall wait until all questions have been put before responding).

 

3.         Statements by Group Leaders

 

(i)         Statement on behalf of the Conservative Group including tabling but not moving, any proposed amendment to the Cabinet’s budget. (no time limit)

 

(ii)        Statement on behalf of the People Against Bureaucracy Group including tabling, but not moving, any proposed amendment to the Cabinet’s budget. (No time limit).

 

4.         Formal moving, Seconding, debating, discussion and voting on any amendments tabled in the following order:

 

            - People Against Bureaucracy Group

            - Conservative Group

 

N.B. 

§  The Cabinet Member Finance has the right to a speech in reply at the end of the debate on any amendment. (10 mins).

 

§  The mover of an amendment may speak to move the amendment, (10 mins), and also has the right of reply to the debate immediately before the speech of the Cabinet Member Finance. (10 mins).

 

§  Amendments carried will become part of the substantive motion going forward. Once all proposed amendments have been debated and put to the vote the final version of the motion shall go forward to the next stage.

 

5.         Consideration of Amendments

 

(a)        If the Cabinet’s budget has not been amended, the Cabinet Member Finance to formally propose the budget (no speech), and the final proposal will be debated and voted upon subject to the Cabinet Member Finance's right of reply (10 mins).

 

(b)        If the Cabinet’s budget has been amended, before it is further debated and voted upon, the Mayor shall propose a brief adjournment in order that the Cabinet Member Finance can consider whether:

 

(i) the amendments are acceptable to the Cabinet - in which case the meeting will proceed as at (a) above; or

                 

(ii) the amendments are not acceptable to the Cabinet - in which case, the meeting will proceed as at (a) above save that, in accordance with the Budget and Policy Framework Rules, the Council may only make an in-principle decision which will be published and provided to the Leader of the Council for consideration.

 

The Mayor invited the Cabinet Member Finance to introduce the budget which would then be followed by a statement from the Chief Finance Officer, Paul Jones, as the Council’s Section 151 officer. To facilitate the presentation of the Budget, the Mayor proposed suspension of certain rules of debate, namely:-

 

That the time limit on speeches is relaxed with regard to the following speeches;

·         Cabinet Member Finance when moving the motion to adopt the budget being proposed by the Cabinet.

·         Group leaders or Group spokesperson when making budget statements on behalf of their group.

 

The Cabinet Member Finance and Group Leaders could also speak more than once in the debate (in addition to any rights of reply etc.) for the purpose of putting and answering questions.

 

This was agreed unanimously by Council.

 

 The Mayor reminded Members that a recorded vote must be held  on any significant decision relating to the budget or council tax (including any amendments) as set out in Part 4A – Council Procedures Rule 14.5 as required by the ‘Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014’. This will apply to agenda items 11 and 12.

 

 

The Cabinet Member Finance introduced the 2016/17 budget proposals with a detailed speech (please see Appendix 1).

 

The Cabinet Member Finance moved acceptance of the 2016/17 budget as set out in the report.The motion was seconded by Councillor Jordan who reserved his right to speak.

 

The Chief Finance Officer referred Members to his Section 25 report that had been circulated with the budget proposals. He highlighted his representation made on the interim finance settlement which given the severity of the front-loaded cuts had run to seven pages. There had been four main asks:

·         A request to remove council tax from the calculation in determining percentage cuts from the settlement core funding assessment. DCLG themselves refer to council tax as “an important source of funding which is used to meet the difference between the amount a local authority wishes to spend and the amount it receives from other sources such as government grants”. It was therefore wrong in his opinion to use the level of council tax raised, which had been subjected to twenty five annual council meetings  to determine the level of government funded support. As a consequence of this new methodology, the council’s average government funded spending power per head of population was projected to be £8 less than the average shire district urban authority by 2019/20. Unfortunately there was no change in the methodology set.

 

·         A fundamental review of New Homes Bonus allocations. In his opinion  Cheltenham had much less capacity for increasing the number of homes, compared to their rural counterparties given the tightly drawn boundaries. There was a separate consultation on NHB which the Council will respond to by the deadline of 10th March.

 

·         A major review of the front loading of the 2016/17 reduction in RSG. As referred to earlier given the council’s taxbase, Cheltenham was due to receive a much sharper decline in its RSG in the first 2 years than the average council. He was pleased that the Government had recognised this and awarded this council a transitional grant of £74k for the next 2 years – this was a direct response to a specific ask.

 

·         The ability for all councils to raise Council Tax by £5 or 2% (whichever the greater) without requiring a referendum. Once again a direct response to a specific ask had been delivered in that all Shire Districts would be given the flexibility to raise council tax by the maximum of £5 or 2%. According to DCLG numbers, this was an additional £39.2 million in council tax by 2019/20 if all Shire Districts use this flexibility every year of the four year period and this is assumed to be taken in the proposed 4 year settlement agreement.

 

He concluded that it was reassuring that for the first time in many years there had been significant improvements between the provisional and final settlement. He believed this was the result of direct responses to Government from across this Chamber and he wished to put on record his thanks to all those who helped in getting this improved settlement for Cheltenham.

 

 

The Mayor invited Members to ask questions of the Cabinet Member.

 

• Was the additional increase in council tax legitimate as it had not been part of the public consultation?
  • Although it was not ideal to change council tax at this stage, the late changes from government forced the changes. He was satisfied that there was an awareness in the budget consultation that after a freeze of council tax for five years services were under strain and an increase was not unreasonable.
• The government appeared to be cutting £20,000 a week from the council's RSG but this was not balanced by a transitional grant and a  proposed increase in council tax of £5 per year.  Were these figures correct and how would this impinge on other budgets?
  • He confirmed that the figures were correct and the Transition Grant was a small amount compared with the reduction in the settlement.
• In view of the delay in securing car park income from North Place where does the council stand legally in securing compensation from the contract? How much has the delay to North Place cost the council?
  • The reserve had been created to cover an assumed loss of income but in practice there had been a displacement of car parking income from North Place to other council car parks so it was not as much as might have been anticipated?
• How much funding for the Pittville Park Play Scheme is the council providing? Is the figure still £300,000?
  • The council had allocated £300,000 from the capital reserve but some additional funding had been made available from the planned maintenance budget. It was still the intention that the balance of the cost would come from fundraising. Later in the debate the Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment added that the Asset Managment Working Group had supported further funding from the planned maintenance budget for the aviary but overall the project was still £140,000 short of funding. A huge amount of work was being done, particularly by the Friends or Pittville Park, to raise this amount and the council was also submitting additional grant applications. 
• What action is the council taking with regard to the New Homes Bonus allocated to Tewkesbury Borough Council for housing development on the borders of Cheltenham which will largely use Cheltenham's infrastructure and facilities?
  • Later in the debate the Leader advised that there were ongoing discussions with Tewkesbury BC as part of the JCS work but  they had not agreed to pass over any of their New Homes Bonus as yet.
• Could the £600 reserve for Keep Cheltenham Tidy be reallocated to the Wombles Voluntary organisation who would welcome the contribution to their ongoing work to clean up the hotspots in Cheltenham?
  • This was a sensible suggestion which the Cabinet Member would consider? It may be appropriate to consider whether other voluntary groups with similar aims should also receive a share.
• What work was being done on the tourism strategy?
  • The draft strategy was due to come to Cabinet and O&S in February and it was important that some money was allocated in the budget to action the strategy once agreed.
• What was the anticipated cost of introducing the free parking after 6 p.m.?
  • The Cabinet Member Built Environment had estimated this to be in the order of £122,000 but it was unknown territory.
• Has the council approached government to request a four-year funding settlement.
  • The council was considering this but there were some difficulties which need to be considered. The Chief Finance Officer added that further clarification was needed on the detail and there would also be a requirement from government for the council to have an efficiency plan in place. Over the period of the medium-term financial strategy there was a £4 million budget shortfall and all but £43,000 worth of savings had already been identified. This would put the council in a good position to make a decision on any request by October 2016.

 

Councillor Harman as leader of the Conservative Party gave his response to the budget. He thanked the finance officers and Councillor Rawson for the tremendous job they had done. He said that the chamber would miss Councillor Rawson's intellect, his sense of humour and work ethic and this was echoed by many other Members during the meeting.

 

His party supported many aspects of the budget and in particular the funding allocated to clean up the town, the 2020 programme and he was pleased that work could now commence on the Bath Road car park. He acknowledged the financial challenges and he was pleased that the lobbying to the Secretary of State by this council and other Gloucestershire MPs had resulted in some improvements to the budget situation. He indicated that the Conservatives would have introduced all-out elections this year with a resulting saving in excess of £100,000 and they would aim to reintroduce this at the first possible opportunity.  There had been a significant windfall from the sale of North Place and they would have chosen alternative ways to spend the money rather than the purchase of an office block.

 

Councillor Malcolm Stennett gave his response to the budget as the Leader of the PAB. He too thanked Councillor Rawson and the Chief Executive for all their hard work on behalf of the council. He acknowledged the difficulties that the late changes in government grants had caused and he commended their achievements in balancing the budget. As a result his party had no amendments.

 

Councillor Harman proposed the following amendment which was seconded by Councillor Seacome.

 

i)              Amend recommendation 8.

 

The Councillors Allowances be frozen for 2016/17 and 2017/18 with resulting savings of £3,200 each year being utilised to increase the budget for Urban Gull egg treatment.

 

ii)            Additional recommendation

 

 In welcoming the proposal to stop charging in Car Parks after 6pm we would support a more radical approach. In the short term we ask Council to instruct officers to examine reduced charges in any under utilised car parks on Sundays or possibly the abolition of Sunday charging. The assessment to include the impact on car parking income and to draw on the experience of other councils.

 

In proposing the amendment, Councillor Harman said that he could not support giving members a pay rise when council taxes were being increased. He advocated a freeze for two years and indicated that members of this group would donate any increase to charity if this amendment was lost. The transfer of funds to the urban gull initiative would ensure the base budget for tackling the problem was increased to £12,000.

Regarding the second part of the amendment, he said it was important to give people a clear understanding of the different options hence the request for further evaluation.

 

A Member supporting the amendment, felt that councillors were well remunerated for what was effectively a public service rather than a job.The 1% increase would not make a material difference to their allowances but forgoing the increase would be a symbolic message to the public and demonstrate that they were not out of touch with the electorate.

 

Members speaking against a freeze in members allowances, felt that a increase was appropriate after a five-year freeze. It was important that Council took note of and respected the recommendations of the independent panel who had actually recommended a 1.5% increase. The members allowance was designed to compensate people for loss of income whilst carrying out council duties. In order to maintain diversity amongst councillors it was important that potential candidates were not discouraged or felt they could not afford to take up the position. A member highlighted that the basic allowance was already reduced by 33% to take account of the public service element. A member also pointed out that councillors too would be paying the increases in council tax and that every councillor could make a personal choice about whether they wished to take anyincrease.

 

In terms of diverting the funds to support the oiling of the eggs of urban gulls, several members highlighted that money was not the only issue and indeed the budget from last year had not been fully spent. There were also resourcing issues and difficulties in accessing properties. A member suggested that the funding could be better spent on improving disabled toilet facilities in the town.

 

Regarding the second amendment, a number of members suggested that this proposal should be put to the Car Parking Member Working Group and it was not appropriate to bring it as a late amendment to the budget. The working group could fully consider the matter and then a decision could be made on the basis on a full knowledge of the implications.  The Cabinet Member Built Environment gave his commitment that he would ask the working group to look at this issue regardless of the outcome of the vote on the amendment.

 

Other members suggested that the recommendation in the budget regarding free car parking after 6 p.m. should also have been brought to the member working group prior to being a recommendation in the budget.

 

Councillor Seacome as seconder of the amendment, suggested that the saving from allowances could be spent persuading owners of tall buildings in the town to put up netting. He also highlighted that Sunday was taking over from Saturday as the major shopping day.

 

Councillor Rawson in responding to the amendment highlighted that £8,000 had been given to the urban Gull focus group and there had been no approach for further funding this year.

 

A recorded vote was required upon the amendment i) and this was LOST

 

Voting

For 10: Councillors Babbage, Chard, Fletcher, Harman, Nelson, Regan, Ryder, Savage, Seacome and Smith.

Against 22: Councillors Barnes, Baker, Britter, Clucas, Coleman, Fisher, Flynn, R Hay, C Hay, Jeffries, Jordan, McCloskey, McKinlay, Murch, Rawson, Reid, Thornton, Walklett, Wheeler, Whyborn, Wilkinson and Williams.

 

Abstain 4: , Lillywhite, Payne, Stennett and Sudbury,.

The substantive motion then became the recommendations as listed in the report

 

The debate then moved to the substantive motion.

 

Councillor Jordan, as Leader, highlighted that the government settlement had fundamentally changed local government finances and the government policy which had encouraged councils to freeze council tax seemed now to be encouraging them to put it up to the maximum allowed. Given that the government assumption was that the council would be increasing council tax to the maximum allowed, it seemed to make sense to do so. He highlighted the work that the council was doing to support economic growth in the town, the scope of the Cheltenham Development Task Force had been extended to the whole borough and the council was also supporting the Cheltenham Business Partnership in the BID. Tourism also formed an essential part of the town's economic development as well as the JCS. In conclusion he felt the budget supported economic growth and was built on strong bases in difficult financial circumstances.

 

A Member encouraged other members to recognize the very positive developments taking place to attract people to the town.

 

A Member felt it was time to take a serious look at tourism as very little had been done for some years. They requested an update on the railway station bridge where the Charlie Chaplin figures were in serious need of repainting and had not been progressed despite numerous requests. The Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment, Councillor Coleman, advised that approaches had been made to the artist and Network Rail and officers were doing their best to resolve the problem. He also referred to a point that had been previously raised and confirmed that he was committed to working hard to improve the toilet facilities for disabled people in the town.

 

A Member acknowledged that the government had given the council a big problem by reducing its funding but the Cabinet Member appeared to have solved this problem by taking another £500,000 from the council reserves.

 

In his summing up, Councillor Rawson said the budget was concerned with big ideas and a big vision. The council had done an amazing job in maintaining its leisure and cultural facilities in such difficult financial circumstances whilst at the same investing in property and supporting economic growth. Regarding the last challenge, he referred members to the recent budget monitoring report which set out the position regarding reserves.  £308,000 underspends had been transferred to reserves but the budget was not touching any earmarked reserves or General Fund balances and he was confident that the budget maintained reserves in a healthy state. He felt it was a sound budget in financial terms but at the same time was doing plenty for Cheltenham and its residents and commended it to Members.

 

In accordance with the legislation a recorded vote was required and a member requested a separate vote on recommendation 8 regarding Members allowances.

 

Recommendations excluding recommendation 8 were passed unanimously.

Voting For 35: Councillors Babbage, Barnes, Britter, Chard, Clucas, Coleman, Fisher, Fletcher, Flynn, Harman, R Hay, C Hay, Jeffries, Jordan,  Lillywhite, McCloskey, McKinlay, Murch, Nelson, Payne, Rawson, Regan, Reid, Ryder, Savage, Seacome, Smith, Stennett, Sudbury, Thornton, Walklett, Wheeler, Whyborn, Wilkinson and Williams.

 

Voting on Recommendation 8.

Against 10: Councillors Babbage, Chard, Fletcher, Harman, Nelson, Regan, Ryder, Savage, Seacome and Smith.

For  22: Councillors Barnes, Britter, Clucas, Coleman, Fisher, Flynn, R Hay, C Hay, Jeffries, Jordan, McCloskey, McKinlay, Murch, Sudbury, Rawson, Reid, Thornton, Walklett, Wheeler, Whyborn, Wilkinson and Williams.

 

Abstain 3: , Lillywhite, Payne and Stennett.

The substantive motion then became the recommendations as listed in the amended report

 

RESOLVED THAT:
 

1. The revised budget for 2015/16 be noted and the recommendation of the Section 151 Officer to transfer the identified saving of £307,900 to the budget strategy (support) reserve as detailed in Section 3.1 be approved.
2. The budget assessment by the Section 151 Officer at Appendix 2 was considered in agreeing the following recommendations.
3. The final budget proposals be approved including a proposed council tax for the services provided by Cheltenham Borough Council of £192.12 for the year 2016/17 (an increase of 2.67% or £5.00 a year for a Band D property).
4. The growth proposals be approved, including one off initiatives at Appendix 4.
5. The savings / additional income totalling £780,700 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. The proposal to abolish charges in council car parks after 6pm as detailed in Section 8 be approved.
8. A 1% increase in all Member allowances be approved, in line with the proposed increase in staff pay, as detailed in Section 9.
9. The local council tax support scheme for 2016/17 as outlined in Section 11 be approved which remains unchanged from 2015/16 other than the annual uprating for non-dependant deductions.
10. The proposed capital programme at Appendix 7 be approved, as outlined in Section 13.
11.  The Pay Policy Statement for 2016/17 be approved, including the continued payment of a living wage supplement at Appendix 9.
12. A level of supplementary estimate of £100,000 for 2016/17 as outlined in Section 18 be approved.
13. It be noted that the Council will remain in the Gloucestershire business rates pool for 2016/17 (para 4.15).
14. The award of Transition Grant in 2016/17 of £74,461 be noted, which when added to the additional £51,557 raised through council tax, results in a reduction in the contribution required from the budget support (strategy) earmarked reserve of £126,018.