Agenda item

The report of the Director – Finance and Corporate Services is attached.

The Mayor advised that it was proposed that the speaking times be extended to permit the mover of the report 15 minutes to speak on the matter, and to allow 7 ½ minutes for the seconder and other Group Leaders and this was agreed by Council. 

 

The Leader and Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Borough-wide Leadership, Councillor Clarke MBE presented the report of the Director – Finance and Corporate Services outlining the Council’s Budget and Financial Strategy for 2025/26.

 

The Leader stated that all councils continued to face financial pressures; however, Rushcliffe continued improving its services, with a virtually balanced budget over five years, including up to date, signed off Financial Statements, with excellent governance, which was the backbone of any well run local authority. The Leader referred to the hard work undertaken to produce the budget, ensuring that the Council had a commercial culture, generated financial efficiencies and was forward looking. Council noted that Government funding this year was much lower, with Core Spending Power only increasing by 0.9% compared to 6.8% nationally, and with inflation running at 2%, this was a cut in overall funding, resulting in the Council having to raise revenue to fund services. The Leader expressed pride that Rushcliffe continued to have the lowest Council Tax in Nottinghamshire and remained amongst the lowest 25% in the country and felt that the Special Expenses precept for West Bridgford, compared to other areas remained excellent value.

 

The Leader referred to the Council’s Transformation and Efficiency Plan, which would deliver £1.7m over five years and whilst acknowledging some charges were increasing, he felt that they remained competitive. The Capital Programme remained substantial with £27.1m budgeted over five years, including a continued range of investments across the Borough as detailed in Section 9.2 of the Capital Programme, and he confirmed that reserves remained sound.

 

The Leader referred to the Commentary of the S151 Officer, which confirmed that the Council was not at risk of requiring exceptional financial support. The Leader advised that going forward significant challenges lay ahead, including Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), together with the impending comprehensive review on local government finances, and uncertainty regarding  various Government grants. The Leader confirmed that Rushcliffe was in a relatively healthy financial position compared to many other councils and continued to provide excellent value for money to its residents. The Leader concluded by thanking Councillors, in particular Councillor Virdi and the Director – Finance and Corporate Services and the Finance Team for their continued hard work during such challenging times.

 

Councillor Virdi seconded the recommendation and reserved the right to speak.

 

Councillor J Walker thanked officers for their continued support and stated that being a successful council was more than just having a balanced budget, it was an opportunity to act with confidence to future proof the organisation. As demands for funding increased, she was concerned that with the Council now looking to identify major assets for disposal, they could be lost to future generations. Councillor Walker stated that the Council needed to re-engage with the principles behind the budget, allowing residents to understand the necessity of taxation, whilst focusing on those dependant on the Council’s intervention. She referred to the importance of thinking strategically and questioned if making saving on the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFGs) now was prudent. Councillor Walker referred to the importance of maintaining trust with residents, which could only be achieved with transparency and honesty.

 

She referred to the proposed amendment to increase the DFG budget, and reiterated concerns made last year regarding Rushcliffe’s unwillingness to consider having Council owned social housing. Councillor Walker referred to the LGR and stated that if district councils disappeared, West Bridgford would be left without any representation and the second proposed amendment to have a Community Governance Review (CGR) would bring the issue into the public forum and offer a solution. 

 

Councillor Gaunt seconded the amended recommendation and reserved the right to speak.

 

Councillor Thomas thanked officers, stated that the Group fully supported the first proposed amendment and felt that despite the lack of Government funding, Rushcliffe was affluent enough to afford this, and she also agreed that it was time for West Bridgford to have its own Town Council. Councillor Thomas referred to the allocation of £70k for ‘Welcome to Rushcliffe’ signs and whilst she supported promoting the Borough, she questioned if this was good value for money and suggested that the money be reallocated.

 

Councillor R Mallender also supported the proposed amendments and agreed that whilst West Bridgford had a Local Area Forum, it was not a Town Council, and given the uncertainties surrounding LGR it was important to consult local residents through a CGR. 

 

Councillor Birch thanked officers and stated that he could see no coherent ideology underpinning this budget, as it was raising taxes, draining reserves, increasing garden waste collection fees, and car parking, which would impact businesses, and he noted that there was no money budgeted for a new car park in Bingham. Councillor Birch referred to Council Tax and clarified that Rushcliffe’s element amounted to 6%, and if the rest of the Council Tax was factored in, Rushcliffe was in the top 5% in the UK and the highest in Nottinghamshire. Councillor Birch stated that Rushcliffe was an affluent Borough, which brought great advantages, including a large tax base with lower overheads. Councillor Birch stated that he supported the amendment and agreed that it was important for West Bridgford to have its own Town Council.

 

In supporting the proposed budget, Councillor J Wheeler reiterated that Rushcliffe’s Council Tax was the lowest in the county, despite reductions in Government funding and Rushcliffe was still investing over £27m in services, whilst remaining debt free. Councillor Wheeler confirmed that businesses continued to be supported, with car parking prices balanced to encourage turnover, and he also welcomed the investment in leisure. He felt that having a CGR would not be cost effective for local residents and that the current arrangement  should remain, especially whilst LGR was being considered.

 

Councillor Upton referred to DFG and confirmed that the Council had a good track record of providing grants, although demand was currently outstripping the grant, with Rushcliffe receiving less money than any other district. Councillor Upton referred to the response to his letter from the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government confirming that the Government was keeping DFG funding under review. It was noted that Rushcliffe had allocated an additional £700k over the last three years; however, a change to the Government grant formula was required. Councillor Upton confirmed that more Government funding had recently been allocated, and  that districts would ‘pool’ and redistribute uncommitted DFG funds. He stated that rather than supporting the proposed amendment, the Council’s focus should be on getting more Government funding and he also felt that it was too risky for the Council to rebuild its own housing stock.

 

Councillor Polenta stated that the budget should reflect community values and was a moral statement, with the proposed amendment fulfilling the principle that public services must meet public needs, with accessibility as a right. Many disabled residents struggled to stay in their own homes, being unable to pay for adaptations and she felt that all new developments should be made accessible from the outset. Councillor Polenta supported a CGR as West Bridgford’s residents deserved a direct say, and a Town Council would strengthen local democracy and she felt that overall, Council’s should engage more when setting budgets. 

 

Councillor Grocock reminded Council that accessible housing had been discussed by a joint meeting of the Communities and Growth and Development Scrutiny Groups last October, when it had been agreed to ask other councils to redistribute any unspent funds. Councillor Grocock felt that the Council needed to be more ambitious, including making savings from elsewhere, and not doing so was a political choice, which disproportionately impacted the most vulnerable. Councillor Grocock felt that it would be better for the Council to build its own housing stock and that a Feasibility Study should be undertaken to look at the information considered by the two scrutiny groups.

 

Councillor Calvert supported a CGR as it was appropriate for residents to have a say in local issues, through a decision making body. He felt that current Borough Council consultation was sporadic, there was limited local consultation on the Special Expenses precept and given LGR, this issue needed to be looked at urgently. 

 

Councillor Chaplain also questioned the effectiveness of the Council’s consultation process, specifically regarding the pedestrianisation of Central Avenue and that it would be appropriate to consult residents now, to explain what LGR would involve. Councillor Chaplain referred to the benefits gained by the Council in holding large amounts of S106 and CIL monies, questioned why funds available for affordable housing and in the Climate Change Reserve had not been used, and that by holding onto developer contributions, the Council was remaining debt free by failing to provide vital infrastructure.

 

Councillor S Mallender thanked officers and stated that it was better to raise Council Tax, to produce strong social benefits and help the most deserving. She agreed that it would be better for the Council to have its own housing stock and that West Bridgford should also have its own Town Council.

 

Councillor Brennan stated that the Council was doing a tremendous amount to support businesses though it’s first Economic Growth Strategy, which focused on attracting and supporting businesses, by encouraging investment and skills. The Strategy focused on tourism, and Councillor Brennan felt that more could be done to promote the Borough, as it was important to let people know where that they were, and to encourage them to support local businesses. She confirmed that considerable consultation had already taken place regarding pedestrianisation in West Bridgford, and any plans needed to be feasible before consulting with the public. Councillor Brennan stated that she was unaware of any of the Council’s assets being disposed of, as investment continued and she was proud of this prudent budget, which continued to attract businesses. 

 

Councillor R Walker advised that a CGR would be automatically triggered if a petition had sufficient signatures and suggested that this would be the best approach.

 

In supporting the budget, Councillor Parekh referred to the excellent facilities enjoyed by residents in West Bridgford and felt that a Town Council was unnecessary as the current system worked well. 

 

Councillor Way stated that people were currently suffering because their homes were not adapted and action was needed and she agreed that West Bridgford should have a Town Council, especially given the uncertainty surrounding LGR.    

 

Councillor Chewings stated that the budget would burden residents without delivering real value by increasing taxes and raiding reserves. He stated that the financial outlook was grim, and rather than securing stability, this budget relied on uncertainty, with missed placed spending priorities and he questioned increasing car parking charges. He supported the proposed amendment to increase DFGs, hoped that Government funding would increase, but felt that vulnerable residents were trapped by the Council’s decision not to restore discretionary DFG. Councillor Chewings also supported bringing local authority housing back under the Council’s control but could not support spending money on a CGR and encouraged residents to push for a Town Council.        

 

Councillor G Wheeler thanked officers, expressed concern that the two proposed amendments, if agreed would add to officers’ workloads, reiterated that the Council was investing in its assets and that increasing West Bridgford’s Special Expenses made no sense.

 

Councillor Om referred to the significant investment being undertaken throughout the Borough, whilst remaining debt free and supported the budget.

 

Councillor Plant thanked officers, expressed concern regarding proposed cuts, together with increased car parking fees in West Bridgford, which she felt would impact the majority of users and that increased charges for green waste bins would impact on collection rates. Councillor Plant felt that the three yearly Residents Survey was not an accurate indicator of satisfaction rates and believed that many residents would be willing to pay more Council Tax for better services, which would improve those rates.

 

Councillor Regan confirmed that the Conservative Group supported the rights of residents to live comfortably in their homes; however, he felt that there were better ways to address the DFG issue. 

 

Councillor Ellis referred to the challenging economic times and stated that he would be supporting this sensible budget, which secured the Council’s finances.

 

Councillor Gaunt thanked everyone involved, confirming that the two proposed amendments had been costed by the Finance Team. He acknowledged comments about setting up a petition but felt that given the urgency, a CGR was the best approach to address the democratic deficit in West Bridgford and that the first amendment would help those most in need. 

 

Councillor J Walker stated that there was a common thread in the two amendments to help the most vulnerable and residents in West Bridgford and she felt that the CGR would cost very little in real terms, and if residents were told, she thought that they would find it acceptable. In respect of potentially selling assets, she confirmed that this was referred to in the report.

 

Councillor Virdi agreed that this Council was future proofing itself and continued to effectively manage its finances, with a small increase in Council Tax, which recognised the cost of living for residents, and he felt that aspects of the alternative budget were too risky. Councillor Virdi stated that the Council did not rely on the New Homes Bonus (NHB), rather it made prudent, commercial decisions, and had an effective Transformation and Efficiency Plan. Reference had been made to raising taxes and reducing reserves, which was necessary to produce a balanced budget. Councillor Virdi agreed that the Borough had many high value properties; however, residents expected high quality services and the rural nature of the Borough resulted in additional costs and less Business Rates income, with Rushcliffe seventh in the county for overall funding. In respect of reserves, the majority was S106 monies, with the rest carefully earmarked, and the budget was a result of diligent decision making, with the Council investing in its assets rather than selling them. Councillor Virdi reiterated that Rushcliffe did have the lowest Council Tax in the county, was debt free, investing in services and prudently using reserves to provide stability.   

 

The Leader thanked the Labour Group for bringing the amendment and confirmed that no major assets had been identified for disposal. He reiterated that Rushcliffe continued to have the lowest Council Tax in the county, and decisions made by the County Council were not relevant to this Council’s decision. The Leader questioned the timing for a CGR, given that consultation on LGR would be taking place this summer. The Leader concluded by reiterating that as the Council was financially well managed, it missed out on funding, and he was proud that the Council remained debt free, with a virtually balanced budget over five years, whilst identifying money from reserves for relevant projects and he reiterated his thanks to officers.    

 

In accordance with the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, a recorded vote was taken for this item as follows:

 

FOR: Councillors M Barney, A Brennan, A Brown, R Butler, N Clarke, T Combellack, A Edyvean, S Ellis, E Georgiou, R Inglis, D Mason, H Om, H Parekh, A Phillips, N Regan, D Soloman, R Upton, D Virdi, R Walker, T Wells, D Wheeler, J Wheeler and G Williams

 

AGAINST: Councillors J Billin, T Birch, R Bird, S Calvert, J Chaplain, K Chewings, S Dellar, G Fletcher, M Gaunt, C Grocock, R Mallender, S Mallender, L Plant, D Polenta, C Thomas, J Walker and L Way

 

It was RESOLVED that Council:

 

a)           accepts the report of the Council’s Responsible Financial Officer on the robustness of the Council’s budget and the adequacy of reserves (as detailed at attached Annex A);

 

b)           adopts the budget setting report and associated financial strategies 2025/26 to 2029/30 (attached Annex B) including changes to fees and charges regarding garden waste and car parking (Annex B, Appendix 5);

 

c)           adopts the Transformation and Efficiency Plan (at Annex B, Appendix 7);

 

d)           adopts the Capital Programme (as set out in Annex B, Appendix 3);

 

e)           adopts the Capital and Investment Strategy (at Annex B, Appendix 8);

 

f)             sets Rushcliffe’s 2025/26 Council Tax for a Band D property at £161.77 (increase from 2024/25 of £3.89 or 2.46%);

 

g)           sets the Special Expenses for 2025/26 for West Bridgford, Ruddington and Keyworth, Appendix 1, resulting in the following Band D Council Tax levels for the Special Expense Areas:

 

i)                 West Bridgford £64.84(£59.44 in 2024/25)

ii)        Keyworth £3.21 (£4.69 in 2024/25)

iii)       Ruddington £3.14 (£3.29 in 2024/25);

          

h)           with regards to recommendations f) and g), sets the associated Bands in accordance with the formula in section 36(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992; and

 

i)             adopts the Pay Policy Statement (at Annex B, Appendix 6).

 

Councillor Barney left the meeting at 9.27pm.