Issue - meetings

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability presented the 2026/27 Budget and the Medium-Term Financial Plan for 2026–2031. The Executive Member outlined the impact of the Government’s provisional settlement, the fair funding review and ongoing reductions in government support. Members were informed that although funding would continue to fall, three?year settlements provided greater certainty. Additional budget pressures had been identified, including £706,000 from service reviews, £1 million over two years for Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) and a £203,000 contingency relating to BEAM due to slower-than-expected growth. Significant savings had arisen from the recent Hertfordshire Pension Fund revaluation, enabling a balanced budget to be set. The proposed council tax increase was 2.99% and the capital programme and reserve position were summarised along with the Section 25 assurance statement.

The Executive Member highlighted that despite improvements in the Council’s financial position, external risks such as global instability and inflation remained.

Councillor Brittain, the Executive Member for Financial Sustainability proposed that the recommendations in the report be supported. CouncillorWilson seconded the proposal.

Two amendments were tabled by the Conservative Group and debated in turn.

Councillor Deffley proposed the following amendment to the recommendation:

‘In the capital budget, £170k has been allocated for works at the URC Hall. However, this would represent a poor use of taxpayers’ resources. Instead, the funding should be used to reduce existing borrowing, thereby lowering the Minimum Revenue Provision. This approach would reduce the revenue budget by approximately £15k per year and help moderate future Council Tax increase.

That the Budget be amended as follows:

a) Appendix A MTFP be deleted and replaced with an amended

Appendix A as Annex 1 to this amendment.

b) Appendix E Capital Programme be deleted and replaced with

an amended Appendix E as Annex 2 to this amendment.

This would result in the 2026/27 showing a £15,000 surplus for the year, against the original proposed breakeven budget.’

Councillor Deering seconded the proposal.

The proposer highlighted that the scheme was financially unviable and that continuing to hold funds for it represented poor value for taxpayers.

Members heard that a public consultation and community-led business planning exercise was still underway and that the £170,000 would only be spent if a viable community proposal emerged; otherwise, the money would remain unspent.

Members speaking against the amendment emphasised strong community interest in retaining the building and the importance of allowing the ongoing process to conclude.

Members questioned the viability of fundraising but agreed that the community should have further time.

A recorded vote was held on the amendment proposed by Councillor Deffley. The result was as follows:

FOR

Councillors Andrews, Boylan, E Buckmaster, R Buckmaster, Deering, Deffley, Devonshire, Holt, McAndrew, Parsad-Wyatt, T Smith, Stowe, Wyllie.

AGAINST

Councillors Brittain, Burt, Butcher, Carter, Clements, Connolly, Copley, Cox, Crystall, Daar, Dumont, Dunlop, Glover-Ward, Goldspink, Hopewell, Horner, Hoskin, Jacobs, Marlow, Nicholls, Redfern, V Smith, Swainston, Thomas, Townsend, Watson, Willcocks, Williams, Wilson, Woollcombe.

ABSTAIN

Councillor Adams.

For: 13

Against: 30

Abstain: 1

The motion to amend the recommendation was LOST.

Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 368

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability presented the report. The report set out an updated MTFP for 2026/27 to 2030/31 and the proposed Capital Programme for 2026/27 to 2028/29. Members heard that the Government’s settlement had aligned with the Council’s most optimistic assumptions, meaning that whilst funding had still declined it was less sharp than expected.

The final settlement confirmed an increase in grants for homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse, which would be reflected in the final budget. A review of the council’s finances had identified £706,000 of new pressures for 2026/27, alongside significant uncertainty linked to Local Government Reorganisation. To prepare, the Council had prudently set aside £1 million over two years. Slower than expected growth from BEAM also required a £203,000 contingency, though performance improvements were noted.

To maintain financial sustainability, the Council continued efficiency work and planned inflation?linked increases to fees and charges, whilst freezing some proposed car park rises. A favourable pension fund revaluation delivered nearly £1 million in annual savings, enabling the setting of a balanced budget and allowing additional reserves to be created to strengthen resilience.

Council tax for 2026/27 was proposed to rise by 2.99%. The capital programme remained limited due to low capital receipts, with new projects dependent on future asset disposals. The MTFP and draft budget had reviewed by the Joint Scrutiny Committee and the recommendations made were appended to the report.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability

proposed the recommendations as detailed in the report.

The Executive Member for Corporate Services seconded the proposal.

Members commented on why Local Authorities were expected to fund Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) themselves, and whether Councils would be incentivised to minimise costs or required to pool larger contributions into a shared fund for the new Unitary Authority. Officers explained that many details of LGR were still unknown, including which structural option the Government would choose. All district councils and the County Council had agreed to set aside initial funds, but this was being held until further information emerged. It was advised that costs would depend on the final model selected, noting that other councils elsewhere had set aside larger sums.

Members praised staff at BEAM, noting that they had been undertaking a significant amount of work across the building and its programming. It was highlighted that this effort had been ongoing for some time and that there were promising developments ahead.

In response to a Member question regarding whether recent Government changes to grant structures had effectively reduced funding for homelessness prevention, noting that the council now had to set aside its own money to cover temporary accommodation costs, officers explained that the situation was complex but confirmed that the temporary accommodation element of the homelessness grant had been moved into Revenue Support Grant. As a result, the Council had allocated around £400,000 from its general funding to cover these costs, as it had done in previous years. It was noted that this sat alongside roughly £1 million in other homelessness?related  ...  view the full minutes text for item 324