Agenda item

Report to follow

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability presented the Budget 2024/25 and Medium Term Financial Plan report. He said the Council were legally required to set a balanced budget and the proposal in the report did this. He ran through the highlights of the budget report including the Transforming East Herts programme, a 7.2% increase in government grants from the New Burdens Funding and New Homes Bonus, the increased cost of servicing debt, the council’s low levels of reserves and a recommended 2.99% increase in Council Tax.

 

Councillor Brittain proposed that the recommendation in the report be supported. Councillor Goldspink seconded the proposal.

 

Councillor Williamson thanked the Executive Member for the report and said he had a few comments. Firstly, within the Medium Term Financial Plan, the cost of capital was clear but the income from investments made by the council were not so visible in the net costs of services. Secondly, referring to paragraph 1.9 of the report and the savings under officer delegations, he said it would be helpful if the impacts of these £1.1million savings were explained further. Thirdly, he said that the £1.7 million future spend on the Old River Lane project was a lot of money for a temporary public square concept. He referred to the £170,000 spend on the church hall and was not convinced that this represented good value for money and if this money was not spent, there would be £15,000 less pressure on the revenue budget. Lastly, he said that there were rumours in the district that the council was already bankrupt and he asked the Executive Member to allay these fears and reassure the public that the council was not bankrupt.

 

Councillor Williamson proposed an amendment to the recommendations in the report. He proposed to remove Recommendation C. Councillor Devonshire seconded this proposal.

 

Councillor Brittain responded to the points raised by Councillor Williamson. He said the point about separating other sources of income from investments was valid and would look to amend this in the future. He said that he was happy to come back with more information on the officer delegated savings but he assured Members that there was no impact on services and they related to efficiency savings. He said that he had not heard the rumours but he reassured residents and Members that the council was not going bankrupt.

 

Councillor Estop said that she opposed the amendment. She said the hall had not been looked after but it was structurally sound and was used regularly by the community. She said it had been designated an Asset of Community Value so was protected by planning policy.

 

Councillor Swainston said that she also opposed the amendment and said that the council could not get rid of an Asset of Community Value.

 

Councillor Goldspink said she opposed the amendment and referred to Policy BISH8 says that no community hall which was valuable should be destroyed unless adequate or a better replacement was built. She said that until such time, the hall was all the community had and it was well used and should be preserved.

 

Councillor Deering said he supported the amendment. He said that part of the concern of this expenditure supported the theme of inaction in relation to the Old River Lane site. He said that the previous administration had left the Council with a significant project and nothing had happened in the last year. He said the proposal lacked ambition and it was difficult to see how it was a good use of taxpayers money.

 

Councillor McAndrew referred to the comments about not raising the amendment earlier throughout the committee process. He said he had attended a previous Executive meeting and said that he would be annoyed if he was a resident of Buntingford to learn that £170,000 was being spent on a hall in Bishop’s Stortford and not on the swimming pool in their town. He said he stood by that and said he supported the amendment.

 

Councillor Wilson said that he had no problem with the amendment being brought but the same comment was made by the previous Executive Member of Financial Sustainability at the Council meeting in March 2023 about the Liberal Democrat amendment. He said that the Liberal Democrat group had previously highlighted that the number of capital projects undertaken were unwise and now the council did not have the money to complete the Old River Lane project. He said that the residents of Bishop’s Stortford had missed out on what they were expected to get and their compensation was to keep the community hall going.

 

Councillor Crystall said that he supported what Councillor Wilson and Brittain had said. He did not agree with the amendment and said there was a passion within the town to keep the hall as it was well used and therefore felt it was worth spending money on it. He said he was concerned about the comments raised by Councillor McAndrew about Buntingford and felt the rhetoric was divisive and difficult decisions had to be made.

 

Councillor McAndrew raised a point of clarification and said that he was responding to comments made by Councillor Brittain saying that no one had raised the issue previously.

 

Councillor Hollebon asked if Councillor Wilson could provide figures to justify his comments about residents wanting to keep the hall in Bishop’s Stortford.

 

Councillor Wilson said that there were multiple comments on social media and has spoken to residents. He said the opinion on the ground was quite clear.

 

Councillor Devonshire asked for clarification on how the £170,000 was arrived at.

 

Councillor Brittain said that the figure came from a building appraisal summary report in November 2022 which identified several changes and upgrades to the building. He said there were 28 different line items and was happy to distribute the report to members.

 

Councillor Jacobs said that he was puzzled by the fixation on one budget line and a relatively small amount of money. He said he was pleased that the Executive had changed their mind over the future of the building and said there was a clear demonstration of support for retaining the hall in the community.

 

Councillor Hart asked what would happen if the other savings identified in the report were not realised. She felt the council had committed to the maintenance of the hall without being clear that other savings would be achieved.

 

Councillor Brittain said he was very confident that the savings would be achieved and there would be in year monitoring to look at progress to ensure these savings transpire.

 

Councillor Deffley referred to the £170,000 figure for the hall and said the figure was from November 2022 and there had been significant increase in construction inflation in the last few years. He asked if this figure was still accurate.

 

Councillor Brittain said he accepted the point about contract inflation but the work was based on an estimate and said if the price fluctuated within 10% it would not create a major problem.

 

Councillor Andrews said that he hoped Members who represented Buntingford were in a good position to explain to residents why this money had not been spent on the swimming pool.

 

Councillor Hopewell provided an update on the Buntingford swimming pool. She said the Department of Education would be ending their payment towards the pool from next year and so any investment from the council would not have covered the costs of repairs and would not have saved the pool in the long term. She said she was working extremely hard to save the Ward Freman pool with a fantastic group of residents and she had agreement in principle from the County Council to lease the pool on a peppercorn rent if a viable business plan was presented. She said that a business plan was being worked on and was in the process of setting up a charity to take on the pool.

 

Councillor Nicholls echoed the comments from Councillor Hopewell and said that Buntingford recognised the effect of the removal of a community assets and the impact on the community.

 

Councillor Williamson concluded by saying that he was not suggesting that the £170,000 was spent elsewhere but that it was not spent at all.

 

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

 

FOR

 

Councillors Andrews, Boylan, E Buckmaster, R Buckmaster, Bull, Deering, Deffley, Devonshire, Hollebon, Holt, McAndrew, Parsad-Wyatt, Stowe, Williamson, Wyllie (15)

AGAINST

Councillors Adams, Brittain, Burt, Carter, Connolly, Copley, Cox, Crystall, Daar, Dunlop, Estop, Glover-Ward, Goldspink, Hart, Hill, Hopewell, Hoskin, Jacobs, Marlow, Nicholls, Redfern, Smith, Swainston, Thomas, Townsend, Watson, Willcocks, Wilson, Woollcombe (29)

ABSTAINED

 

Councillor Horner (1)

 

The motion to amend the recommendation was LOST.

 

The debate returned to the original recommendations in the report.

 

Councillor Watson referred to the new Band D rate for council tax and said this translated to an extra £3.75 per week. He said the district council provided a wide range of services for this cost and acknowledged the hard work of council employees who allowed the council to provide excellent value for money.

 

Councillor Deering said he acknowledged the work that had gone into the budget and was pleased to see the council was starting to benefit from capital projects. He said that the Conservative group did not wish to be disruptive to the council finances and they would be supporting the budget. He referred to recommendation D and did not feel this had a place in budget papers and felt it was a political point. He said that the control of expenditure reflected well on the previous Conservative administration. He felt disappointed by the Leader’s comments about what was being said in Buntingford and that Councillor McAndrew was only echoing these comments from residents. He said that if the council were a listening council, they should be listening to all views, not just those that were convenient.

 

Councillor E Buckmaster said that he kept hearing from Councillor Wilson about being prudent in investing in health and wellbeing and asked which project he would not have done as the leisure centres needed investment. He said he would not change what the previous administration had achieved and none of them could predict that there would be a pandemic and a war in Europe which had an impact on inflation and costs of borrowing.

 

Councillor Glover-Ward said that the council’s spending power had been reduced by 27% since 2010 according to the Local Government Association. She said the Executive had to look at cutting items costing just £10,000 a year to try and achieve a balanced budget.

 

The motion to support the recommendations having been proposed and seconded was put to a recorded vote and the result was as follows:

 

FOR

 

Councillors Adams, Andrews, Boylan, Brittain, E Buckmaster, R Buckmaster, Bull, Burt, Carter, Connolly, Copley, Cox, Crystall, Daar, Deering, Deffley, Devonshire, Dunlop, Estop, Glover-Ward, Goldspink, Hart, Hill, Hollebon, Holt, Hopewell, Horner, Hoskin, Jacobs, Marlow, McAndrew, Nicholls, Parsad-Wyatt, Redfern, Smith, Stowe, Swainston, Thomas, Townsend, Watson, Willcocks, Williamson, Wilson, Woollcombe, Wyllie (45)

 

AGAINST

 

None

 

ABSTAINED

 

None

 

RESOLVED – That (A) the budget and Medium Term Financial Plan at Appendix A, the savings programme at Appendix C, the Fees and Charges at Appendix F and increase Council Tax by 2.99%, which will result in a Band D Council Tax increase of £5.65 to £195.52 per year be approved;

(B) the proposed savings requirements, that will need to be delivered to balance the budget in the medium term be noted:

 

	2024/25	2025/26	2026/27	2027/28
	£(000)	£(000)	£(000)	£(000)
Gross Savings requirement	1,186	5,606	5,606	6,132
Savings plans 2024/25	(1,186)	(4,195)	(4,195)	(4,424)
Savings not yet identified:
2025/26 savings to be identified		(1,411)	(1,411)	(1,411)
2027/28 savings to be identified				(526)

 

 

 

(C) the amended Capital Programme at Appendix B which pauses the Old River Lane Arts Centre be approved, reducing revenue costs of Minimum Revenue Provision and interest by £1,514k per annum on current interest rates, a total saving of £7.442 million of over the MTFP period. Comment on the capital expenditure priorities:

i. essential property maintenance to meet statutory requirements or to prevent loss or damage to neighbouring properties;

ii. investment in ICT to continue but that the budget carry forward that has not been used for two years is deleted;

iii. invest to save initiatives where the business case indicates that the cost of the investment will be recovered in under 10 years;

iv. to allow pausing of construction of the Arts Centre at Old River Lane until such time as debt levels have fallen sufficiently to make the revenue impacts of new borrowing

affordable while at the same time undertaking landscaping works on the arts centre site so that it is an attractive site rather than an undeveloped area blighting the retail and commercial units in the City Heart scheme;

v. provide up to £170k for essential maintenance works for the URC Church Hall in Bishop’s Stortford;

vi. completion of Hertford Theatre, at as low a cost as possible, so that the entire venue is opened and run on a strictly commercial basis to maximise income; and

vii. investment in depot works and waste containers for the new waste and recycling contract.

 

(D) the implication of the Autumn Statement that a further round of austerity is proposed by the Government and that the two major parties seem intent on keeping to the announced expenditure totals which will severely reduce government funding and inevitably require service cuts be noted.