Agenda item

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability presented the Budget 2025/26 and Medium-Term Financial Plan 2025-2035 report and said that despite the uncertainty of the future of the district council following the government’s Devolution White Paper, the council were still required to set a balanced budget.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability said that £1.46 million of officer delegated savings and £492,000 of Executive recommended savings had been identified with the majority of officer delegated savings coming from contracts and leaving vacancies open. He said that some savings proposed for 2024/25 budget year were still to be implemented in the 2025/26 budget.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability referred to the savings that had been rejected by the Executive such as reducing planning enforcement, reducing the grant to Citizens Advice and council communications. He said that although these were non-statutory services, these represented good value for money for residents.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability said that the cost of services were displayed in section 1.6 and there had been some gains from the extended producer responsibility scheme and a lower than expected staff pay award. However, these had been offset by a reduction in the income forecast for BEAM, rise in national insurance contributions and continuing liability for Charrington’s House. He said that to cover these costs, an increase of 2.98% in Council Tax had been proposed and it was important that all the savings proposals were realised.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability warned that there were risks ahead with external factors such as the cost of finance and business rates review which was outside the council’s control. He said another risk was the performance of BEAM and whether it could reach its income target, but the business plan was being reviewed with the new manager.

The Executive Member for Financial Sustainability thanked officers for their work in preparing the budget report and said the financial situation was challenging but the administration was able to present a balanced budget for 2025/26 and work continued at pace to reduce the gap in future years to ensure budget targets are met.

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

Councillor Buckmaster said it was good to hear that BEAM was on its way to making its income targets and the leisure services were making money. He said that the administration had declared early on that they would like to replace the Executive system with an alternative but seemed that they did not mind using their Executive powers. He referred to the decisions on the two key revenue generators; the increase in the garden waste charge and parking tariffs. He said he was not saying that the Executive had not followed due process but felt that Full Council was the place to discuss the budget. He said that he could not support a budget that his own residents were against.  He asked why there were eight Executive Members which was the same as the county council that had a £1.2billion budget.

Councillor Devonshire referred to page 533 of the report in relation to asset disposal. He asked why only £30,000 out of the £10.8million assets identified for disposal had been completed.

Councillor Clements acknowledged the difficult position that the current administration had inherited. He referred to the list of recommended savings and the review of receptions. He said that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had recently looked at digital exclusion in the district and highlighted the importance of receptions. He asked if this meant the Executive were considering closing receptions.

Councillor Williamson referred to Charrington’s House and asked why East Herts were still paying business rates at £300k a year. He said that Members were told that business rates liabilities would stop once the development agreement had been signed but the Audit and Governance Committee had been told that this was the wrong advice. He asked the Executive Member how long they were expecting to pay business rates on this building.

Councillor Dumont said that the Executive relied on Officers bringing them the full list of options to balance the budget. He said just because they appeared on the list, did not mean the Executive had encouraged the option and said that there had been a number of red lines. He noted that the opposition had not mentioned the cut to Citizens Advice which had been cut under the previous administration.

Councillor Parsad-Wyatt referred to Appendix C and the suggestion that staff could be charged to use the car park. He thought it could be seen as hypocritical that staff were not being asked to pay to use the car park, but residents were being asked to pay more for car parking across the district. He acknowledged that it was small in financial terms but said it would increase the budget surplus by 50% and asked why it had been ruled out as an option.

Councillor Estop referred to Charrington’s House and said that the previous administration had evicted tenants prematurely which had led to a loss in income. She felt it should have been occupied until the development process was underway.

Councillor Jacobs referred to the £170k for repairs at the United Reform Church and said he could not understand why that money was going back two years. He said a survey was due to be carried out on the building soon and if it required urgent works, he said it could not wait over a year because the money had been allocated to the incorrect financial year.

Councillor McAndrew said that he had requested a breakdown of charges to justify the increase in the garden waste at the Executive meeting but had yet to receive it and wanted to understand why there was a variance between the North Herts and East Herts charges.

Councillor Deering said that he was also concerned that the council had a shared service with North Herts but the increase in charges were twice as much. He echoed the points raised by Councillor Buckmaster that the increases in fees and charges had been pushed through via executive decisions and also felt that Full Council was the correct forum for that discussion. He also echoed the points raised by Councillor Devonshire and the asset disposals. He said that council tax would not need to be increased if the income target of £10million had been achieved.

Councillor Hoskin responded to Councillor McAndrew’s concern about the garden waste charge variance. He said that he was happy to supply the detailed information and said there were two distinct differences between East Herts and North Herts. He said that four vehicles were required to cover East Herts, whereas just three needed for North Herts and this additional vehicle cost £215k. He also explained that the routes in East Herts were longer than North Herts incurring additional costs. He then referred to the increase in parking charges and said this had been discussed at Overview and Scrutiny and the Executive and was done with complete transparency in two open sessions.

Councillor Copley said she felt the Executive were doing a good job in difficult circumstances. She referred to the comments about the disposal of assets and said that the administration had been left in a difficult situation by the previous one and had to make difficult decisions to sell assets.

Councillor Thomas praised the report in terms of its transparency. He said it was good that the Executive had displayed the potential savings they could have made and where the red lines were. He urged the Executive to continue with asset disposals as quickly as possible.

Councillor Swainston said the current administration did not close Charrington’s House and could not deliver the ORL project in time. She said that the parking and waste increases had been scrutinised by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and that all parties were represented on the committee. She commended the Executive on their proposed budget.

Councillor Williams said that he did not agree with comments made by the opposition and said that the Executive Member for Financial Sustainability had worked hard to get a balanced budget.

Councillor Buckmaster raised a point of order and said it was the opposition’s job to hold the joint administration to account. He said the previous administration did not ask for Covid or the war in Ukraine to happen and the financial environment was challenging.

Councillor Brittain responded to points raised in the debate. He referred to the parking and garden waste charge increase and said that the Executive had been presented with options and it was either increase some charges or cut other important services.

Councillor Brittain said that the previous asset disposal target was too challenging and ORL was responsible for 80% of assets in the list. At the time, they were told that it could move forward once the Development Agreement had been signed but this was no longer the case. If they had known that previously, the budget could have been moved into future years. He said that the money had not been lost but that it was not available in the first place.

Councillor Brittain referred to charging staff for using the car park and said that the Executive had thought it was important to ensure staff were able to park without charge. He referred to the URC Hall and said that if the survey identified urgent works, it could be done. The budget in 2026/27 was an expectation but not definitive.

Councillor Brittain referred to the breakdown of the charges for the garden waste. He said the Section 151 Officer was working on these, but he had seen a draft. He explained that the cost of the service to the council was greater than the revenue received for it due to indirect costs to the council. He said that there was no requirement for align charges with North Herts and this had not existed previously as when the service started, North Herts charged for it and East Herts did not. He said that it was important to be fair to residents and look at a fair charge for those who use the service as the majority of residents do not use the service and it would not be fair for them to subsidise the service for others.

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, Brittain, Burt, Carter, Copley, Cox, Crystall, Daar, Dunlop, Glover-Ward, Hart, Hill, Hopewell, Horner, Hoskin, Marlow, Nicholls, Smith, Swainston, Thomas, Townsend, Watson, Williams, Wilson, Woollcombe (26)

AGAINST

Councillors Andrews, Boylan, E Buckmaster, Bull, Deering, Devonshire, Hollebon, Holt, McAndrew, Parsad-Wyatt, Stowe, Williamson, Woolf, Wyllie (14)

ABSTAINED

Councillors Butcher, Clements, Connolly, Estop, Jacobs, Redfern, Willcocks (7)

RESOLVED – that the budget and Medium-Term Financial Plan at Appendix A, savings programme at Appendix C, Capital Programme at Appendix D, Fees and Charges at Appendix E and increase Council Tax by 2.98%, which will result in a Band D Council Tax increase of £5.82 to £201.04 per year be approved.