Agenda item

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 Deffley proposed a further amendment to the budget:

 

‘£250k is proposed to be placed into an Earmarked Reserve in both 2026/27 and 2027/28. However, no specific purpose has been identified for this reserve. The Administration suggests that the Executive should subsequently determine how these funds will be used. This is unacceptable. Decisions on how taxpayers’ money is allocated should be made by the full Council, not delegated to the Executive. We therefore propose that either:

1)         The proposed reserve should not be created, and the funds should instead be used to help moderate future Council Tax increases; or

2)         Any Member should be able to put forward a scheme for consideration, with approval resting with the full Council rather than the Executive; or

3)         The proposed reserve should be divided equally among all Members, effectively creating a ‘Locality Budget’ for each Member to spend on local good causes as they see fit.’

 

Councillor Deering seconded the proposal.

 

Members considered the options presented. The Executive Member opposed reducing council tax due to long-term risks and opposed locality budgets due to concerns about administrative burden and fragmentation of spending. Support was expressed for the principle in the second option of allowing members to bring forward proposals, with final approval resting with Full Council.

 

Members considered the benefit of supporting locality budgets to ensure fairness across wards, against considerations that the funding should be used for larger projects benefiting the whole district. Concerns were raised about practicality, capacity and the risk of delaying decision-making.

 

Following advice from the Monitoring Officer, it was explained that each member would be asked individually, in a recorded vote, to state their preference for Option 1, Option 2, Option 3, or to vote against. If one option secured a clear majority in the first round, that decision would stand. However, if no option achieved a majority vote, the least?supported option would be eliminated, and further rounds of voting would take place. This process would continue until one option gained a majority.

 

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

 

OPTION 1

 

None.

 

OPTION 2

 

Councillors Andrews, E Buckmaster, R Buckmaster, Deering, Deffley, Holt, McAndrew, Parsad-Wyatt, Stowe, Williams, Wyllie.

 

OPTION 3

 

Councillors Boylan, Devonshire, T Smith, Willcocks

 

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, Wilson.

 

ABSTAIN:

Councillors Adams, Woollcombe.

 

Option 1: 0

Option 2: 11

Option 3: 4

Against: 27

Abstain: 2

 

Following a recorded vote in which members were asked to select one of the options or reject them all, the motion to amend the budget was LOST.

 

The debate returned to the original recommendations in the report.

 

Members raised issues including global economic risks, Local Government Reorganisation costs, asset disposals and the purpose of the new Executive reserve. It was reiterated that the reserve would be used for projects that aligned with Council priorities and that all members’ ideas would be welcomed.

 

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 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.

 

AGAINST

 

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

 

ABSTAIN

 

Councillor Adams

 

For: 30

Against: 12 

Abstained: 1

 

RESOLVED: a) That the final General Fund Budget for 2026/27, including a Band D Council Tax of £207.03 (reflecting a 2.99% increase), be approved.

 

b) That the updated position on the General Fund Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP), as set out in Appendix A, be noted.

 

c) That the proposed fees and charges for 2026/27, as detailed in Appendix B, be approved.

 

d) That the minimum level of General Fund balance of £3.649 million, based on the 2026/27 risk assessment of balances in paragraph 6.3, be approved.

 

e) That the budget pressures identified in Section 4 of the report be noted.

 

f) That the savings proposals identified in Section 5 of the report be noted.

 

g) That the Section 25 Statement on the Robustness of Estimates and Adequacy of Reserves, as set out in Appendix D, be noted.

 

h) That the Capital Programme for 2026 to 2029, as set out in Appendix E, be approved.

 

i) That the minutes and comments of the Joint Scrutiny Committee from 28 January 2026, as set out in Appendix F and paragraph 11.1, be noted.