Skip to main content

Decision details

2026-27 Revenue Budget, Capital Programme and Medium Term Financial Strategy

Decision Maker: Cabinet, Council

Decision status: Recommendations approved

Is Key decision?: Yes

Is subject to call in?: No

Decisions:

The purpose of this report was to present the Revenue Budget for 2026-27, Capital Programme and Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) for 2026-27 to 2029-30.

The Chair invited the Cabinet Member for Finance, Councillor Patrick Coleman, to propose the administration’s budget.

Councillor Coleman noted this was the third budget of the Council’s second-term Liberal Democrat administration, highlighting the Council’s financial remodelling over seven years despite challenges including COVID-19, high inflation, the cost-of-living crisis, and Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). He praised staff professionalism and noted significant savings, including £500,000 per annum from waste collection reorganisation.

The proposed £5 annual Band D Council Tax increase was intended to support the 2026 budget. Councillor Coleman reported that the transition of Publica staff to the Council had improved retention, recruitment, and efficiency, delivering annual savings of £500,000 alongside restored pension scheme funding. Continued support for low-income residents via the Low-Income Families Tracker (LIFT) had helped 49 households out of fuel poverty, assisted 54 with water bills, and secured 181 new Council Tax Reduction claims.

 

On the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), Councillor Coleman welcomed the multi-year finance settlement but expressed concern at the late government announcement, which reduced the funding floor by £700,000 for 2027–28 and 2028–29. The waste fleet replacement programme would be funded from existing resources without borrowing and included greener vehicles. The Financial Resilience Reserve was forecast to rise to £4.3 million. Strong public support for the budget during consultation was noted. Councillor Coleman moved recommendations 1–10, thanking officers and scrutiny members and commending the budget for approval.

The Chair invited Councillor Tristan Wilkinson to speak as seconder, who reserved his right.

Councillor Stowe, Leader of the Conservative Group, also reserved his right to respond.

The Chair then invited Councillor Stowe to propose the Conservative Group’s amendments in accordance with the Budget Council Protocol.

Councillor Stowe then spoke to the amendment proposal:

Amendment Part 1

Establish the “Cotswold District Council Legacy Fund Reserve” - £190,000.

This is to be funded by reallocating funds from the “Council Priorities: Capacity Building” earmarked reserve.

£5,000.00 to be allocated to each Ward Member (£170,000 plus £20,000 administration costs) to support suitable projects in their wards.

Projects are to leave a lasting legacy after CDC ceases to exist and are to align with the Council’s priorities including “Preparing for the Future.”

Examples – supporting youth activity, improving the public realm, improving the local environment and biodiversity.

Amendment Part 2

Additional funding of £40,000 to be allocated to the Planning Services Budget to be used to strengthen the Planning Enforcement Team.

Additional funding of £38,471 to be allocated to the Land Drainage and Flood Defence Budget to create a new Cotswold Flood Team Assistant Role.

These are to be funded by capping the Communications Budget at £300,000.

Councillor Stowe further commented:

Amendment Part 1 – Cotswold District Council Legacy Fund (£190,000)

  • The proposed Legacy Fund Reserve would be funded through reallocation from the Capacity Building Earmarked Reserve with no increase in overall expenditure
  • The £5,000 allocated per ward member would be intended for locally determined, community-focused projects and was designed as a lasting legacy aligned with Council priorities and preparations for Local Government Reorganisation.

Amendment Part 2 – Communications Budget Reallocation (£80,000)

  • The proposed reduction of the communications budget from £380,000 to £300,000 per annum would be split between two areas: £40,000 reallocated to strengthen the Planning Enforcement team (customer service function and/or recruitment and retention support); with the remainder reallocated to create a Cotswold-specific role within the Land Drainage and Flood Defence team.
  • The Conservative Group considered the communications budget disproportionate and stated that additional resources were required to address enforcement pressures, increased flooding, and forthcoming major development.

Councillor Stowe urged members to support the proposed amendments.

Councillor David Fowles seconded the amendments, citing historical community funding precedents, under-resourced planning enforcement, and flood resilience needs.

No amendments were proposed by Green or Independent members.

The Chair then invited Members to ask any questions for clarification on the proposed amendments.

Members raised questions for clarification on the proposed amendments, which Councillor Stowe addressed:

·         Communications Budget Reductions:

Councillor Stowe confirmed the budget would decrease from £380,000 to £300,000, with £300,000 allocated to staffing and £80,000 to non-staff costs. He explained that the proposal was that the Service Lead would restructure and operate within the revised allocation.

·         Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) Communications:

In response to concerns about maintaining communications capacity during LGR, Councillor Stowe noted that the Head of Communications was coordinating work across the county and suggested costs should be shared with partner authorities.

·         Statutory Communications Duties:

It was noted that, as a public authority, the Council had a statutory duty to communicate effectively with residents, including on the National Planning Policy Framework, the Local Plan, LGR, and budget matters. Councillors praised the communications team and questioned whether a reduction would affect these responsibilities. Councillor Stowe responded that similar outcomes could be delivered within a £300,000 budget.

·         Nature of the £80,000 Saving:

Councillor Stowe confirmed that the proposed reduction represented an ongoing annual revenue saving.

·         Planning Enforcement Recruitment:

In response to concerns about recruitment difficulties being sector-wide, Councillor Stowe stated that the additional £40,000 could enhance salary offers to improve recruitment and retention.

There were no further questions for clarification.

The Chair invited the Deputy Chief Executive and S151 Officer, David Stanley to give his views on the proposed amendments.

The Deputy Chief Executive and S151 Officer, confirmed that the amendments had been submitted in accordance with the budget protocol and had been discussed with him. He advised on the use of earmarked reserves, noted the Section 25 statement regarding the adequacy of reserves, and confirmed that the amendments were fully funded without adversely affecting overall reserve adequacy.

The Chair moved to adjourn the meeting to allow groups to discuss proposal.  The Leader of the Council, Councillor Mike Evemy declined the invitation to adjourn the meeting as the amendment had been considered.

Councillor Coleman, Cabinet Member for Finance was invited to inform Council as to the view of the administration. It was confirmed that neither part of the amendment had been accepted.

The Chair then moved to the debate on the amendment and invited all councillors to speak once, covering both proposed amendments and confirmed that they would each have the opportunity to speak again in the substantive debate.

Members made the following points in debate:

·         Some councillors considered the amendments lacked strategic vision and did not address key issues such as the cost of living, health and safety, climate action, or long-term financial sustainability.

·         The proposed Legacy Fund and ward allocations were seen as too small to have a lasting impact and raised potential governance concerns. It was noted they could risk undermining the Crowdfund Cotswold programme, which was praised for empowering communities and leveraging additional funding.

·         Concerns were raised that staffing shortages, rather than budget, were the main barrier to effective planning enforcement.

·         Flood risk management was identified as requiring capital investment, multi-agency coordination, and long-term planning, rather than additional posts funded from the communications budget.

·         Further reductions to the communications budget were opposed due to its essential role in public accountability, resident engagement, and statutory communications duties.

·         Alternative funding sources, such as county councillor grants or existing reserves, were suggested to support local community projects.

Overall, the amendments were considered by members of the controlling group to lack strategic value and could put existing programmes and resources at risk.

The Chair invited Councillor Tom Stowe, Conservative Group Leader to sum up the debate on the amendment.

Councillor Stowe summed up the debate on the amendments, acknowledging that although the amendments had not passed, they highlighted under-resourced areas, particularly planning enforcement and flood management. He emphasised the Council’s role in coordinating agencies and using enforcement powers for flood mitigation, suggesting a dedicated Cotswold-specific flood officer could have been valuable, and expressed interest in monitoring the operation of the newly restructured flood team over the next 12 months.

The Chair invited the Cabinet Member for Finance to respond to the Conservative amendment.

Councillor Coleman responded, noting that public-backed initiatives such as Crowdfund Cotswolds tend to succeed over time. He welcomed the scrutiny and challenge presented by the amendments but emphasised the need for continued cooperative governance and prudent savings to maintain alignment with the medium-term financial strategy.

The Chair moved to the vote on the amendment, proposed by Councillor Stowe and seconded by Councillor Fowles.

Voting Record:

7 For, 21 Against, 0 Abstention

The amendment was lost.

 

The Chair then returned Council to the substantive budget and sought questions of clarification. There were no questions for clarification on the substantive budget.

The Chair then invited Councillor Tom Stowe, Leader of the Conservative Group, who had reserved his right to respond to the budget, to speak.

Councillor Stowe thanked the Deputy Chief Executive Officer and his team for preparing the budget and noted the unusual task of presenting an MTFS beyond the Council’s expected existence, while emphasising the importance of handing over finances in good order. He congratulated Councillor Coleman on delivering his first budget and highlighted pressures on residents, including a 27% Council Tax rise since 2020, a 143% increase in green bin charges, and higher discretionary fees and car parking charges.  Previous financial uncertainties were referred to, including projected gaps in the MTFS and anticipated costs associated with the waste fleet replacement programme. He noted that government settlements had eased some pressures, although a £700,000 one-off shortfall remained. Councillor Stowe recognised that procuring the new waste collection fleet without borrowing would deliver tangible assets for the Council.

The Conservative Group Leader further highlighted the estimated additional £640,000 annual cost of delivering services in-house following the transition from Publica and expressed concern about resourcing pressures in departments such as planning enforcement and environmental protection. The level of expenditure on communications in comparison with flood defence was questioned. Councillor Stowe concluded that, despite the efforts of officers, the budget relied on increased taxation and charges, which he believed placed additional pressure on residents while not fully resolving underlying financial and operational challenges.

The Chair then retuned Council to the general debate on the substantive budget.

Councillor Mike Evemy spoke in support of the budget, noting that it was the administration’s seventh budget and reflected sound financial management. He highlighted modest Council Tax increases supported by public consultation, the success of the Low-Income Families Tracker (LIFT) programme, the £6 million waste fleet renewal funded without borrowing, the return of staff from Publica to the Council, and the addition of nearly £1 million to reserves. He described the budget as robust, balanced, and aligned with the administration’s priorities.

Councillor Tony Dale emphasised prudent financial management, highlighting the decision to fund the new waste service from reserves, support provided to businesses facing business rate increases, and the achievement of long-term budget stability despite reductions in central government funding. He commended officers, including the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, for delivering a balanced budget without borrowing.

Further support for the administration’s approach with praise for financial prudence; the protection of essential services; forward planning; and the maintenance of stability for residents being expressed.

Councillor Tristan Wilkinson, as seconder of the budget, highlighted its role in safeguarding frontline services and supporting key priorities including waste services, planning, climate action, and housing. He noted that the budget provided a sound financial footing as the Council prepared for Local Government Reorganisation and commended both officers and councillors for their work.

The Chair then invited the Cabinet Member for Finance, Councillor Patrick Coleman, as proposer of the budget, to sum up the debate.

Councillor Coleman reflected on the Council’s recent work and noted the positive and respectful engagement between members during the budget process. He commended the finance team for their work in preparing a robust budget and acknowledged the complexity of local government finance and the dedication of both councillors and officers in managing it. He highlighted that the proposed Council Tax increase was significantly below the rate of inflation while remaining within statutory limits and urged all members to support what he described as a prudent and robust budget.

The Chair then moved to the vote on the substantial budget proposed by Councillor Coleman and seconded by Councillor Tristan Wilkinson.

Voting Record:

21 For, 6 Against, 1 Abstention.

Publication date: 09/03/2026

Date of decision: 23/02/2026

Decided at meeting: 23/02/2026 - Council

Accompanying Documents:

 

Related Pages