Skip to main content

Agenda item

Medium Term Financial Strategy and Budget 2022/23

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to present the budget for 2022/23.

 

Recommendation(s)

That Council considers the budget proposals from Cabinet and approves:

 

a) the Budget proposals 2022/23,

 

b) the Medium Term Financial Strategy,

 

c) the Pay Policy Statement,

 

d) the Capital Strategy

 

e) the Investment Strategy

 

f) the Treasury Management Strategy;

 

g) the opportunity to issue a £1 million Community Municipal Investment, with approve of the final terms being delegated to the Deputy Chief Executive in consultation with the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance,

 

h) the Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2022/23 as detailed at 2.61 to 2.63,

 

i) Subject to the Council approval of recommendation (h), Council delegates authority to the Deputy Chief Executive to approve the Local Council Tax Support Scheme annual uprating of allowances and non-dependant deductions in line with national regulations.

Minutes:

The Deputy Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Finance proposed the Medium Term Financial Strategy and Budget 2022/23.

 

Councillor Evemy commented that it was an honour to propose the third annual budget, which continued the work the administration had begun to rebuild the Council’s finance and invest in the Cotswolds.

 

Councillor Evemy highlighted Government funding cuts, which over the previous decade had resulted in a £2.4 million real terms funding cut to the Council.

 

Members noted that it was likely that a further £228,000 Government funding reduction would occur for the 2023/24 year.

 

Initial analysis of the Fairer Funding Review (due to be implemented in 2023/24) had indicated that Cotswold District Council could be one of the worst affected Councils nationally.

 

The Council noted that continued innovation was key, particularly in relation to how the Council could generate its own funding in future years.

 

Additional funding had been allocated to improvements in recycling, increased car parking provision and in the webcasting technology being used to improve the transparency around Council decisions.

 

Members noted that a key aim of this budget was to ensure the delivery of efficient services.

 

Council noted the need to borrow and invest in the future to ensure the Council continued to deliver high quality services to its residents.

 

There would be continued investment in solar and other green schemes. Council noted that the public would have an opportunity during the spring of 2022 to invest in some of the Councils green initiatives to achieve a return on their investment which would also serve to improve the environment.

 

Members noted that the local Council Tax support scheme would continue.

 

The Council would continue to seek appropriate external funding from Government and other funders so that investment in communities could continue.

 

Council noted that the proposed budget also sought to ensure that an effective economic recovery took place following the Covid-19 pandemic.

 

Members noted the support provided by the Council to businesses throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, along with the financial support of those self-isolating.

 

Members noted the investments made by the administration during the Liberal Democrat tenure as the majority group.

 

Council noted the importance and associated difficulties of delivering a balanced budget during a difficult economic period.

 

Councillor Evemy highlighted examples of investment in the health and wellbeing of residents and of schemes such as the Clean and Green Programme.

 

Members noted that the Local Plan Review was green to the core.

 

Councillor Evemy wished to place on record his thanks to all Officers who had assisted with the budget and to all staff working across the Council in delivering services to local people.

 

The Council remained committed to the provision of affordable homes.

 

Members noted that the largest ever budget consultation had taken place in advance of this proposed budget being formulated. Thanks were expressed to all those who had participated in the consultation.

 

Council noted the forthcoming budget pressures in relation to inflation increases and the potential decrease in the usage of Council car parks.

 

Councillor Mike Evemy formally proposed the recommendations as outlined in the report.

 

The Council the moved to questions in relation to the proposed budget.

 

In response to a Member question, the Council noted that Officers would seek specialist investment advice in relation to any potential investments to be made by the Council. A specific amount had been set aside for the provision of this advice but it what not yet know what percentage would be required to procure the advice (this would be specific to investment type, amount to be invested and the exact advice required). This work would be overseen by the Capital Programme Investment Board of which the membership was comprised of Officers and Members.

 

In response to a Member question, the Council noted that the priorities of the current administration were listed. Despite some of the budget references being made to the year 2025 and beyond (at which point a new administration may control the Council), Members noted that the budget pressures highlighted would likely continue beyond the current administration which is why reference was made to years beyond May 2023.

 

Councillor Tony Berry responded on behalf of the Conservative Group, informing the Council that the previous Conservative administration had sought to devise the arrangement with Publica and the associated sharing of services to mitigate against Government funding cuts at that time.

 

Councillor Berry expressed a view that despite significant recruitment, a number of Officers leaving the business had resulted in a loss of organisational knowledge which had impacted on the delivery of services.

Councillor Berry expressed a view that it was difficult to measure the performance of Liberal Democratic initiatives. Reference was also made to the increasing costs of car parking, Council Tax and garden waste recycling.

 

Councillor Berry expressed concern with the proposed levels of borrowing outlined for future years.

 

The view of the Conservative Group was that the current administration was spending too much and as a result, looking to undertake significant borrowings to sustain the level of spend in future years.

 

The Conservative Group would not be supporting the budget.

 

The Conservative Group had proposed two motions to the Budget which had been circulated in advance of the meeting.

 

Councillor Andrew Maclean addressed the Council and expressed a view that greenhouse gases were impacting the world significantly. Councillor Maclean acknowledged the impact of inflation on household budgets. Councillor Maclean welcomed the budget in respect of the green initiatives included and the increase of social housing. The investment in young businesses was also important. How Councils were funded was also crucial for future years (reform was required). He did not propose any changes to the budget.

 

Councillor Nikki Ind did not wish to raise any additional points.

 

Councillor David Cunningham introduced his amendment which related to charging back election costs to Town and Parish Councils. This was seconded by Councillor Tony Berry:

 

Given that the expected benefit to CDC is budgeted at only £14k over the next 4 years, or 0.2% of the expected budget savings, we therefore recommend to the Council that it reverts to CDC carrying the cost.

 

Councillor Evemy responded and informed Council that the savings over a four year period in relation to charging election costs back to Town and Parish Councils amounted to approximately £35,000.

 

Council noted that the costs to Town and Parish Councils would be cumulative.

 

It would be the decision of Town and Parish Councils to set their own precepts and manage their own finances.

 

Members were provided with an overview of the indicative costs to Town and Parish Councils as part of the proposals considered by Cabinet.

 

Councillor Richard Norris introduced his amendment which related to the withdrawal of the ‘Free after 3pm’ car parking scheme. This was seconded by Councillor Tony Berry.

 

We don’t believe that the expected additional income is achievable due to a number of variables and the opportunity for drivers to go to out of town shops where there are no charges. Supporting our high streets to recover far outweighs the speculative figure removing free after 3 will generate, we therefore propose the free after 3 facility is retained.

 

Councillor Evemy responded and informed the Council that the withdrawal of the scheme would deliver income generation to the Council of approximately £300,000.

 

Council noted that the £300,000 figure was based on collected statistical data and site visits to the car parks. The estimate was rounded down and so the future income generated could be higher than £300,000.

 

The meeting was adjourned for 20 minutes for the Groups to discuss the proposed Conservative Groups amendments.

 

The meeting reconvened, with Councillor Evemy confirming that both amendments would be debated.

 

The Chair reminded Members of the exact amendments which were displayed on the screens in the Chamber and also via the webcast for the benefit of viewers.

 

In relation to the amendment relating to election costs, Council noted that government guidance stipulated that elections should form part of the natural processes for Councils. The majority of local Councils did arrange and facilitate elections (and budgeted for them as such).

 

The Liberal Democrats would not be supporting the proposed amendment.

 

Council noted that any vacant seats should be contested wherever possible in the spirit of democracy. It was important to encourage elections so that local people could become involved in Town and Parish elections. The Council was the exception in Gloucestershire and was currently the only authority not to be charging election costs to Town and Parish Councils.

 

Council noted that Town and Parish Councils could raise their precepts as they saw fit (of which there was currently no limit).

 

Council noted that the cost savings associated with the decision to charge Town and Parish Councils with election costs could not be ignored due to the impending central Government funding cuts facing the Council.

 

Council noted that due to the small number of candidates historically, it was not guaranteed that the number of Town and Parish Council elections would increase in the future and as such, the amendments to the arrangement would not necessarily result in Town and Parish Councils facing significant future election costs.

 

On being put to the vote the first amendment was LOST:

 

For: Councillors Andrews, Berry, Blomefield, Cunningham, Hirst, Hughes, Jepson, Judd, Keeling, Maclean, Morgan, Norris, Stowe – Total: 13

 

Against: Councillors Bloomer, Brassington, Coleman, Dale, Doherty, Evemy, Forde, Harris, Hughes (Roly), Ind, Layton, Maunder, Neill, Robbins, Selwyn, Spivey  – Total: 16

 

Abstain: Webster – Total: 1

 

In relation to the amendment relating to the ‘Free After 3pm’ car parking scheme, Council acknowledged the challenges facing high street businesses, but the Council was required to deliver a balanced budget.

 

Council noted that 20 minutes of free parking was available in Cirencester.

 

Council further noted that businesses could apply to purchase season tickets if they wished to do so.  

 

The Council noted that in order to deliver services to the public, the current funding model necessitated that the Council charged for car parking to fund these services.

 

Councillor Ind addressed the Council and expressed concerns around the impact on local businesses but understood the requirement to deliver a balanced budget.

 

Councillor Ind expressed a view that the car parking situation should be monitored every 12 months where decisions could be taken in the light of Council budget requirements and when the impact on businesses could be analysed.

 

Members encouraged residents to shop locally wherever possible.

 

A view was expressed that the removal of the scheme could result in shoppers travelling further afield to shop.

 

Members noted that although some shops could sell items online, some services/businesses could not do this based on the products/services they offered.

 

Council acknowledged the unique nature of the shops and services available in the Cotswolds and the need to support these businesses as much as possible.

 

Members acknowledged that these proposed changes would help to ensure that the number of short journeys into town centres decreased which would help to improve the environment.   

 

On being put to the vote the second amendment was LOST:

 

For: Councillors Andrews, Berry, Blomefield, Cunningham, Hirst, Hughes, Jepson, Judd, Keeling, Morgan, Norris, Stowe – Total: 12

 

Against: Councillors Bloomer, Brassington, Coleman, Dale, Doherty, Evemy, Forde, Harris, Hughes (Roly), Ind, Layton, Maclean, Maunder, Neill, Selwyn, Spivey, Webster  – Total: 17

 

Abstain: Robbins – Total: 1

 

Although the three hour mark had not yet been met, the debate around the budget was likely to take the meeting past the three hour point. The Chair proposed that a vote be taken on whether or not the meeting should continue beyond three hours.

 

Record of Voting – for: 27, against: 1, abstentions: 2, absent: 4.

 

The meeting continued.

 

Council noted the significant impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the District and the associated impact on the 2022/23 budget and the likely impact on future budgets.

 

The role played by residents across the District was acknowledged by the Council.

 

The Council noted that the performance of the Planning Department continued to improve.

 

Councillor Ind addressed the Council and expressed a view that it was surprising that a central Government agreement on Council funding had not yet been agreed for future years. She wished to place on record her thanks to Officers who had worked to ensure the budget was presented in advance of this meeting.

 

Council noted that the proposed budget sought to remain balanced but also sought to be as ambitious as it could be.

 

Council noted the Conservative Group view that less should be spent and a focus should be on delivering core services. Due to cuts in funding, the Council would need to reduce spending in the future. The Conservative Group expressed further concern in relation to the proposed levels of future borrowing.

 

As the seconder of the recommendations, Councillor Dale spoke to summarise the debate and the aims of the proposed budget, in particular the innovative businesses who were locating to the Cotswolds and the associated jobs creation associated with this.

 

Councillor Evemy summed up thanking Councillors for their comments.

 

RESOLVED that

 

Council considers the budget proposals from Cabinet and approves:

 

a) the Budget proposals 2022/23,

 

b) the Medium Term Financial Strategy,

 

c) the Pay Policy Statement,

 

d) the Capital Strategy

 

e) the Investment Strategy

 

f) the Treasury Management Strategy; Page 17

 

g) the opportunity to issue a £1 million Community Municipal Investment, with approve of the final terms being delegated to the Deputy Chief Executive in consultation with the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance,

 

h) the Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2022/23 as detailed at 2.61 to 2.63,

 

i) subject to the Council approval of recommendation (h), Council delegates authority to the Deputy Chief Executive to approve the Local Council Tax Support Scheme annual uprating of allowances and non-dependant deductions in line with national regulations.

 

For: Councillors Bloomer, Brassington, Coleman, Dale, Doherty, Evemy, Forde, Harris, Hughes (Roly), Ind, Layton, Maclean, Maunder, Neill, Robbins, Selwyn, Spivey, Webster  – Total: 18

 

Against: Councillors Andrews, Berry, Blomefield, Cunningham, Hirst, Hughes, Jepson, Judd, Keeling, Morgan, Norris, Stowe – Total: 12

 

 

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages