Agenda item

Referrals from other bodies

To consider referrals from other bodies (e.g. Cabinet)

Minutes:

COUNCIL BUDGET 2020/21

 

Members were addressed by Ms Beaumont-Lall, on behalf of Mr Daniel Griffiths lead petitioner for a petition requesting the council to ‘scrap plans to charge for residents parking permits.’ Ms Beaumont-Lall explained that unfortunately he had been late in opening the petition and had only gathered 91 signatures. She herself had only found out about the petition after it had closed. She had tried to put up her own petition but it had been rejected as a duplicate. However, she had highlighted the issue on an online forum and received support from 628 people in just 24 hours. The amount now proposed to be charged for a permit was double the cost when the council had previously removed the charges for parking permits in October 2013. Residents were seething at the misappropriation of borough money, for example funds used to pay for lamppost banners and on re-routing of the Queen Street junction. Ms Beaumont-Lall commented that she had looked into resident consultations and Freedom of Information requests at the council. She had identified a lack of a systematic approach, a lack of proper use of data, and no consideration of qualitative data. This was evidence that consultations were not done properly. She had also looked at the cost of parking permits in other towns and heritage cities such as Winchester and Salisbury; the proposed cost in the borough was higher. None would be needed if the town centre planning situation been looked into appropriately and there had been sufficient consideration for the number of parking spaces needed for Crossrail.

 

Members were addressed by Jacob Cotterill, lead petitioner for a petition requesting the council to ‘save Advantage Card parking discounts.’ Mr Cotterill highlighted that his petition had received over 7000 signatures. The draft proposal was inadequate and would affect people’s lives.   The proposal was to save money without a plan to make travel in the borough greener, accessible and affordable; it would simply inconvenience residents. Less than 12 months previously, in the run up to the local elections, banners were erected about low council tax, community wardens and other investments. The proposals in the budget for 2020/21 painted a very different picture including cuts to Children’s Services and Adult Social Care, increased council tax for the vulnerable, reductions in library services and reduced subsidies for local arts. The borough council decisions had been taken because the national government had hacked at the social fabric of the country for a decade. The council preferred private profit over the public good. There had been no mention of a council tax reduction scheme when candidates had been seeking election the previous year.

 

Mr Cotterill suggested that as the cuts would have consequences Members had the opportunity to put right a wrong. They should vote to keep Advantage Card discounts and bus subsidies until a long term plan to make travel environmentally friendly and accessible to all was in place. The council tax reduction scheme should be retained at the current level. Procurement practices should be overhauled. Mr Cotterill suggested these proposals could be reconciled with the black hole in the finances by the council standing up to the national government and saying it was not prepared to cut services further.

 

Councillor Hilton presented the budget. He explained that since the publication of the agenda, the precept for the Royal Berkshire Fire Authority (Band F) had been confirmed as £97.64. Councillor Hilton formally moved all motions contained in items 7i-7iv. He thanked Directors and officers across the council for the professional manner in which they had worked with their respective Cabinet Lead Members, well supported by the finance team and the expertise of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance registered interim accountants.

 

The administration proposed a transformative, innovative and financially responsible budget designed to future-proof the Royal Borough and allow it to protect the vulnerable, whilst supporting the discretionary services enjoyed by residents. 

The council had a two-pronged approach to delivering on this aim, firstly transforming the Borough and secondly transforming how services were delivered.

Maidenhead was an important part of the transformation. The Braywick Leisure centre would open in 2020. The magnificent £36m state-of-the-art replacement for the ageing Magnet Leisure Centre would provide a space for everyone to enjoy sports, arts and cultural events. It would include bigger and better facilities than the Magnet but in keeping with the sustainability agenda was designed to use 70 per cent less energy.

The council had delivered the waterways project and the Stafferton Link Road which had improved east/west traffic flow, but the cranes on the Maidenhead skyline were evidence of more exciting projects. The council’s joint venture schemes such as the Watermark to be followed by St Clouds Way and later the golf course were part of the plan to deliver new homes, energise businesses and revitalise the local economy.  Importantly, the St Clouds Way and the Watermark developments would provide more than 220 new affordable homes.

The regeneration of Maidenhead would increase the council’s income to enable it to improve services across the borough, but it would also create capital receipts that would help pay for the infrastructure needed to support future housing growth as well as projects in Windsor, the south and the rural areas too.

To ensure young people had the best opportunities to succeed, an overall investment of £233m in new school places was proposed. The council had already spent more than £30m in expanding schools such as Charters in Sunningdale and St Peters in Old Windsor.

The council had secured funding from the LEP for a review of the A329 in Ascot.  Output from this review would inform the rejuvenation of Ascot Centre project and could lead to more infrastructure funding.

Windsor was the jewel in the crown. £1.5m would be spent to improve the public realm and support the visitor, retail and hospitality economies, which did so much to support vital public services. The council was considering other exciting opportunities to better manage coach parking, improve the visitor experience and re-energise Windsor.

The Oaks Leisure Centre remained a borough priority and in addition the council was committed to supporting the £640m Lower Thames Scheme that would protect residents’ homes from flooding in Datchet and Wraysbury.

Over the next three years the council, the Joint Venture Partners and commercial developers would invest more than £78m into transforming the borough. This transformation would deliver homes, a revitalised centre to Maidenhead, a re-energised Windsor and an Ascot Centre to be proud of. Importantly it would promote the economic vibrancy essential to support critical public services and vision.

As the borough was transformed, so would the way council services were delivered. The council would be responsible, listen to residents and be fair.

A key principle underpinning this transformation was the response to the declaration of a climate emergency:

·         The council wished to see recycling rates rise, and it was already seeing evidence of behavioural change. The council would support this cultural shift through a high-profile public awareness campaign

·         Investing in modern workplace technology and encouraging innovation in Achieving for Children.

·         Announcing a climate emergency meant taking climate change seriously. With this in mind subsidies for polluting vehicles would be cut and the council would encourage, where practical, the use of alternative sustainable transport.  The council had listened to residents and would be considering options for a parking discount offer.

The second key principle was to fund a more targeted approach, in line with the mission of supporting the most vulnerable.

·         This meant investing in staff by hiring more full-time professionals; embracing the principle of targeting support to the most vulnerable through family hubs, and smarter Adult Social Care in line with and supported by expert opinion. Council staff did an amazing job and the small increase in council tax of just 79.5 pence a week for a Band D council tax payer would ensure that they could continue to do their brilliant work. 

The third principle was to ensure the council was more commercial whilst prudent and fair in the use of council assets and the provision of services. The council would maximise the social and financial value of its commercial portfolio. Examples were the refurbished and highly successful York House in Windsor where the council would look to maximise returns to residents, and using the Maidenhead regeneration sites to deliver affordable homes for the social good.

 

All councils, like the Royal Borough, were experiencing increased costs for Children’s and Adult Social Care. To give an idea of the scale confronting Local Government, in 2018/19, 80% of councils overspent their Children’s Care budget by a total of £800m and a £2bn overspend was forecast for 2020. Across the country this was unsustainable. Lobbying by the LGA led to the announcement of an additional £1bn of social care funding. The council would add its weight to the argument that local authorities needed more funding.  Councillor Johnson and Councillor Carroll had already met with local MPs Adam Afriyie and Theresa May and held meetings with Cabinet Ministers. These conversations would continue.

 

In the meantime, the council was proposing a council tax increase of 1.99% together with a 2% Adult Social Care Precept which would pay to support the most vulnerable residents. Despite this the Royal Borough would still have the lowest council tax in the country outside of London.

 

Councillor Hilton concluded that this was a transformative budget that put innovation opportunity and financial responsibility at its heart, it was a budget that would allow the council to continue to support the most vulnerable and indeed go even further in improving their life chances. Transformation was not only about the next year or even the year after, but how a borough council was built that was fit for the future. The budget proposed such a transformation.

 

Councillor Johnson second all motions in items 7i-7iv. He stated that the administration was resolutely united behind the budget. He acknowledged it was a difficult budget with difficult decisions, however the decisions were necessary if the council was to return the authority to the long term path of financial stability. All Members would be aware of the gravity of decisions to be taken and the legal obligation to deliver a balanced budget. He had heard calls for savings but he had not heard alternative proposals put forward. There was no credible alternative in the short term. The proposed budget was in the interest of the residents of the borough. Council would hear from Lead Members as to how they were proposing to build the borough in the long term for innovation and transformation, however he highlighted that the council was committed to: delivering the Oaks Leisure Centre before the next election, provision of affordable housing, finishing the regeneration of Maidenhead and starting on the rest of the borough. The Royal Borough would remain a low tax council but with the principal of ‘the user pays’ at the forefront. In terms of tackling climate change, the council was offering radical plans including discounts for electric vehicles. The administration was committed to delivering the budget including all identified savings.

 

Councillor Jones presented the Opposition response to the budget. She thanked the Directors and the Finance team for producing a transparent and honest budget. Given the content of the proposed budget she stated that it was the first one, in many years, to give all Members the true picture of the council finances. It is a pity that all did not have sight of the full budget until 30 January. Opposition members would had welcomed the chance to submit an alternative budget but 15 working days was not enough time to produce a viable budget. The administration had taken 4 months and hours of officer time.

 

Councillor Jones commented that this year, for the first time, the truth was set out in the budget papers on page 192. Without the government allowing the council to raise council tax above the 2% cap it must identify £14m of savings from the revenue budget of approximately £90m by February 2022 to prevent the council from having negative reserves.  Negative reserves meant the council would be bankrupt.  The financial decisions made by the Conservative Administration were the sole cause of the council being in the disastrous financial situation.

 

Councillor Jones highlighted the ways in which the savings were proposed to be achieved:

 

·         Increasing council tax for the most vulnerable

·         Removing residents parking discounts. She was glad that this was to be revisited and hoped this would be brought forward immediately.

·         Charging for parking permits. Only in the last year the administration had been on social media saying that it would never charge residents to park outside their own home.

·         Reducing grants to arts, voluntary and community groups.

·         Cutting subsidies for bus routes.

·         Removing staff from York House, Windsor, which was the face of the council in Windsor and turning it into commercial rental

·         Removal of the children’s centres and youth sessions

·         A reduction in Community Wardens

 

Councillor Jones commented that Councillor Hilton had stated in the previous year that transparency was important. Transparency had not been evident in previous budgets. There had been promises of no cuts to arts and culture, yet now cuts to the grants to Norden Farm and The Old Court were proposed. A leisure centre in Ascot had been promised however she could not see any expenditure for ‘The Oaks’ in the Capital Budget over the next 3 years despite its planning application being approved. £12.7m a year had been promised for road maintenance for the next 4 years yet the budget for highways works and maintenance for the next year was £3.1m. There had been promises not to cut library services, but opening hours were being reduced. There had been a 3 year agreement with the Citizens Advice Bureau with promises that the council was increasing the grant to support their vital work. Now the grant was being cut. Lastly the administration had said that while more than 50% of councils planned to use reserves to support the budget, reserves would be increased by £3.5m to put the council in a strong position for the coming year. That did not happen, in fact reserves had been raided by £550,000 in the current year so far. That equated to £4m adrift and the proposal was to use over £2m of reserves to balance the budget next year

 

Councillor Jones highlighted that borrowing was costing the council £6m in 20/21 and the Major Capital Cashflow (Appendix G) was not expecting any major capital receipts for 10 years. The assertion, made in February 2019 by the then Lead Member for Finance, that capital receipts from regeneration investments and developer contributions would fully fund all infrastructure investment the borough required leaving the council debt free, including the pension deficit, in the medium term future should it wish to be so now seemed recklessly speculative.

 

In fact within the Budget Strategy (Page 177) it stated that the council should undertake a review of its property portfolio as an increasing share of the council’s budget was taken up with servicing debt. The council would need to consider whether to liquidate assets to reduce the heavy burden of debt repayments. Councillor Jones commented that it sounded like a fire sale to her and the administration may try to make excuses that many councils were in the same situation due to demand in Adult and Children’s social care but that was all it was, just an excuse. Yes, there was demand but, unlike the administration, many councils had acknowledged the trend for demand some years ago. Councillor Jones referred Members to a graph in the 2015 /16 budget that had demonstrated the risk of ignoring the forecast demand to those services. Many councils had refused to plunder their reserves to prop up the revenue budget year on year and had not used capital funds for maintenance items. Many councils had sufficient reserves to cover any funding shortfalls.

 

On page 194 paragraph 7.6 it stated the ‘key messages’:

 

·         The council may need to deliver ongoing savings of £15m in the next 4 years unless it could increase council tax above the 2% cap

·         The council had insufficient reserves to sustain the scale of budget deficit for more than one year

·         The level of reserves meant that it was likely to face a financial tipping point earlier than many other councils.

Councillor Jones commented that this was not a debate about quality of services, she congratulated the Ofsted ‘Good’ for Children’s Services, it was whether the council could afford to deliver them in the future and what would need to be cut next year. As Councillor McWilliams had stated the previous year, in a speech read out in his absence, ‘whilst all local authority ships were sailing into difficulties of increasing pressures of social care they didn’t all have the strong sails of RBWM’ His soundbite had been ‘nothing simply happened in politics, everything was a choice’. The administration had chosen to ignore the warnings and set budgets to win elections without a clear direction of travel. It had chosen to provide services on the ‘never never’, hoping to be bailed out by a significant capital cash receipt. That had been the administration’s choice. The council was legally not allowed to go bankrupt so the bad decision making had necessitated making unwanted cuts to budgets. A table had been produced for the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel that highlighted RBWM was already a low spending council, spending significantly less per head of population than the nearest statistical neighbours and yet it was looking to reduce further.

 

At Cabinet Councillor Hilton had been blasé about the ability of the Conservative administration to deliver the cuts, in fact he mentioned that they had delivered before so he could not see an issue. There was £1.6m of pressures in the 20/21 budget book that could be attributed to unviable savings, and budgeted income shortfall from the current year. This was £1.6m that the administration had said was deliverable last year that was not. If it failed again this year to deliver savings then it would hasten the plunge into negative reserves. Funding was made up of council tax income (approximately 75%), business rates income and grants. Unfortunately when it came to the complex funding formula the government assumed each council would raise a certain amount locally. As stated on page 170 with the council’s Band D being much lower the government assumed the council was generating £26.6m more funding when it allocated grant to the Royal Borough. Paragraph 7 of the report summary (page 160) stated that if the government funding settlement for the period 21/22 to 23/24 reduced funding and did not lift the 2% cap on council tax the council would not be in a position to set a balanced budget in 21/22 unless further significant savings were identified. Paragraph 4.5 of the Medium Term Financial Strategy (Page 189) where the finance department had set out the reasons why the council was at a tipping point (insufficient reserves, covering the pension deficit, servicing debt, maintaining low level of council tax) it said that more recent pressures around Children’s & Adults were widening the gap even further.

 

If the council could not set a balanced budget in 21/22 or its financial position markedly deteriorated next year to a point where reserves did not cover any overspend, the council’s S151 officer would have to issue a S114 notice that would take control of the finances out of the council’s hands, this could be as early as next January. Councillor Saunders, as Finance Lead last year, took exception at Hartlepool apparently completely abdicating its responsibility for their council tax rise by blaming underfunding by the Conservative government The Opposition expected the administration to take full responsibility for the inexcusable financial situation it had allowed to happen and not offer up excuses.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa proposed an amendment to the budget to allocate £15,000 from reserves to pay for training officers on climate change. Councillor W. Da Costa stated that on 25 June 2019 the Council had declared an environmental and climate emergency and committed to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and delivering a strategy to be brought before Full Council within 12 months, in other word, June. Since then, there had been increased erosion to coastlines in Norfolk and Devon, wildfires and droughts in Yorkshire and Southern farmland, extreme weather record temperatures and regular flooding in York, Leeds, Wales, North Somerset and even along the Thames, and one quarter of UK mammals now faced the risk of extinction.

 

The lungs of the planet were burning in the Amazon, record temperatures had killed thousands in Europe and Australia, there had been wildfires in Australia, loss of glaciers, melting of sea ice at record levels, changes in sea currents, and biodiversity was threatened with extinction levels not seen since the loss of the dinosaurs. Worse than that, greenhouse gases and temperature rises were causing acidification of the oceans and permafrost thawing in arctic regions, releasing large amounts of previously locked in greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to compound the situation.

 

At the present rate of greenhouse gas emissions, scientists thought that there were only around five years left to massively reduce greenhouse gases emissions to net zero, or face extremely dangerous levels of climate change that would threaten our species. As UN Secretary General Guterres had warned last summer, the world was close to the point of no return and needed to find solutions, not excuses. Urgent and intense effort was required by the council.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa explained that he had spent the last six months attending training courses, talking and working with professors, scientists, climate change specialists, DEFRA, legislatures in Wales and Scotland, European councils, and Natural England, and spending much time at the Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales. This was a new science for humanity, but it was not easy. It was complex, with many feedback mechanisms and interrelated aspects:

 

·         Generating renewable electricity

·         Energy use for buildings

·         Transportation networks and electric vehicles

·         Land use, moving away from development on green belt and green fields

·         Planning regimes to ensure that all developments and buildings were carbon neutral

·         Farming, food sources and diets

 

The good news was that the solutions, methodologies, and training existed. Solutions which could safeguard the future for our children, and bring increasing health, wealth and vitality for all. Training could make the council experts on climate change, biodiversity and climate change resilience and, to apply it to relevant fields or work.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa asked who would need this deep level of training; who would prepare an Environmental and Climate Change strategy to build in resilience to the extremes that were coming; who were the experts in property, outsourcing, planning, waste, transportation, finance, schooling, and education to name but a few areas? The answer was the council officers.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa highlighted that the council had committed to producing a strategy by June 2020. This was therefore the last chance to put funding in place for the 20/21 budget year, to equip officers to understand and apply zero carbon methodologies and environmental sciences to their areas of responsibility. The proposal was for £15,000 one off seed funding. Councillor Stimson was working hard to raise funds for the future, but as yet those funds had not materialised, hence his proposal.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa blamed the spreadsheets. The complex, iterated spreadsheets meant a line had been missed. He was giving an opportunity to put that line back in. The council should turn back the point of no return and face the future together with bravery by equipping and investing in officers to make a truly future proofed budget that would help young people.

 

Councillor Davies seconded the amendment motion. She was disappointed that the budget did not include a coherent response to the climate change.  On one level it said that removal of Advantage Card discounts was part of the response but it also increased costs for green waste bins. There was no funding for climate emergency work. The council was in danger of losing the goodwill of the group of committed residents who had been involved.

 

Councillor Stimson commented that she was sure that by June funding would have been identified for training; however she did not wish to dig into reserves and amend the budget, therefore she could not support the amendment. It was very important that officers were trained so they all understood the complexity of the issues.

 

Councillor C. Da Costa commented that Councillor Stimson’s statement that the council might have the money by June was not good enough. If it would be available she suggested the funding be made available now and added back into reserves by June.

 

Councillor Hill commented that he was staggered that there was no budget line to address climate change. He would have expected at least £500,000 for such a major issue.  He expressed concern that the last green lung with mature trees in Maidenhead (the golf course site) would be removed.

 

Councillor Rayner commented that all Members supported the work on climate change. There was a corporate training budget that all service areas could bid for and she felt this was the appropriate way to take the proposal forward.

 

Councillor Carroll commented that the existing training budget should be considered first and therefore asked the Lead Member to undertake a review in conjunction with the Director of Resources and Head of HR, Corporate Projects and IT. All sorts of training options were available and these needed to be assessed to ensure a comprehensive and systematic approach.

 

Councillor Werner stated that he was disappointed in the administration’s response; it said it wanted to fight climate change but when it came to putting money where its mouth was it did not deliver. Funding was needed in the budget and he therefore thought a proper assessment would already have been undertaken.

 

Councillor Johnson confirmed the administration had a resolute and undying commitment to tackle climate change. He found the Opposition approach to be greatly inconsistent as Members had commented that money should not be taken out of the revenue budget because the council had no money left but others then suggested spending £500,000 on the issue or using £15,000 of reserves for training. There was a corporate budget of £74,000 for training. Officers had already started to come up with ideas such as parking discounts for electric vehicles.  He highlighted that town centre densification helped to avoid building on the green belt. The council had opposed Heathrow expansion including committing £100,000 to the fight. An asset review was planned which would include a review of the carbon footprint. There was also a need to provide homes in the borough; simply saying no development was not an option. The council needed to build an economic climate to enable it to tackle climate change issues.  The council would play its part but in the confines of what a local authority could do.

 

Councillor Davey highlighted that given the amount of money that had been wasted, £15,000 out of reserves would not have much impact. Members needed to understand the borough’s strategy. In relation to electric vehicles, he commented that it took eight years to justify returns in comparison to normal cars.

 

Councillor McWilliams commented that the budget had been through rigorous scrutiny with officers and Opposition Members feeding in. Proposing an amendment at such a late stage without any semblance of a plan was not the right way forward.

 

Councillor Jones highlighted that the amendment stated outcomes were to be clearly defined before training would commence. £15,000 was less than had been spent on plastic banners in 2019. If it was found later on that the training was not needed, the money could be put back into reserves.

 

Councillor Walters commented that this was his 46th budget. The Conservatives had passed the Climate Change bill; all were on the same side. The amendment looked like an artificial creation to draw a political divide that did not exist. The Leader had already pointed out the practical things that were being done to address the issue.

 

Councillor Stimson explained that she had said she would second the motion later in the agenda about allowances, not the amendment that proposed taking money from reserves. She would be willing to put her entire allowance in if necessary to show her commitment.

 

Councillor Hilton referred to Councillor Jones’ earlier speech in which she had said the council was close to the edge and may need to issue a S114 notice yet was also now saying it was ok to take money out of reserves.  Councillor Johnson had already highlighted the £74,000 budget for training.

 

Councillor Jones commented that she was disappointed at the attacks given a reasonable amendment had been put forward. She was looking for a commitment in some form from the administration; it could be in a different format.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa commented that Councillor Stimson had worked very hard, but it was officers that needed the training.  He would be happy for the amendment to be changed so that money could be allocated now but put back into reserves at a later date if not needed. He was not keen for it to come out of the corporate training budget as this would detriment other officers. The pivotal issue was that training was needed now rather than after the strategy was produced.

 

A named vote was taken on the amendment proposed by Councillor W. Da Costa and seconded by Councillor Davies: 17 Councillors voted for the motion; 22 Councillors voted against the motion; 1 Councillor abstained.  The motion therefore fell.

 

Councillor Baldwin commented that the deafness on behalf of the Conservative administration had been induced by the previous large majority. Councillors Werner and Jones had been routinely mocked for their Cassandra-like predictions. However, stakes were too high for petty recriminations.  The talents of all 41 councillors should be used. Councillor Johnson had promised a collegiate approach; now was the time to deliver on this promise.

 

Councillor Baldwin suggested that the CIL rate for all town centre developments should be raised to 15%. The collection of CIL was very important but the council continued to allow a 0% rate in the areas of greatest density. Property developers took the long view. £7500 on each of 12,000 buildings roughly equated to £9m in uncollected capital receipts. Councillor Baldwin felt it was time to end the subsidy to wealthy corporations.

 

Councillor Reynolds commented that less than a year ago local elections had been held; now with one notable exception the policies could not be more different. He wished to focus on what residents were told compared to what they were going to get. The 24 hour pothole pledge had now been ended. There was no budget for the Oaks Leisure Centre. 28 Community Wardens had been reduced to 19. The budget no longer referred to expansion of the Windsor Leisure Centre. A lot of people had been let down.

 

Councillor C. Da Costa began by stating that the council had excellent officers leading both Adults and Children’s services. She welcomed the Ofsted report showing that Achieving for Children were rated as ‘Good’. The challenge was to remain as ‘Good’ or aspire to improve despite the cuts in funding. She had seen reports that consultations had taken place but were not always taken into account. She urged the council to listen to the parents who would respond to the current consultation on Children’s Centres. She was concerned that the borough would become reliant on church and voluntary groups to provide services. In particular she was concerned about training of youth leaders. Voluntary groups did not have full training to understand all safeguarding issues. She asked the borough to provide sufficient training. She suggested this could be funded by stopping wine after full Council meetings.

 

Councillor Rayner thanked the Lead Member, officers in the finance team and all the officers throughout the council who had worked so hard to deliver a balanced budget in light of rising adult and children’s services costs.

 

The budget showed the council’s commitment to transformation with IT beginning with the move to the modern workplace roll out phase 1 putting in new computers and screens across many departments at RBWM which had been a huge success increasing the capabilities and effectiveness of many departments. This would continue in 20/21 as the whole organisation updated the final wave with £800,000 for phase 2.

 

Braywick Leisure centre would complete within the year with the opening on 5 September 2020. The progress was now evident and looking stunning. The leisure centre would provide outstanding sport and community facilities to residents and secure its future as the Magnet was at the end of its life. Following the Magnet demolition the project for building of much needed homes on the St Clouds site would begin.

 

The jewel in the crown was Windsor. Windsor, like many towns, had seen a decline in the High Street and a change in how people spent their leisure time and how they shopped. The borough was fortunate the castle was the most popular of all Royal Estate properties and so Windsor was changing to react to these new habits and environment.

 

The budget, through LEP funding, was putting £1.563m to improve to the public realm in Windsor and making better the visitor and local experience in the town centre. This would be the beginning of revitalising and preparing Windsor for the future which was vital for the economy and businesses.

 

The businesses were a key strategic partner as plans were developed. The council was fortunate to have so many local and international businesses who were committed. Moving forward the council hoped to work much closer with them and work on projects to develop the economy and community.

 

With the budget there had been challenges for officers and Lead Members to find savings and income in their service areas. She thanked library and resident services who had worked with her. She had been impressed by their professionalism in protecting residents and the vulnerable and allowing the borough to still be one of the best library services in the country based on the number of hours open by population.

 

The proposal was to reduce the opening hours, one of these changes was to open every day apart from Sunday. There would be some evening opening but reduced from the current times. The council recognised how important the library was to residents, supported by excellent footfall, digital and physical book loan numbers.

 

The other proposal was to move customer service from York House where it was originally before the new development at York House, back to the library. The move to the library in Windsor was so successful that people were still choosing that in preference to York House.

 

The team also look after resident and parking permits. The new scheme was proposed to cover administrative costs; a fee of £50 for the first permit and £70 for second permits. This would put the council in line with other councils locally for example Runnymede charged £50 for the first car and £70 for the second. Guildford was £50 and £80 and Reading was £40 and £150. To promote the environment and electric cars there would be no charge for fully electric cars. This would also provide data for future electric charging points across the borough.

 

This budget was about a lot of change but there were also so many opportunities to be better.

Councillor Del Campo commented that when the council declared it was going to ‘transform early years and youth services to be targeted at the most vulnerable, the statement was disingenuous in a number of ways. The euphemistic use of the word ‘transformation’ suggested there would be a massive improvement to services but in reality it was a reduction in investment and service levels in some areas. While none would disagree with the idea of supporting the most vulnerable residents, Councillor Del Campo’s question had always been: ‘How do we support those people who are not yet on the radar?’

Until now, the net had been cast as far and wide as possible. Now, the council was asking the fish to make their own way to the boat; many would not come. By concentrating services in two hubs, the council was forcing people who did not have cars onto public transport. When someone was in crisis, it could sometimes be difficult to get out of the front door, never mind navigating an unreliable public transport service. Again, many would not come. Many of the issues families encountered were hidden. People did not tend to talk openly about domestic abuse, drug or alcohol abuse, or financial worries. However specially trained staff at local drop-in centres, like the Children’s Centres, were able to spot the signs and signpost people to the correct support. She disagreed with the assumption that these people would look to the private sector instead. Some were living with the effects of austerity and zero-hours contracts. They would not come, and they would not get the support they needed.

Councillor Del Campo commented that it seemed to be strange to be voting on the issue now, without knowing the outcome of the consultation. She joined others in congratulating the teams and individuals involved in achieving the results of the recent Ofsted inspection of Children’s Services and the borough’s SEND provision. However, the council must acknowledge that there was still much to be done. After Children’s Services received a ‘requires improvement’ judgement in 2015, things got significantly worse before they got better, and this meant that the baseline the council was working from was actually lower than ‘requires improvement’. This was, perhaps, why Ofsted noticed that “the legacy of poorer practice is still evident for children in some areas of the service”. Staff turnover was still a massive issue and, according to Ofsted, work to address services for care leavers was still in its infancy.

It was vital that the council continued to drive forward improvements to Children’s Services and SEND offering, without losing any momentum, to avoid a whole generation of young people missing out on the opportunity to live their best lives.

Councillor Del Campo commented that this year’s cuts were just the beginning and that savings would need to be made year on year to give the council the best chance of avoiding financial disaster. The Conservatives had had 12 years to get this right.

Councillor Coppinger confirmed that the CIL rate was determined by an Inspector based on evidence of need, not by the council.

Councillor Larcombe commented that he wanted to focus on what had been left out of the budget. Members had twice heard that the River Thames Scheme protected people in the borough. Water from Maidenhead went down the Jubilee River and ended up in Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury and other wards downstream. The cost of the River Thames Scheme was £640m and the best guess was that this would increase by £1m for every week it was delayed. The stated budget at the start of the project had been £230m.  The council would have to find another £40m; Cllr Larcombe questioned where this would come from. The Jubilee River had cost £100m but had design flaws, increased costs of repair and only worked at two-thirds of capacity.

Councillor Tisi commented that Members had been told that the proposals were not cuts, but were part of a transformation project. They had also been told the proposals were planned even if the financial situation had not been in disarray. She asked what kind of council would cut Children’s Centres or deliberately price people out of using the town centres? The administration should have seen this coming, Member of the Opposition had said the council was heading into choppy waters but they had been ignored. Residents felt they were getting very little for their council tax. The parking discount was one way they did receive a benefit. There was no equity when residents in Maidenhead would experience an 83% increase, whereas in Windsor the increase would be £340%.  She understood that Windsor captured tourists who had no choice to pay higher prices. However this meant residents could not avoid the costs to undertake daily tasks or to work in the town. To claim the proposals were environmentally-motivated was laughable; the subsidised bus rate was about to be cut. Like many she could not afford electric cars to benefit from the free parking. There was no guarantee that the proposals would increase income as people would go elsewhere and footfall would reduce. Solutions were needed but not ones that punished residents.

Councillor Baskerville commented that barely six months after launching a much-lauded 24-hour fix-it policy, the administration had decided to scale it back, having concluded the job had been done. After one of the wettest and windiest winters on record, residents might be excused for thinking such a statement was premature. Standing water and frosty mornings were not conducive to keeping repaired potholes in pristine condition. Asphalt lifted out and holes re-appeared as quickly as they were filled. Filling holes to a decent depth and sealing the edges properly were the minimum requirements if the work was to hold. Whether the £450,000 reportedly used to repair 471 potholes was money well spent, especially at a time of cutting budgets, was a moot point. Potholes would continue to appear and would need to be filled. Whether it was done in 24 hours or 24 days, people would still need to get around the borough safely and without too much inconvenience. The important thing was that the people of the borough needed to have confidence that the council was doing a good job; the jury was still out on that. On a more general point, amid all the claims and political spin of what had and had not been done over the last decade, Councillor Baskerville hoped he was not alone in feeling that a bit of humility and self-reflection opposite was needed more than ever. Councillor Baskerville felt that one word would be a start; that word was ‘sorry’.

Councillor Werner commented that this was the most appallingly shocking budget he had seen in the 27 in which he had been a Councillor  He highlighted that residents wanted to use the green waste collection scheme but would be taxed for doing so; the budget was therefore anti-green. Children’s Centres were being closed, the budget was anti-families. He highlighted that the consultation would close after the budget was agreed. Youth clubs were being closed; the budget was anti-young people. Proposals for the council tax reduction scheme meant the budget was anti-vulnerable people. Parking costs would increase so people would go elsewhere; the budget was anti-town centre. More business would close and there would be less business rates. These were all knock-on effects of decisions being made. Councillor Werner questioned the efficiency savings associated with services being contracted-out as research showed they were no longer true and councils were bringing contracts back in house to save money. The council should invest to save, not sell assets to generate revenue. Councillor Werner commented that he had previously nicknamed budgets, for example the ‘gamblers’ budget’. He was naming this year’s budget as ‘evil and stupid’.

Councillor Price stated that her residents were angry and she was also angry.  She was angry at a budget which had not truly considered its impact on residents and businesses. A budget that Members were being told had to be, because of the administration’s financial mismanagement and smoke and mirrors.   Councillor Price provided examples of the impact on two of her residents as a result of the removal of the Advantage Card discount on parking:

 

·         A family with two children in nursery in the centre of Windsor.  The father had worked out it would cost them an additional £40 per week, with dropping off and picking up, shopping, and children’s activities.   This family would have to earn another £2,500 per annum to pay for this alone and there was more to come via council tax increases, green bin collection etc.   No one could suddenly switch on additional income like that so they would likely have to find another nursery and children’s activities elsewhere.

·         A man who took his elderly mum into Windsor for banking and also did errands and helped out other lonely elderly people.  He had worked out it would cost him an extra £60 per month.  He had told Councillor Price he would carry on supporting his mother obviously but just could not afford any more. The result was that elderly residents became isolated lonely and less supported

Councillor Price stated that she had spoken to traders in Windsor. Their customers had said they would not be shopping there anymore.  She had read the reactions on social media with residents stating they would be cancelling their gym membership if they had to pay for parking in the evenings.   Windsor businesses were in a fragile state anyway and a reduced tourism footfall.  

 

Councillor Price then focussed on cuts in supporting the voluntary sector.   Cutting £220,000 of revenue next year, rising to £250,000 the year after.   She questioned how such cuts of eye-watering magnitude matched the strategic priority of enabling the community and voluntary sectors to flourish.  The administration was presenting a budget significantly cutting back on non-essential services to residents and assuming that the voluntary sector would step forward to fill these cuts. However the budget was also hacking the community organisations off at the knees.  The council should be building its community infrastructure not cutting back.  However it appeared that the administration had an approach of zero investment in people and the community, just in bricks and mortar.  The voluntary sector would not be able to step forward, being starved of funds. 

 

Councillor Price referred to the proposal to take away £330,000 from the poorest residents by changing the Council Tax Reduction Scheme.  The administration claimed to be protecting the most vulnerable; she posed the question, were the poor not the most vulnerable? Councillor Price explained that one of her residents was disabled, a tetraplegic who received Council Tax Reduction.   After the reduction in support and the annual increase that would go up around 1.5 times.   Not available on prescription were his incontinence sheets, gloves, and medications which were rising in price faster than any rise in benefits. Gardening was his major solace and his green bin cost was to rise.  Councillor Price had asked him how he would manage with all the increases and he had told her he would just have to stop activities.  He could appeal, but with appeals for his Clinical Care he found this very stressful and time consuming.   In her ward of Clewer and Dedworth East, multiple deprivation statistics clearly showed high levels of deprivation, in the worst 30% in England.  Radian, the local social housing provider, found that of all their Thames Valley housing, the most deprived residents lived in Clewer and Dedworth East and West.   This meant such residents (well over 1000) were deprived in terms of income, employment, health and disability, education and training, and crime.   She questioned why the administration believed such residents would just happen to have loose change in their pockets to pay more each week and assumed the same collection rate would be achieved. There was no fund to pay for mitigation that she could find in the budget.

 

Councillor Bhangra congratulated his fellow ward colleague Councillor Carroll and all the RBWM team involved in the fantastic work in receiving a Good rating from Ofsted for Children's Services. He also thanked all Royal Borough officers for the work they had done on the budget. Councillor Bhangra explained that he had been contacted by residents in respect of how the budget proposals would affect grant funding for Norden Farm Centre for the Arts, which was a jewel and real asset in the Royal Borough and something that both Councillor Carrol and he were extremely proud to have in the ward of Boyn Hill.

 

He knew how important Norden Farm was; like many other community groups and cultural organisations in the Royal Borough it was lifeline and centre-point for communities providing many social and beneficial activities. Both his daughters had been taught drama and Bollywood dancing at Norden Farm over many years. All councils were experiencing challenging financial positions so the Royal Borough was no different to the rest of the country. There were significant pressures in both adults and children’s services and the council was working to reduce the gap between income and expenditure. There had been a lot of misinformation being sent out on social media recently. The council provided £200,000 to community groups to support a variety of voluntary, community and cultural organisations across the borough. The grant funding for Norden Farm in 2019/2020 increased by £58,000 due to wage pressure increases and assistance. On the whole Norden Farm had received grant funding of £100,000 for four years prior to 2019/20. In 2020/21 the funding would be £141,000 and the following years £125,000, so in essence £25,000 more than in 2018/2019. RBWM owned the freehold and Norden Farm was not required to pay any rent.

 

Alongside Councillor Carroll and Rayner he had been working closely with the manager at Norden Farm to seek additional funding through various channels for example The Arts Council England, setting up crowd funding and meeting with the local Members of Parliament the thus bringing this important matter to their attention. They had both written to The Arts Council seeking funding assistance for Norden Farm.

 

Councillor Bhangra highlighted that the borough was a low tax council, the eighth lowest in England. Neighbouring authorities were mainly in the higher council tax rate. In 2019/20, Band D costs were:

 

·         In the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead £1,036 per annum

 

·         In Slough £1,367; £361 higher than the Royal Borough

 

·         In Wokingham £1,484; £448 higher than the Royal Borough

 

·         In Reading was £1,627; £591 higher than the Royal Borough

 

Members had difficult decisions to make which were not easy, but that what it did now would reflect on years to come, bringing the council finances into an improved position.

 

Councillor Cannon thanked officers in parking and finance for the complex job undertaken in relation to the parking budget, with the assistance of some members of the Opposition who had given constructive and helpful suggestions. Unfortunately they were not financially viable at the current time. He highlighted that standard tariffs were being frozen across the borough, it was only season tickets that were increasing by inflation. He recognised that the proposal to remove the Advantage Card discount has caused great concern to many residents, particularly in Windsor.  It was not something that the administration would have chosen to do. Councillor Cannon announced that, in the interest of fairness the elected councillor borough-wide parking discounts would also be withdrawn.  There were two key considerations that had influenced the proposals on parking discounts. One was the inequity of the discounted charges across the car parking estate.  The differential between discounted Advantage Card tariffs and the standard tariffs ranged from an average discount in Victoria Street, Windsor of 67% to an average at the Magnet Leisure Centre of 18%.  Equally, he recognised that parking tariffs were generally higher in Windsor and therefore the removal of the discounts had a particularly negative effect. The second consideration was the council’s commitment to respond to the climate change emergency.  It was crucial that the future parking strategy aligned with those aims. After taking into account both of these considerations, the council was currently undertaking a review of a number of options for parking charges within an overall borough parking strategy.  This would particularly focus on the issues in Windsor. He could confirm that, subject to proper due process, new arrangements would take effect from 1 September 2020. He stressed that it was important that the work was not rushed and that it was properly implemented.  This timeframe would enable council Members and residents to consider what was being done and fully understand the implications.


Councillor Stimson
explained that her cabinet portfolio comprised Environmental Services, Climate Change, Sustainability and Parks and Countryside, which was a wonderful combination of everything that pointed towards a wonderful new world. In terms of the difficult budget path, there had been some horrible decisions to make which Members had spent several months working through with the finance team.  The two that had the most effect on her portfolio were the increased cost to the green waste subscription service (to bring it more in line with neighbouring boroughs), and getting rid of the free Saturday collection of green refuse that the council offered.  Neither of these were taken lightly, with the knowledge that they might increase negative behaviour.  The council had to balance its budget, in the end it was choosing between a rock and a hard place.

 

Councillor Stimson confirmed that at Council in June, the council would be unveiling its Climate Resilience Strategy.  The strategy would be coalescing around four key areas. In relation to natural capital, how to preserve and grow green and blue infrastructure, and how to start to join the dots for nature recovery networks in the borough and ensure that urban areas had more green within them.  In terms of renewable energy, how to become a more carbon neutral borough quickly, how to be more energy efficient, and how to ensure businesses in the borough paid the same attention to carbon reduction. In terms of sustainable mobility how to become a healthier borough, walking and cycling more, have a low carbon transport plan, no idling zones, and a parking strategy to encourage low carbon behaviour. In addition a circular economy, in other words how to waste less, use less, re-use more, and eliminate single use wherever possible from the borough.  If there were savings in this regard she would do her best to keep them to support the strategy. These areas would be supported by communications and engagement, monitoring and measurement, and funding. The council would work with the government, Opposition Members and residents as it was a borough strategy not a council strategy. 

 

Councillor W. Da Costa suggested there were two leading-edge opportunities for the council including funding opportunities. The council could be the first to hold a climate change assembly for residents and involving Natural England to help with the green and blue infrastructure. In relation to parking charges, freezing charges was not really fair as the costs in Windsor were higher than in Maidenhead.  There would be a 300% increase in charges in two years if the removal of the Advantage Card discount was taken into account. This would sap energy out of the town and reduce footfall. The administration had spoken of a £1.5m investment in Windsor, he suggested some of this funding should be used to bring back Advantage Card discounts in Windsor.  In relation to parking permits, Councillor W. Da Costa commented that the ridiculously appalling planning policy had not been updated and therefore the council allowed developments without sufficient parking which inevitably spilled out into side areas. Management of HMOs in the borough was also an issue. The Leader of the Council had said he wanted a low tax council but this also meant having the lowest income despite cost pressures, which lead to further costs. Free parking for electric vehicles was great but only the rich could afford them at the moment.

 

Councillor Hill used the analogy of “The Once Good Ship RBWM” in his budget speech. He explained that it all started many years ago when Able Seaman Dudley worked his passage to join the senior ranks, supporting Captain Burbage.  The course was set, reducing cabin fares and costs, and looking good at party headquarters. ‘Lookout’ Jones was the first to spot two icebergs heading towards the ship. Lost in legend they were known as ‘the daddy of all debts’ and ‘pension fund deficit’.  Very few listened as ‘Lookout’ Jones battled alone trying to get a change of course. In a mutiny, Captain Burbage was demoted and newly promoted Captain Dudley took control of the “RBWM”.

 

Entering increasingly rough waters ‘Lookout’ Jones persistently warned of trouble ahead.  Councillor Hill explained that he and others, also seeing trouble ahead, started to openly disagree with Captain Dudley.  All were swiftly demoted. Councillor Hill and others pressed charges against the now all-powerful Captain Dudley.  It came as a bitter blow when Captain Dudley, backed by all but a few, survived.  The knowing stole away in life-boats but Councillor Hill stayed to walk the plank.  Councillor Hill, however, wearing a life-vest, managed get back on board through one of the sea-doors just above the water-line.

 

Councillor Hill continued his analogy: Life on-board was getting tougher and tougher under Captain Dudley.  More crew members disappeared in life-boats and there were tales of officers being thrown over-board.  The passengers were becoming restless and complaining about constant cuts in services and ever-increasing extra charges.  The complaints were now reaching the mainland with news reports and rumours constantly circulating the ship. Things were looking bad for Captain Dudley as ‘the daddy of all debts’ and ‘pension fund deficit’ could now be clearly seen on the horizon. Then one morning an announcement came:  Captain Dudley had left in the dead of night never to be seen again.  There was mounting fear of ‘pension fund deficit’, as if on auto-pilot, she would collide with the ship ripping a gash out of the hull below the water-line.  The valiant but now skeleton crew would work around the clock to repair the damage and pray she did not hit again, but they knew she would.

 

The new Captain Johnson (parachuted in from the mainland) unwittingly took the job only to discover just how close to doom the ship was. The Senior Technical Officer managed to get expert help to diagnose the faults with the rudder and engines.  They battled to find ways to repair the damage done by lack of maintenance of previous commands, so the “RBWM” could change course. Desperate to raise cash but hamstrung by company policy Captain Johnson was set to increase cabin fares, sadly the highest proposed increases must go to cabins housing the poorest passengers.  The captain must also increase costs for all manner of much-needed rations across the ship. Passengers were becoming even more restless and very angry, however, those vital supplies were becoming beyond the Captain’s reach.

 

Councillor Hill’s analogy concluded that nevertheless, some on board continued to be blissfully unaware of what an iceberg could do to a ship, let alone being without funds to buy much needed supplies. No one quite knew the future of the “The Once Good Ship RBWM”, for certain there had been many failures of governance, scrutiny and leadership.  On her current course bankruptcy loomed along with fatal collision. The Captain desperately tried to change course but found himself stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea. There was little room to manoeuvre in the now renamed “RBWM Titanic”. 

 

Councillor Carroll commented that there had been much misinformation relating to adult social care, social services and public health. Funding for adult social care would increase by £1.9m and for children’s services by £1.2m. The council had taken the adult social care precept at the earliest opportunity, under the previous Lead Member. In children’s services a proactive transformation plan had been embarked upon to focus on high cost placements. Plans were in place to move from ‘Good’ to ‘Outstanding in terms of Ofsted rating in the next four years. The council followed the evidence, as recommended by the Children’s Commissioner, for example in relation to children’s hubs.

 

Councillor Carroll explained that there were significant demographic pressures. There was a need to move to prevention strategies and the use of assisted technology.

 

Councillor Clark highlighted the major investment in infrastructure, initially in Maidenhead but then across the borough in the medium term. He highlighted a number of schemes:

 

·         Maidenhead missing link - £2.8m

·         Maidenhead station interchange car park - £4.6m

·         Road maintenance - £5m, including capital resurfacing (£1.9m), find and fix pothole pledge (£100,000)

 

Councillor Clark commented that the find and fix scheme worked very well. Once identified, potholes were fixed on a priority basis. Between September and December 2019, 471 potholes had been identified and 476 were repaired as adjacent potholes were also identified on inspection.

 

Councillor McWilliams commented that he wanted to focus on the future. The council, not just the staff and the facilities the council provided but the residents, the local economy and the infrastructure all ensured that the borough had fundamental essential strengths. He encouraged everyone to respond to the consultation on children’s services. He had undertaken a tour of nine of the centres across the borough. One building the council pad £25,000 per year for was open one day a week with just five children in attendance. This was an example of how money could be spent better through targeting. Councillor McWilliams reiterated the increases in funding in children’s services (£1.2m) and adult social care (£1.9m).

 

In relation to housing, Councillor McWilliams explained that the service had historically had a large budget because it utilised temporary accommodation. This was not a long term solution therefore there had been a focus on prevention and a £200,000 reduction in temporary accommodation costs.

 

Councillor Davey commented that Windsor contributed 40% of council tax receipts to the borough but did not get its fair share of capital investment. He questioned the proposal to spend £3m - £4m on cycle paths, way more than the £1.9m budget for roads, when the council was likely to have no reserves left at the end of 2021-22 and there was the very real possibility of a section 114 notice being served. The council was £200m overdrawn, with £7m due in interest payments. Councillor Davey felt it was time to ‘wake up and smell the coffee’. Once the Conservative leader admitted and accepted responsibility for his party’s actions, Councillor Davey stated he would be happy to do his bit to help the council get out of the financial mess. However, he would be expecting a greater balance of investment for Windsor in the years to come.

 

As the new Independent Lead on Infrastructure he would be asking lots of questions moving forward and looking for answers, such as:

 

?     Why was the LEP’s £100,000 for Ascot on the front page of the budget when surely the potential multi-million loss on the Braywick Leisure Centre would better represent Conservative financial management?

?     If the council received £98,000 CIL income for Air Quality, why was there only £60,000 in the budget for next year?

?     Why was the council funding MAKE Maidenhead, what about Windsor?

?     In relation to the meagre £1.5m LEP for re-energising Windsor, when would plans be available?

?     Did West Windsor residents need more houses on the Greenbelt?

 

Councillor Davey asserted that the borough was not like other councils, Windsor was a town commanding global interest and that needed to be appreciated more in the decision process. RBWM did tend to milk Windsor for what it could get when actually, it could do with a little more ‘tlc’.

 

Councillor Davey congratulated officers on looking for guidance from CIPFA and implementing the RBWM Capital Strategy Gateway Process. He questioned why Conservative councillors had been allowed to overstep the mark and dictate how it was going to be to officers. Stories of councillors banging on tables to get their own way and officers forced to back down for fear of repercussions were totally unacceptable.

 

Councillor Davey highlighted that when he has asked about CC52 Clewer & Dedworth Neighbourhood Improvements with a budget of £350,000 back in June the Conservatives had just laughed. He had asked why it was £35,000 over budget. There had been no answers, just laughter. CIPFA had subsequently looked at the books and the overspend was now over £400,000.

 

Another budget line, CD27 Pave Dedworth was showing £29,000 overspent. CY27, which could only be described as an election budget of £250,000, was canned after the election when 18 Independents and Liberal Democrats walked through the doors in May 2019. Councillor Davey questioned how a budget line could be removed without a vote.

 

Councillor Davey read out a comment from a local resident responding to one of his blogs: ‘Stop all this political nonsense and act responsibly, let's see a little professionalism and solve the immediate problems of the budget. Time is a luxury that we do not have, action is required now, positive decisions are needed. Too many committees, too many meetings and your working shire horse ends up looking like a camel.”

 

Councillor Davey commented that the Conservatives had got the council into this mess, so they must get it out. This would mean making some brave decisions. Firstly, reverse the decision to abolish the Advantage Card discount. If residents stopped coming just once a week, that equated to £1m. Added to the £650,000 revenue forecast and nearly one third of the reserves was used up. Secondly, admit there was only one logical way out, call for a referendum and suggest a realistic but painful increase in council tax.  Then work on a strategy to convince residents to vote for a referendum, a huge ask.

 

Councillor Bond commented that parking permits were to cost £120 for a two car household; £50 for one car. There was no variation on type of car, fuel type or based on parking restrictions in an area. The only exception was electric vehicles. Neighbourhoods of Victorian and Edwardian housing with minimal off-street parking would be affected. If residents were expected to pay, they would expect proper enforcement. In relation to Ways Into Work, Councillor Bond explained he had recently met a service user and he could see the value of the scheme. Optalis were second in the national rankings and Ways Into Work were fourth but there was an ambitious programme to reduce costs. The adult social care transformation programme to achieve £1.7m in savings also seemed very ambitious.  He was particularly concerned about the need to retain social workers to avoid agency rates. Councillor Bond stated that more detail was needed about the capital programme working group including membership and decision making powers.

 

Councillor Bateson commented that as a ward councillor she would continue to pursue the Oaks leisure centre as this was important for the Ascot area. The nearest swimming pool was 10 miles away with limited public transport.

 

Councillor Hilton concluded that in 2015/16 the council had assumed an end of year overspend of £772,000 therefore it had implemented a change in approach. From 2016/17 onwards the council had increased council tax to the capping limit and added a 1% social care precept. Unfortunately the increasing costs for adults, children and vulnerable people requiring social care had grown faster than council tax.  The council was determined to continue to support vulnerable people by taking the necessary decisions in the budget. Councillor W. Da Costa had suggested using LEP funding to subsidise parking. Councillor Hilton explained that the funding was ring-fenced to improve the environment in Windsor to improve footfall. The parking discounts did not make sense and needed to be reviewed.  Councillor Hilton highlighted that the council’s role was to provide seed-funding grants for organisations which would then look for other sources of funding. Councillor Lynne Jones had suggested that to balance next year’s budget the council would need to save £14m. Councillor Hilton confirmed that the figure was £4.4m and there was £1.7m in reserve within the budget to be used if needed. He was determined this money would not be spent by assiduously making sure the savings were met and the money went back into reserves to support next year’s budget.

 

i)       COUNCIL TAX REDUCTION SCHEME

 

Councillor Price stated that she was concerned that the consultation process had not adhered to the statutory obligations thereby leaving the council open to possible lawsuits. The consultation had been open until 7 February 2020. Setting aside Christmas and New Year, this gave people four weeks to respond and she questioned whether this was reasonable. She had thought six weeks was the borough standard. The results of the consultation had not been available when the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel had met to discuss the budget therefore there had been no time for scrutiny of the methodology. The 1992 Local Government Finance Act required the council to consult with recipients of CTR and the wider council tax payer. At the Over view and Scrutiny Panel she had asked if all recipients had been consulted to enable them to respond and start budgeting for an increase. She had been told this would have been too expensive. She therefore felt the council had not met its statutory obligations. The response rate from current recipients was 0.8%. The total number of responses was 138, which she felt was very low. The report stated that emails were sent to community groups and charities likely to have contact with CTR recipients but this was only a selection. Organisations not contacted included the Disability and Inclusion Forum, Housing Solutions, Radian, and Maidenhead Lions (although Windsor Lions had been). She felt the groups contacted were not representative. Additionally, they were only emailed about the consultation on 29 January 2020. Government guidance advised that consultations should be designed to be accessible to and clearly targeted those that would be affected. This was not the case for this consultation and it was hard to see how the council had complied with its duties under the Equality Act when Members had not been supplied with the Equality Impact Assessment referred to in paragraph 11 of the report. All councillors should have read this document in advance of making the decision. The assessment was only prepared on 5 February 2020 and had not been approved by the Head of Service, nor was it appended to the report.

 

Councillor Reynolds commented that about 70% of respondents to the consultation did not support the proposals but the council was going to ignore this fact. For the most vulnerable having to put in a little bit more might be a little bit too much. There was a causal link between increased payments and higher arrears, leading to higher administration costs. There was also the impact on the mental health of vulnerable residents to take into account, who were paying for the mistakes of the past.

 

Councillor Hilton commented that there was a safety net around the service which the council provided. The proposals would see the council moving to the same level of discount as the four unitary authorities with the highest level of discount in the area. Residents of Windsor and Maidenhead would have the benefit of a significantly lower council tax than those authorities so even with the scheme changes they would pay less. In the event of significant hardship, individual circumstances would be considered.

 

Councillor Johnson stated that the consultation had thorough and robust. The suggestion a council tax referendum had been made, however this could result in a significant increase which would have a disproportionate impact on those at the bottom. He favoured a low council tax because those in receipt of benefits but yet still learned low incomes paid low levels of council tax. The council was seeking to bring its level of CTR into line with every other local authority other than West Berkshire and Reading. However Reading had a level of 35%. West Berkshire’s level was 20% but it had a higher council tax to start with.

 

A named vote was taken: 23 Councillors voted for the motion; 17 Councillors voted against the motion.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Hilton, seconded by Councillor Johnson, and:

 

RESOLVED: That Council notes the report and:

 

i)          Approves the revised (20%) contribution levels for the 2020/21 Council Tax Reduction scheme with effect from 1 April 2020.

 

ii)        Approves the associated changes to the Council Tax Reduction scheme to align them to rules governing Housing Benefit and Universal Credit.

 

ii)      FEES AND CHARGES REPORT 2020/21

 

Councillor Del Campo asked whether the cost for a second burial, which had previously been free, would be retrospective or for new purchases. If it were retrospective, she questioned whether residents concerned would be consulted before communication as it would cause distress, given the situation.

 

Councillor W. Da Costa commented that if parking permits were to be charged for, it would be reasonable to put in Community Wardens or Enforcement officers.

 

Councillor Cannon confirmed that the charge for a second burial would not be retrospective. The number of parking wardens had already been increased by 10%

 

A named vote was taken: 24 Councillors voted for the motion; 13 Councillors voted against the motion. 3 Councillors abstained.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Hilton, seconded by Councillor Johnson, and:

 

RESOLVED: That Full Council approves:

 

i) The Fees and Charges for 2020/21 as set out in Appendix A

 

iii)    CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2020/21 - 2022/23

 

A named vote was taken: 28 Councillors voted for the motion; 11 Councillors voted against the motion. 1 Councillor abstained.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Hilton, seconded by Councillor Johnson, and:

 

 RESOLVED: That Full Council approves:

 

i) The Capital Strategy 2020/21 – 2022/23 as set out in Appendix A

ii) The proposed additions to the capital programme 2020/21 – 2022/23 as detailed in appendix B, C and D and summarised in table 4.1.8.

 

iii) Approves an additional capital budget of £489,000 in 2019/20 that represents capitalised debt charges on schemes with a construction period greater than one year.

 

iv) Approves fully funded capital budget of £100,000 in 2019/20 for Ascot High Street Public Realm and Highway Improvements Design Study as set out in 4.3.8.

 

iv)    REVENUE BUDGET 2020/21

 

A named vote was taken: 23 Councillors voted for the motion; 17 Councillors voted against the motion.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Hilton, seconded by Councillor Johnson, and:

 

RESOLVED: That full Council:

 

Notes and takes into account the statutory s25 statement of the S151 officer in paragraph 5 in determining its:

 

i) Proposed budget for 2020/21;

ii) Longer term financial plans for 2021/22 – 2024/25;

iii) Level of reserves

 

Notes:

 

a) The comments from the Overview and Scrutiny Panels on the proposed budget;

b) Equality impact assessments have been taken into consideration and has informed the final budget proposals.

 

Approves:

 

i) The Budget Strategy and medium-term financial projections as set out in Appendix A;

 

ii) The 2020/21 budget of £94.677m and the associated contribution from reserves of £2.218m as set out in paragraph 4.5;

 

iii) The Proposed growth in service budgets of £11.693m as set out in Appendix E including a contingency of £1.700m as set out in para 4.6.5;

iv) The proposed opportunities and savings of £5.826m as set out in Appendix F;

 

v) The Business rate tax base calculation, as detailed in Appendix G;

 

vi) The calculations for determining the council tax requirement for the year 2020/21 in accordance with the Local Government Finance Act 1992 as set out in Appendix K;

 

vii) An increase in council tax of 3.99% increasing the band D charge from £1,036.07 to £1,077.41 for the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead in 2020/21, based on:

 

          a. 1.99% increase in base council tax in 2020/21

          b. An additional 2.0% to reflect an increase in the Adult Social Care

          Precept;

 

viii) Approves the policy and the special expenses precept of £34.31 for 2020/21 for the unparished areas of Windsor and Maidenhead in accordance with Section 35 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 as set out in Appendix M;

 

ix) Notes the following Precepts

 

        a. Parish Precepts Appendix L

        b. The Police and Crime Commissioner for Thames Valley - £216.28 

            (para 4.21.3)

        c. The Royal Berkshire Fire Authority –£67.60 (para 4.21.3);

 

x) The council plan for transformation and use of flexible capital receipts as set out in Appendix J;

 

xi) The allocation of the £122.475m dedicated schools grant as set out in Appendix H. The Director of Children’s Services and S151 officer in consultation with the Lead Members for Finance and Children’s Services be given delegated authority to amend the total school’s budget to reflect the actual Dedicated Schools Grant levels once received;