Members considered recommendations to Full Council in relation to the budget for 2016/17.

Cabinet was addressed by Graham Cribbin. Mr Cribbin explained that he and Mr Perez had started the Wraysbury Speed Watch group to enable residents to converse on any speeding issues they or their families had experienced. Over the past year the group had grown to 250 members, with many mentioning Wraysbury Station bridge as one of the key concerns. The group was aware of one fatality on the bridge and also one life-changing injury. A site visit had been held in January 2016 with South West Trains, National Rail, the borough, Ward Councillor John Lenton and Parish Council Chairman Margaret Lenton. The group had walked across the bridge and reached the top when two buses had met; all had had to lean back onto the collapsed fence to avoid being hit. The lack of pathway meant those using wheelchairs or pushchairs had no access to the station or village shops. Further site meetings had taken place and a feasibility study and safety plan had been developed that would cost £80,000. The online and hard copy petition had attracted 2250 signatures, 70-80% of which were local residents.

Cabinet was addressed by Henry Perez. Mr Perez explained that safety concerns relating to bridge access had been experienced by residents for over 20 years. In its current state the bridge was unsafe and not fit for purpose for pedestrian traffic. The population of Wraysbury and the number of station users had increased in recent years to an estimated 112,000 in 2014. Safety issues arose for both pedestrians and drivers. At present there was a footpath either side but it stopped at the foot of the bridge. The situation contravened the Highway Code for pedestrians and fell short of good practice guidelines for those with disabilities. Mr Perez had addressed the recent Highways, Transport and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel, which had recommended to Council that funding be found for the works.

The Lead Member thanked the public speakers and commented that if the cost was £80,000 for a fully developed scheme, this was a modest sum in the context of the council’s £25m capital programme. He had not seen a design or costings for the scheme and would like to do so as soon as possible. In this situation it was usual for the relevant Lead Member to bring forward a proposal.

The Lead Member introduced the budget by explaining that it had been set against the context of a challenging environment for the country’s finances. The council had to do what it was asked of by central government to help reduce the national deficit. There would be a very significant reduction in the grant funding for local authorities over the next four years, which had significantly exceeded the projections of the borough and other councils. At the same time there was a need to invest in services to protect the most vulnerable.

The council proposed to freeze council tax for the seventh consecutive year, therefore a Band D property would pay £907. This represented a reduction of approximately 13% in nominal terms and 31% in real terms against RPI. The donate back your council tax scheme would continue to be run.

The Lead Member referred to the very significant growth in demand for adult social care. The council spent approximately 35% of its budget on the 2500 residents requiring adult social care. For 2016/17 the council proposed to add £3.8m to the adult social care and health budget and £500,000 inflation totalling £4.3m. In children’s services the budget had been increased by £240,000 to deal with high needs placements. A further £300,000 had been added to the home to school transport budget which was focussed on children with statements of Special Educational Need. The council was taking advantage to levy the 2% precept ring-fenced for adult social care. This would add £18.60 to a Band D council tax bill. This would enable the council to continue to invest in protecting the most vulnerable in the community.

Members noted the efficiency savings identified that were detailed in paragraph 3.8 of the report, including as a result of improved procurement and restructures. The Lead Member explained that the capital programme totalled £25m, of which £15m was corporately funded.  Financial projections assumed an additional 1000 Band D equivalent properties each year of the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) which would not only increase the tax base but also provide homes for people. The scale of the corporately funded element of the capital programme would bring forward the council’s requirement to borrow additional funds. However the council also had extensive property holdings so when it invested in the Maidenhead Waterways project, the council increased the value of its properties adjacent to the Maidenhead Waterways. The council was investing to create value, to realise value.

Councillor Lenton left the meeting at 8pm.

The Lead Member highlighted the investment of £700,000 to progress the Borough Local Plan. He referred to options for the St Clouds site for which the council held the freehold and the plans for a complete replacement of the Magnet Leisure Centre, as well as development options for Maidenhead Golf Course and its potential inclusion in the Borough Local Plan. In relation to fees and charges it was the council’s approach not to increase beyond the level of inflation. The Lead Member confirmed that in the final local government settlement a number of councils had benefitted from a transition grant, including the borough. The council would receive £1.3m over and above what had been assumed in the MTFP in both of 2016/17 and 2017/18, which would give even more financial flexibility to invest in the transformation of the council and the growth of the local economy.

Four additional capital schemes would be included as a result of discussions at Overview and Scrutiny Panels:

• Chariots Place (£20,000)
• Enforcement services (£7,000)
• Parking enforcement and equipment (£40,000)
• Mobile working for streetcare workers (£20,000)

The Lead Member for Adult Services and Health commented that he was proud of the increased expenditure of £4.3m on adult social care. The precept would raise £1.3m therefore the council was finding the rest from its own resources. The service was demand-led. The latest figures showed that the borough population aged over 65 had increased by 8% in the last three years and by 15% for those over 80 years old. The council had not cut a single service in this area. For those in Band D the precept would equate to 37p per week, which he felt was a small amount to look after people who had contributed to society their whole life.

The Lead Member for Education explained that the proposed investments would help the council deliver its manifesto commitments. Despite the reduction of £10 per head in educational support grant there would be no loss to frontline schools budgets. The overall schools budget totalled £105m, which was £1.3m more than the previous year. There had been a slight drop in the number of pupils receiving pupil premium; the funding would be redistributed. The capital programme totalling £10.4m would allow for the expansion of various schools including £340,000 for the expansion of the staff room at Wraysbury Primary School. The school expansion programme would provide more choice for parents in the borough. The budget included funding for a feasibility study for a satellite grammar school.

The Lead Member for Planning thanked the Lead Member for Finance for the additional resources to ensure the Borough Local Plan progressed.  The capital programme included a number of significant investments including £3m for the Waterways project, £2.9m for the Broadway opportunity area and £500,000 for the Maidenhead station interchange. The Lead Member highlighted that councils without a Borough Local Plan would not receive the New Homes bonus in future. The council aimed to submit its plan by September 2016. In relation to CIL, the examination was scheduled for 3 March 2016.

The Lead Member for Highways and Transport highlighted that £1.6m had been allocated for highway resurfacing across the borough. £3.7m had been allocated to upgrade street lighting with LED lights (the first half of a two year programme). In relation to the Lower Thames Flood Relief Channel, the council was contributing £285,000 to meet its commitments. A total of £6.6m would be spent on the highway network as detailed on pages 94-98 of the report.

The Principal Member for Culture and Communities commented that there were no cuts proposed for the funding of local organisations, including arts centres. The council had increased the funding for revenue grants by £23,000. The fees for the hire of the popular Desborough Suite had been frozen. An extra £365,000 had been allocated to the Participatory Budget programme.  In comparison to other local authorities that were closing libraries, the borough was doing the opposite. Cabinet would receive a report at the end of the month to undertake a feasibility study to open at least one new library before 2019. Three sites were under consideration. The Lead Member for Finance commented that funding for this project was not currently in the budget; he suggested that the £35,000 cost be included in the recommendation to Council.

The Chief Whip highlighted projects in the south of the borough, including the roundabout that was currently being installed near Charters School and the allocation of £250,000 for Victory Fields Pavilion in Sunninghill. In relation to Neighbourhood Plans each of the ten plans underway were to be allocated £20,000 to enable them to start the consultation. She thanked the Lead Member for Finance for the £100,000 allocated over the last four years for social enterprises.

The Principal Member for Policy commented that the council was able to make investments because of the 31% savings made. This represented nine years of cumulative work.

The Lead Member for Environmental Services explained that £3.7m had been allocated over the next two years to replace over 14,000 street lights with LED lights, to realise significant savings. He also highlighted savings in waste services.

The Principal Member for Transformation and Performance explained that changes in the way the council functioned were the basis on which reductions in council tax were achieved whilst services were maintained. The active engagement of staff was necessary for this to be successful.

The Chairman highlighted that the grant from central government would reduce from £22m in 2016/17 to £12.5m in 2019/20. If the council were able to keep all the business rates it collected, it would have £80m. It was clear that the borough was therefore subsidising other local authorities. The cumulative effect of council tax freezes amounted to £613.25 over seven years. It was recognised that the 2% precept was a cost to the householder but it would be listed separately on the council tax bill, as it was ring-fenced for adult social care expenditure.

Councillor Mrs Jones welcomed the transitional funding the borough would receive. She asked whether, in light of this, the scheme for a toilet at Old Windsor library could be included in the budget. She requested the rationale for increasing parking charges, in particular season tickets. Many of those who worked in the hospitality and retail sector in the borough were on minimum wage and cost increases in parking would cause difficulties for them. For accuracy she suggested that it be stated that council tax was rising by 2% in respect of adult social care. The Chairman responded that in the announcement the precept was separate from core council tax and he assumed the regulations would stipulate billing requirements. Feedback could be provided to Councillor Mrs Jones prior to Full Council. It was noted that the regulations were expected the following day. All models had the precept as a separate line.

The Lead Member for Highways and Transport agreed to write to Councillor Mrs Jones in relation to parking. He commented that parking charges had not been put up for a number of years and the rise on season tickets amounted to £2 per week. Parking was at a premium in the town centres and those commuting should pay a fair and reasonable charge. New parking machines would allow for pay on exit and give change. Of the 49 council car parks in the borough, 23 were free to use; others gave Advantage Card discounts.

The Lead Member for Finance commented that it would be good to receive a paper on the Old Windsor library toilet situation.

Members agreed two additional recommendations to include a feasibility study for an additional library and the four named capital programme schemes.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Council:

1. That the detailed recommendations contained in Appendix A, which includes a Council Tax at band D of £906.95, be approved.
2. That an Adult Social Care Levy of £1.191m be included in the Council’s budget proposals, this levy being equivalent to £18.14 at band D.
3. That Fees and Charges as contained in Appendix B be approved.
4. That the Capital Programme shown in Appendices C and D be adopted by the Council for the year commencing April 2016.
5. That responsibility is delegated to the Cabinet Prioritisation Sub Committee to identify specific scheme budgets for the Highway Maintenance programmes as soon as project specifications have been completed.
6. That authority is delegated to the Head of Finance in consultation with the Lead Members for Finance and for Adult Services and Health to add up to a further £300k to the budget for Disabled Facilities Grant once demand for those grants has been established.
7. That the prudential Borrowing limits set out in Appendix L are approved.
8. That Council is asked to note the Business Rate tax base calculation detailed in Appendix P (to follow) and its use in the calculation of the Council Tax Requirement in Appendix A.
9. That the Head of Finance in consultation with Lead Members for Finance and Education, is authorised to amend the Total Schools Budget, to reflect actual Dedicated Schools Grant levels.
10. That the Head of Finance in consultation with Lead Members for Finance and Education, the Managing Director and Strategic Director for Adult, Children and Health Services and the School Forum is authorised to approve subsequent allocation of the Schools Budget in accordance with the 2016/17 funding formula[1] and the Schools Finance and Early Years Regulations 2015.
11. That responsibility to include the precept from the Berkshire Fire and Rescue Authority in the overall Council Tax charges is delegated to the Lead Member for Finance and Head of Finance as soon as the precept is announced.
12. That the revision to the Council’s Minimum Revenue Policy set out in paragraph 3.43 be approved.
13. That four additional capital schemes be included in the programme:

·         Chariots Place (£20,000)

·         Enforcement services (£7,000)

·         Parking enforcement and equipment (£40,000)

·         Mobile working for streetcare workers (£20,000)

14. That £35,000 be included for a feasibility study for an additional library.