2022/23 Budget
Minutes:
Cabinet considered the report regarding the proposed 2022/23 budget.
The Chairman informed that Cabinet that he was putting forward a change to the recommendations in relation to funding for the arts and culture. Since the budget had been set the council had been undertaking discussions with arts organisations.
Norden Farm had agreed to work with the council and a joint consultant to look at their business model and working towards becoming self-funding. There had been a lot of lobbying from his Group and the consultation showed support for the arts. The administration had been keen on supporting the arts and the report from the consultant had given a figure on how best this should be done. The Leader proposed that £115,000 be provided in the 2022/23 budget to support Norden Farm this was not a grant but a partnership.
The Deputy Leader of the Council, Corporate & Resident Services, Culture and Heritage and Windsor informed Cabinet that with regards to proposals for the Old Court Windsor they were recommending a contribution of £25,000.
It was recommended that £140,000 be added to the budget to support arts and culture.
The Lead Member for Finance and Ascot informed Cabinet that it was a pleasure to present the Council’s proposed budget to Cabinet. There were seven appendices that set out the financial plans for the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, its net budget requirement and associated Council Tax level for 2022/23.
Cabinet had considered the draft Revenue Budget and draft Capital programme on the 25th November 2021 and agreed to a public consultation to run from the end of November until the end of January 2022. The results of that consultation were included within the report.
The Lead Member mentioned a number of changes and clarifications that had taken place since the November report had been approved as well as highlight a few other issues.
He proposed to increase council tax by 1.99% and the adult social care precept by 1% leading to band D Council Tax of £1164.99 or £65 pence a week. At the time of the November 2021 Cabinet there was some uncertainty about the estimated grant funding of £2.997 million that assumed a 6% increase in spending power. When challenged to say what he would propose if that assumption was wrong, he said he had confidence in the Finance team who had worked to gain as clear a view as possible of additional funding. He asked to be put on record that his confidence was well founded, the increase in grant funding at £2.976 million was just £21K less than that forecast. Cabinet should be aware that with the exception of Wokingham BC our share of funding was the lowest in the country.
Next year they were proposing growth and new investments of £5.449M shown on page 57 and on page 60 details of savings and income generation totalling £3.396M. Probably contrary to the expectations of some, they proposed increasing spending on services by £2m.
The budget continued to support the most vulnerable in our community with a spend of £40M on Adult Social Care and £27M on Children’s Services. To maintain our excellent services for children a significant feature was approximately £10M additional funding committed to Children Services during the next 5 years.
Investment of £300K in busses waste contract costs £500K that allow bi-weekly black bin collections and help drive increased recycling. A budget for climate change of £250K a year for three years. More staff and expertise to assist those at risk of homelessness and client support officers to support vulnerable households. £1.5M to improve cycling infrastructure and increase cycling across the Borough. Revenue Investment and growth bids had increased by £75K as a result of our decision to support the Local Enterprise Partnership from 2022/23 following changes to central Government funding. Revenue savings and income generation proposals were unchanged from the draft budget.
The impact of Covid continued into 2022/23 with a projection of £1million lost income in Leisure Centres and Parking. This was covered by an appropriate use of earmarked reserves.
The Council’s policy in relation to fees and charges was included at Appendix 2 page 76 which covered statutory and discretionary fees. The ambition was to be broadly in line with other Councils and for fees to reflect demand. The actual fees and charges were published on page 78, these had been debated by the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel with an in-depth discussion on parking charges and the proposed parking discount scheme.
The Capital Strategy on page 141 set out very clearly the Council policy in relation to capital investment and explained the process for the technical approval and management of schemes. The Council was now operating within its means and no new discretionary spending was included as an addition to the proposed Capital Programme. New schemes were either self-funded or essential to maintain service provision. The capital programme included £100M of investment in projects ranging from the Broadway Car Park and Affordable Housing to Highway Maintenance and Thames Flood scheme. Details of all schemes were included in annexes B1 to B6. starting on page 169.
Capital projects were funded through grant, S106, CIL funding or borrowing. Despite private individuals borrowing for mortgages, some take exception to the Council borrowing to deliver projects such as Braywick Leisure Centre, the waterways project and the Stafferton Link Road. With every £1m of debt adding roughly £30K to the revenue budget borrowing is carefully managed.
With regards to the capital cash flow at page 206 Appendix 4 annexe C of the Treasury Management papers. This showed projected capital expenditure, capital receipts, short term and long-term debt going out to 2035/36. The cash flow statement showed that debt would increase to £238M in 2025/26 and then fall with the option, if Council chose, to be debt free by 2035/36.
It was a requirement that the Council approves its Treasury Management Strategy, on page 187, at the start of each financial year. Treasury management was the management of the authority’s cash flows, borrowing and investments, and the associated risks. This was an important aspect of the Council’s business. The strategy was considered by the Audit and Governance Committee on the 21st October 2021, they noted the report which will go to Council for approval.
On page 211, Appendix 5 was the Council’s pay policy, updated as a consequence of changes to the Councils structure affecting chief officers, appendix 6 on page 219 is the Pay award it is recommended that a pay award of 2% is made for 2022 and appendix A includes information supporting that recommendation. Last was the budget consultation report shown at Appendix 7 on page 223.
The Chairman said he was more then happy to second the report and put for ward for adoption by Council on 22nd February 2022. This had been a challenging budget build process with a lot of national issues, a loss of income and the pandemic. 12 months ago it would have been difficult to see a budget being presented that was increasing investment more then savings. This was a balanced budget that had been out to extensive consultation. He thanked the finance team for their excellent work especially getting their estimates so close to the final settlement on the draft budget, the draft budget that was criticised by the opposition saying we could not consult on those estimating figures.
The balanced budget allowed the council to start working on delivering its newly adopted Corporate Plan, investing in services such as children’s services and the environmental agenda. There would also be continued innovation and transformation in service delivery.
As the national pressure on the cost of living continued the budget, if approved, would mean we continued to have one of the lowest council tax rates outside London. The proposed increase was 65 pence per week, he did not wish to see any increase taxation but they did need to invest in services. There was also a well deserved planned 2% increased pay award.
The resident 1 hour free parking scheme was locked in, transformation of adult services was locked in, the improvements to the library services locked in, environmental agenda was locked in, increased recycling was locked in, highways and digital connectivity was locked in, continued development in housing and the housing services was locked in and improved sports and leisure facilities were locked in. the Chairman thanked the Lead Member and finance team for their work on producing the balanced budget.
The Lead Member for Planning, Environmental Services and Maidenhead reported that he had worked closely with Norden’s Farm and he was pleased to see the proposed investment and the strategic partnership.
The Lead Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Digital Connectivity thanked the finance team and Lead Member for the report and getting their grant estimates so accurate. It was good to see a focus on service improvement, the £300k for buses, the improvement bids for government grants and £1.5m for cycling and waling.
The Lead Member for Climate Change, Sustainability, Parks and Countryside
informed that there had been investment in the tackling the climate crises, there had been a recruitment of 8 new officers, trees had been planted, there was the management of Battlemead Common, review of 31 council buildings, £205k for LED lighting, action on single use plastics and £250k per year for three years investment toward the Climate Change Partnership. Sustainability fell across all services in the Council and we were seeing more work done.
The Deputy Leader of the Council, Corporate & Resident Services, Culture and Heritage and Windsor thanked the Finance Team and she thanked everyone who took part in the consultation as this helped strengthen our case for investment in the arts and culture sector. There was a very well deserved proposed pay reward for staff. There had been a decrease in the gap between the highest paid and lowest paid throughout the organisation. However the proposed pay reward was also linked to councillors pay, she did not feel that councillors should also get the salary increase so she proposed the following addition to the reports recommendations at appendix 6:
iii) and requests the Independent Remuneration Panel review the indexation element of the scheme and report back to full Council.
Cabinet agreed to this amendment.
She was pleased to see the budget being aligned to the new Corporate Plan, that there had been an increase in weddings and thus an addition £100k income, a £96k growth bid in systems to help deliver better, a capital investment of £615k for improvements to the Guild Hall, grants to outside organisations were continued, libraries continued their excellent transformation programme, investment in Eaton for the Electrical Box project and additional investment in ICT that followed the important pre pandemic investment that allowed the council to be agile when the pandemic hit.
The Lead Member for Public Protection and Parking also thanked officers and the Lead Member for the report. He highlighted that the financial management had allowed the residents discount scheme to the brought back and that there was £10m investment in flood prevention schemes.
The Lead Member for Housing, Sport & Leisure, and Community Engagement informed Cabinet that the consultation had been a success, it had only been the second one undertaken on the budget recently and there had been over 1800 respondents which was three times more than the previous year. There was to be £1.2m spent on John West House that was a homeless shelter that also provided a comprehensive support service that helped vulnerable people. With regards to leisure centre figures were improving as we came out of the pandemic and more people were jabbed. For transparency he also made reference to Cllr Baldwins comments at the start of the meeting regarding declarations of interest and said that with regards to his job he had spoken to the monitoring officer who had confirmed he had no declarations of interest to declare.
The Chairman said there were three members of the public who had registered to address Cabinet and he welcomed them to speak in the order he had been given:
Charlotte Kewell informed Cabinet that she had prepared her speak prior to tonight’s announcement of the additional investment into the arts.
She informed Cabinet that as a resident of the borough of 15 years, and with a young family, she would like to strongly urge the council to make investment in arts and culture across the whole borough a top priority. She mentioned that speaking to Cabinet was something outside her comfort zone and thus hoped it showed how important this issue was to her.
Living in Maidenhead, we were so lucky to have a facility like Norden Farm Centre for the Arts, yet it was so much more than an arts centre. The cultural capital that Norden Farm offered its community through their work with schools and community groups was enormous. With inflation, energy bills and interest rate rises, the cost of living was increasing at a terrific rate, people’s income was being squeezed like never before. Mental health services were seeing their biggest rise in cases, especially among children.
Many children across our borough would never have access to the inspiration and ideas that culture can spark if it were not for Norden Farm and the Old Court. Here, different cultures were celebrated and a huge sense of wellbeing and belonging generated through the pure joy they brought.
As a family, the Lantern Festival in Maidenhead remained one of the absolute highlights of our year. She informed how special it was to be there in person on Lantern Parade evening. On a cold night in December, the family look forward to the incredible lantern creations lighting up the streets, the sound of the bhangra drums, and a proud group parade around our town, all contributing to this amazing atmosphere. It was a chance to really see our town as never seen it before, beyond its retail centre.
She was constantly amazed at what Norden Farm achieved with what she believe was a really small team. Their programme was immense, from creative arts for the elderly to theatre, live screenings from venues that most of our community would never physically access and the biggest names in Comedy.
The value for money for the council therefore, not to mention the value in terms of public satisfaction, sense of belonging and wellbeing that this gave the community was exceptional. Norden Farm was the reason she loved living in Maidenhead, it was for all backgrounds, and for all ages.
These venues cannot do this on their own, they worked hard at fundraising, but they could not begin to resource their own fundraising without your critical foundation of support. 20 years to get Norden Farm open and 20 years now running, we cannot let this close.
Our council had an opportunity to sustain them through these challenging times. Please, from the bottom of her heart, please sustain investment in all arts and culture venues in our borough; in Norden Farm, Old Court and Windsor Festival, to nurture and inspire our community and the next generation.
The Chairman thanked Charlotte Kewell for her speech and agreed with her sentiments and that was why they were recommending the £140k being added to the budget for arts and culture. He also agreed with the mention of the importance to our residents mental health.
The Deputy Chairman of Cabinet, Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health said that as ward member where Norden Farm was based he was pleased to see that an agreement had been reached. He agreed what had been said about the importance of mental health, this had been an evidence based decision. He also mentioned that Norden Farm also worked with Adult Social Care. He had been mindful of the impact of the pandemic and especially that on young peoples mental health and opportunities such as those provided by Norden Farm were important.
Patricia Powell addressed Cabinet and said that she was in her 43rd year of living in Windsor. She had intended to address the proposed total slashing of arts funding in the Borough, which seemingly had one of the lowest in the country already. This was written before tonight’s announcement.
She informed that she had a long business career, including a sizeable part in Windsor and environs, she had been a member and continued to be a member of a raft of local organisations and facilities, had volunteered, been on committees and more, so she offered a rounded point of view.
Despite the universally agreed principle that we should aim for healthy bodies and minds, for which the arts and culture were an essential contributory factor, the latter often seemed to be treated as luxuries. she firmly believed they should be seen as needs.
She recognised that the Government and local government had a very difficult job in seeking to balance all the basic tenets and requirements of our society and communities but feel strongly that there must somehow be a budget adjustment to take in at least some arts funding.
Arts should be seen as the twin of physical health and exercise facilities. Healthy bodies, healthy minds, healthy society. This was vital, not least as our life-spans continue to extend. Windsor and Maidenhead, which in many ways were admirable places in which to live, work and play, as the promotional approach says, will be diminished by a depletion of arts funding and the strong risk that The Old Court and Norden Farm would have to close.
Arts centres, including our two, are part of the building bricks of society. Take them away and the structure would be weakened. They offered, in warm, friendly environments and for sensible prices, a wonderful range of enjoyment, learning, inter-personal communication, volunteering and have something for all ages and everyone, from tiny children to senior citizens, abled and disabled, disadvantaged, disaffected, from individuals to groups. They are out-reaching havens.
The previous tabled proposal to delete all arts funding had attracted a well-supported petition against it, backed by Teresa May and others and mentions in the national and local media. It did the Borough no favours to be slammed for this proposal.
The arts centres and other cultural organisations worked hard themselves to secure funding from other sources but this was not always easy, particularly in times of crisis as in the pandemic, whose effects, not least the economic ones, would not vanish for some time. Arts needed, we needed, bolstering with some financial input from the local authority.
The Chairman thanked Patricia Powell for her presentation to Cabinet and again acknowledged his support for her sentients and that was why they were proposing the £140k support for the arts across the borough. He mentioned Cllr McWilliams work with regards to leisure facilities and said he hoped that the proposals tonight would make a meaningful difference.
Robert Castell addressed Cabinet and he also said he had been prepared to speak prior to tonight’s announcement. He said that he worked in the community choir and during the pandemic they had visited care homes to sing outside and entertain the residents during the difficult times. He mentioned that the benefits or arts and crafts was not a quantifiable measurement. The £140k funding was pleased to hear but councillors had said that it was not a grant, he asked if this could be expanded upon. There was talk of partnership but with regards to financial stability there needed to be certainty of funding for future financial planning.
The Chairman replied that he saw this not as a grant but as social investment and he would be working in partnership with Norden Farm. It was only correct that when spending our residents money that due diligence was undertaken. The budget consultation had showed the support for the arts and the commissioned support provided evidence for the appropriate level of support. This was a partnership to work toward long term stability. Cllr Rayner reiterated the support for the £140k investment in arts and culture across the borough, especially supporting Norden Farm and the Old Court.
The Deputy Chairman of Cabinet, Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, Health and Mental Health reiterated the comments made by the last public speaker especially regarding mental health. This was a residents budget bult upon data and what residents value. He mentioned that his portfolio took a significant proportion of the budget but there was still significant investment into services especially for the vulnerable in our society. He was pleased to see that people were living longer and more independent lives but this required investment and transformation. Continued work with our health colleagues was important. With regards to education he mentioned that 97% of our schools were either rated as good or excellent and there was continued investment not our children’s services especially supporting the most vulnerable.
Cllr Luxton asked about investment in the south of the borough especially about the promises made for the proposed Oaks Leisure Centre in Sunningdale, she requested that funding be built into this budget. She was informed that the administration were still committed to the project but only when it was financially viable. When the leisure centre contract was up for review this would be looked at as a viable option. There had also been considerable lobbying in the south of the borough that had resulted in the new Heatherwood Hospital.
Cllr Baldwin mentioned that that at this meeting last year he had a number of questions to ask but this resulted in confusion. He said he had spoken to the Lead Member at this weeks Council meeting and been given the reassurance that his questions would be answered. He questioned the figures in the report about the Ray Mill Road East project and the expenditure around the sale and development of projects. As the discussion made reference to this weeks Council meeting and the accusations made the Chairman asked Cllr Baldwin to either condemn those who made the accusations or ask them to report them to the police.
Cllr Baldwin also asked questions about the reserve allocations and the movement between the draft budget and the papers provided tonight in the different allocation of reserves. As there was confusion about the references made in the report and page number the Lead Member said a written reply would be provided if Cllr Hilton sent in his detailed question.
Cllr Baldwin also mentioned that he supported the pat reward and the proposal for member increase go to panel for consideration, however he asked about the assumptions made about inflation rates and where there risks and contingencies for increased inflation built into the budget. He was informed that with regards to inflation this was built into and shown in the MTFS. Each contract would have inflation implications built into them and with regards to utilities this was shown in the report.
Cllr Baldwin mentioned as his detailed questions could not be answered this evening he would email them to the Lead Member and Director of Resources and asked for reassurance that he would get a reply. He was informed that if he emailed in his question then he would get a reply.
Cllr Price mentioned that because of a bereavement Cllr Jones was not able to attend this meeting, the Chairman asked for his condolences be given to Cllr Jones.
Cllr Price mentioned that she welcomed the £140k being given to the arts in the budget but asked how this was possible as members had been informed that any amendments or additions to the draft budget had to be made by showing how they would be funded by either removing funding from elsewhere or showing income generation. The Executive Director for Resources replied that there had been an underspend in this years budget that she had agreed to be set aside for this new proposal for one year only.
Cllr Price also mentioned that she was please to see more community groups being contacted to take part in the consultation but there was litte detail about their responses in the appendix, she asked if more detail would be in the Council report. The Director for Resouce said that a summary had been inluded in the Cabinet report as the consultation had only recently ended, more detail would be in the Council appendix.
Cllr Price went on the mention the newly announced £150 being given by the Government via Council Tax to help families during this increased cost of living. She raised concern that due to the changes in Council Tax this money would be wiped off for those on low income whilst those that may not need it as much would get the benefit. It was not right that those in the most need would not get the benefits of the payment. She asked if there were sufficient staff to help support those in need.
The Director replied that the £150 was a new announcement and that there were waiting for further detail from the Government on how it would be issued. The funds were not linked to Council Tax, they were just using the data. The money would be received by those in need. The Council also had hardship schemes and were working on bring this information on one place on the website that people and agencies could easily access. There was a project looking into supporting those in need and new officers to help.
Cllr Price mentioned that building control had been brought back in house and asked if more services would be brought back in house and if so was there provision for this in the budget. She also asked if the budget was aligned to the corporate plan to allow projects to be resources and completed. The Chairman said that with regards to insourcing this was done on a case by case basis looking at what the best solution was and yes if appropriate they would be funded. He also confirmed that the budget would support the corporate plan.
Cllr Sharpe said that there was £40m capital spend in the budget and asked how much of this was for the southern wards. He also mentioned that £30m was being spent on a new car park in Maidenhead. The Lead Member replied that there was £200k in the budget for the wards mentioned and a further £316k for improved crossing on the A329. With regards to the car park this was a decision made in the past regarding Maidenhead Regeneration.
Cllr Larcombe made reference to a number of budget lines within the report regarding funding towards flood schemes. He highlighted section 2.4.6 The River Thames Environment Agency Scheme. He read out the paragraph were the Council had agreed in April 2015 at a cost of £10,000,000 to support the scheme. There was budget provision of £9,100,000 over the next two financial years. The report said that the scheme would cost £60m over three years. This was not funded but there was no mention in the report that the project would no longer go ahead. The Lead Member replied that when the Council said it would support the scheme this was on the condition of commitment and funding from Government, this did not happen.
Cllr Del Campo said she was pleased to see the proposals for funding for the arts, but was concerned that members had been kept in the dark. She mentioned that on numerous occasions she had requested that this be brought to Communities O&S Panel on a number of times but had been told it was not the appropriate time. She requested that the consultants report be brought to O&S and that all parties worked together on finding solutions for funding beyond next year. The Chairman replied that he was happy to have cross party working and that it was a shame Cllr Werner did not join us this evening, he was pleased that Cllr Del Campo supported the proposals. With regards to the topic going to the O&S Panel he would mention this to the Chairman but it was for the Panel to set their own work programme.
Cllr Tisi referred to Cllr Clerks comments that the walking and cycling initiatives were being funded by the council. She questioned that if grant funding was not forthcoming would some of the schemes be scaled back. She was informed that the schemes were funded as planned if additional grant funding became available then the schemes would be enhanced.
Cllr Bhangra mentioned that he supported the report, it was an excellent paper and a balanced budget. He welcomed the amendment and the funding for the arts.
The Lead Member for Finance and Ascot concluded by saying he accepted the thanks for all the hard work of the Finance Team. A balanced budget had been produced in the backdrop of very testing times.
Resolved unanimously: that Cabinet:
Appendix 1 – Revenue Budget
That Cabinet considered and recommends that Council approves:
i) The 2022/23 Net Budget of £103.346m consisting of:
a. The proposed new growth in service budgets of £5.449m as set out in Annex D to Appendix 1; plus an additional £0.140m growth in the Arts budget recommended by Cabinet.
b. The proposed new opportunities and savings of £3.396m as set out in Annex E to Appendix 1;
i) Council Tax:
a. A Council Tax Requirement of £82.493m.
b. A Band D charge of £1,164.99 for the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead in 2022/23, reflecting an overall increase of 2.99%, based on:
i. A 1.99% increase in base Council Tax taking the charge to £1,025.90 for 2022/23;
ii. An additional 1% to reflect an increase in the Adult Social Care Precept which is proposed as £139.09;
c. The Special Expenses Precept increases by £0.67(1.99%) to £34.57 for 2022/23 for the unparished areas of Windsor and Maidenhead in accordance with Section 35 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as set out in Annex F to Appendix 1;
ii) Schools Budget:
a. The allocation of the £140.607m Dedicated Schools Grant as set out in Annex G to Appendix 1, and delegated authority be given to the Executive Director of Children’s Services and S151 officer in consultation with the Cabinet Members for Finance and Adult Social Care, Children’s and Health Services to amend the total schools’ budget to reflect the actual Dedicated Schools Grant levels once received;
iv) Delgated authority to the Grants Panel to award community grants (capital and Kidwells Trust) for the 2022/23 annual round and publish the decisions following the Grants Panel.
Appendix 2 – Fees and Charges
That Cabinet considered and recommends that Council approves:
iii) The Fees and Charges for 2022/23 as set out in Annex A to Appendix 2.
iv) Delegated authority is extended to the Executive Director for Adults, Health and Commissioning, in liaison with the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Health, Mental Health and Children’s Services, to set the Direct Payments Standard Rate (p20 of Annex A to Appendix 2).
Appendix 3 – Capital
That Cabinet considered and recommends that Council approves:
v) The Capital Strategy 2022/23 – 2024/25 as set out in Annex A to Appendix 3 of this report. A draft was considered by Audit and Governance Committee on 21st October 2021.
vi) The consolidated Capital Programme for 2021/22 – 2024/25 in Annex B1-3 to Appendix 3 of this report, including previously approved schemes and proposed new schemes as set out in Annexes B4 & B5 to Appendix 3 of this report.
iii) Capital programme slippage to date from 2021/22 to 2022/23 as detailed in Annex B6to Appendix 3.
Appendix 4 – Treasury Management
That Cabinet considered and recommends that Council approves:
vii) The Council’s Treasury Management Strategy for 2022/23 as set out in Appendix 4 of this report, including
a. The proposed Lending Counterparty Criteria;
b. the continuation of the current Minimum Revenue Provision Policy for 2022/23.
A draft was considered by Audit and Governance Committee on 21st October 2021.
viii) The Council’s Treasury Management Policies as set out in Annex A to Appendix 4 of this report;
ix) The Council’s Prudential Indicators as set out in Annex B to Appendix 4 of this report
Appendix 5 – Pay Policy Statement
That Cabinet considered and recommends that Council approves:
x) The Council’s updated Pay Policy Statement Strategy for 2022/23 as set out in Appendix 5 of this report, noting that Sections 2.9, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 of that appendix will be updated following Council’s decision regarding the 2022 staff pay award.
Appendix 6 – Proposed Pay Award
That Cabinet considered and recommends that Council approves:
xi) A pay award of 2% from 1 April 2022 for all staff paid on RBWM local pay scales.
xii) An increase in Members’ Allowances of 2% in line with the employee pay award, as required by Section 17 of the Members’ Allowances Scheme.
xiii) and requests the Independent Remuneration Panel review the indexation element of the scheme and report back to full Council.
Appendix 7 – Feedback from the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel / Public Consultation
That Cabinet considered and had due regard to the contents of Appendix 7 and recommends that Council also gives it due regard.
Supporting documents:
PDF 8 MB