To consider a report in relation to the above

Members considered the Council budget for 2016/17.

The Lead Member for Finance thanked all officers for their hard work and diligence that made the budget possible. He thanked all Members, in particular those newly elected in May 2015, as the budget was a joint effort. He highlighted that Andrew Brooker, the Head of Finance, was leaving at the end of March 2016. Mr Brooker had been with the borough for almost 20 years and was a fantastic officer.

The Lead Member explained that the budget was based on three pillars:

·         Low taxation. The borough had the lowest council tax outside of London and believed deeply that residents were taxed on the money they earned and should not be taxed again.

·         Protection of the most vulnerable. Investments were being made in adult social care and children’s services.

·         Investing for the future. The council was investing to make the borough a better place to live. The council was working to build the tax base to enable this to happen.

The budget was set against a challenging settlement from central government. In 2015/16 the grant was £28.7m; this would reduce by 45% to £15.1m by 2019/20. Yet again council tax was being frozen at a Band D level of £906.95. In real terms this was a reduction of 0.8% as RPI was 0.8% in September 2015. In nominal terms this represented a reduction of 12.6% over seven years or 31.4% in real terms. The council was taking the opportunity to introduce the 2% Adult Social Care precept. To achieve the freeze, savings of £5.7m had been identified with a further £14.6m in the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) to 2019/20. This has been achieved through efficiencies rather than cuts to frontline services.

The capital programme totalled £25m, of which £15m was corporately funded. Expansion of secondary schools would use £2.5m, which formed part of an overall programme for school expansion totalling £20m.

To achieve its objectives the council had to build its tax base. The assumption was for the equivalent of 1000 band D properties to be built every year in the borough. The council had invested £680,000 from the development fund in the Borough Local Plan process.

The government settlement had been so severe that the treasury had reconsidered and had subsequently provided £500m of transition grant funding. The borough would receive £1.3m for each of 2016/17 and 2018/19. This funding would be passed to the development fund.

The Opposition Spokesperson, Councillor Mrs Jones offered her thanks to the officers for their hard work to produce budget and to Andrew Brooker, the finance team and the Directors for their time. She explained that, as in previous years the Opposition did not consider providing an alternative budget to be a proper use of the council’s limited resources given the large majority the current administration held.

She had stood at the Council meeting in 2015 and asked for a freeze on council tax because of service pressures, but as always there were speeches full of self congratulation and the council tax reduction of 2.1% was voted through. This year the administration was proposing an increase, not a freeze, of 2% on the amount a resident paid to the council to provide services.  If her recommendation had been accepted then the council would have been in the same place but it would not have had to renege on the manifesto promise to limit council tax rises at or below the rate of inflation.

 

Councillor Mrs Jones highlighted that last year (and in 2014) she had raised concerns that the budget was not viable in future years, that central funding would continue to reduce and that costs relating to adult social care, children’s services and waste management would continue to rise. This was even detailed on page 218 of the 15/16 budget paper within a graph from The Independent Commission on Local Government Finance. Councillor Walters said he felt it was ludicrous that anyone should vote against the proposed budget or abstain. Councillor Bicknell said the problems she had highlighted were ‘ill-conceived’ and that ‘a balanced budget had been produced this year and next year would be no different’. Councillor Evans said her speech was ‘full of doom and gloom’ and that every year the council had delivered.

 

This year it didn’t; the only way the books were balanced was by raiding the council’s reserves. Adult social care had overspent the original budget by £2.1m so far. Last year the administration had estimated that costs (service pressures) for 16/17 would rise by £1.4m; the figure in the paper had increased to £5.2m. The Medium Term Plan now also highlighted that to balance the budget, even with a 2% increase in council tax each year, the council would have to make additional savings of £57m over the next 4 years, a huge jump from last year’s forecasted 18m.

 

There was a move towards outsourcing or services run by other councils/companies. The council must ensure that all elected members could still have the oversight and influence on service that was expected by their residents and not relinquish this responsibility in the search for reducing cost.

 

Councillor Mrs Jones was of the view that administration was blinkered to the risks by the glory of being able to boast of a sixth year of reductions, and was now trying to gloss over the huge pressure put on officers to achieve unattainable savings targets. Anyone could stand up and give a list of achievements but unless it was also acknowledged where it had gone wrong then it could never be a transparent council.

 

Councillor Mrs Jones highlighted that there had been:

 

·         A full year unbudgeted cost of £2.8m in adult social care

·         £300,000 unbudgeted costs to cover the production of the Borough Local Plan (initially scheduled for April 2015 but still not completed, with huge financial implications regarding the inability to collect any Community Infrastructure Levy contributions at the present time)

·         £1.5m of redundancy costs since 2012 that were not included in the budget but again came from reserves.

·         Staff costs saved by delaying filling vacancies, adding to pressure on remaining officers and service levels.

 

The planning department has been under-resourced for several years. Last year Councillor Hilton applauded the fact that the number of planning applications had risen, saying it had shown confidence from developers. It was a shame that the department had not got the resources to cope with that demand and extra costs had been incurred by the need to outsource the registration of applications to address the backlog. Councillor Mrs Jones stated that last year she had highlighted that extra resources, such as consultants, would be needed to mitigate the risks of the Borough Local Plan not being in place. No extra funding was detailed and £300,000 was later funded from reserves.

 

The administration had a manifesto commitment to increase the number of community wardens from 18 to 36. Councillor Mrs Jones commented that there had not been an increase yet and again there was no funding detailed in the current budget year to move this forwards. She questioned where the funding would come from?

 

If Members supported the recommendations included in the budget then a resident that moved into the borough when the administration had taken control of the council would have seen a reduction in council tax for a Band D property of £68.89 per year or £1.32 per week. If that resident wished to renew their season parking pass for Home Park, Windsor in the next year it would cost them an extra £75 per year; Romney Lock would mean an extra £100 per year. This could be considered a stealth tax, and certainly not a fair tax as, according to officers, the residents’ Advantage Card did not apply when purchasing season tickets. These residents would be between £6 and £30 worse off next year, but it would bring £300,000 into the council’s coffers.  At Cabinet she had been told that the season ticket rise was only £2 per week. In the words of Councillor Brimacombe at the budget meeting last year ‘It is a dangerous and arrogant path that leads councils to assume that any increase is a good thing and any reduction is not’.

 

In her second year of responding to the budget Councillor Saunders commented that the reason the Conservatives increased council tax in their first two years was because they had to contend with ‘a £1m black hole of fatuous savings and increases in parking charges on residents’. Councillor Mrs Jones commented that history was repeating itself. This budget had had to write back into accounts ‘fatuous savings’ that enabled council tax cuts in recent years, for instance a £300,000 black hole from the unrealised savings regarding combining roles into a generic Community Officer.

 

On a personal note, Councillor Mrs Jones commented that she had been highlighting the increased pressures on adult social care so of course she supported the increase in council tax to ensure that the council provided its statutory services. She noted that the Medium Term Plan included raising council tax by 2% for the next four years. She had concerns over the lack of detail as to how the council would fund resources going forward without depleting reserves. The Administration was looking to sell assets, but that could only be done once and any future council would not have the luxury to subsidise council tax .

 

Given that the council was now in receipt of an extra £1.2m from the transitional grant she requested a commitment to:

 

·        reconsider the increase in parking charges

·        put detail into the funding of community wardens

·        ensure that funding was in place so that the  planning department had adequate resources to deliver a prompt service to the residents and also to deliver the Borough Local Plan

 

This would justify her support for the recommendations in the paper; if that commitment could not be made then she would have no choice but to abstain.

 

Councillor Sharma explained the philosophy and vision of the council. He was a great believer in the economic theory of Adam Smith contained in ‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations’ (1776). When people were given the freedom to be the best they could be, the result was both poor and rich had a better economic situation. The poor won in a free trade economy; it was not the role of government to make all richer. The distribution of wealth could work effectively with the absence of government interference. It was a good thing that people were living longer but this placed additional demands on adult social care. To cover this the council had opted to introduce the 2% precept. Freezing of core council tax showed consistency in policy. The council was able to deliver innovative solutions to deal with the new financial realities of the world.

 

Councillor Coppinger explained that the council intended to raise £1.19m for adult social care by taking advantage of the 2% ring fenced precept. The council was also increasing the total amount spent by £4.3m. The borough population over age 65 had increased by 8% since 2011, the borough population over 85 years of age had increased by 17% over the same period. 30% of those age over 65 lived alone and therefore had to turn to a third party support. A Supreme Court ruling in 2015 had increased cost pressures by making councils responsible for the assessment of individuals in residential care homes. The council could have increased charges and fees and reduced services, but it had not. The homecare cost remained at £16 per hour. The council was actually investing in better services, for example outcome based commissioning.

 

The council was working with Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) to provide better services for older residents through a combined budget of £2.5bn. The borough put residents first. He did not feel that £18 extra per year for a Band D property to fund services for vulnerable residents was too much to ask.

 

Councillor D. Wilson commented that councils across the country were having to cut services and raise council tax. This council was able to freeze council tax and still provide services to residents. He highlighted £3m funding for the Waterways project and additional funding for the Broadway Opportunity area. When companies were relocating to Maidenhead from the City of London, this was a huge plus for the town. Councillor D. Wilson explained that s106 was still being collected. The council’s CIL proposals would be considered at examination on 3 March 2106. The Borough Local Plan was in progress for a submission by the end of September 2016. The council was using external consultants to deal with planning applications because of the increase in volume as more people wanted to live in the borough.

 

Councillor Bicknell highlighted the council’s commitment to the education of young people, in particular:

 

·         An additional £300,000 for home to school transport to deal with growth and those pupils needing to attend special schools outside the borough.

·         £.5m to start the expansion programme for secondary schools.

·         £300,000 for buildings at Wraysbury school including replacement of the heating system.

·         £200,000 for a feasibility study for a satellite grammar school.

·         £100,000 for a new Schools Participatory Budget programme.

 

The Department for Education had increased the Direct Schools Grant in line with the growth in the number of children in borough schools. A further £250,000 had been secured for pupils with special educational needs.

 

Councillor McWilliams highlighted the investment of £500,000 for Cox Green School. The national government position was the need to bring down the national debt. Local authorities needed to play their part; this council was by implementing savings. The grant had been cut by 45% but the reallocation of business rates was also being considered. By improving the local economy it was hoped the council would be able to keep more funding. The budget was a remarkable performance in light of the settlement, in particular the 31% reduction in real terms. This had put millions back into the local economy. The council had controlled finance by identifying savings such as the £475,000 in energy savings. Investments in the local economy included £3m for the Waterways project, £2.9m for the Broadway area, £2.5m for expansion of schools and £1.9m for adult social care.

 

Councillor Kellaway thanked Andrew Brooker for his support during the three years he had been Lead Member for Finance. Rigorous discipline had allowed six years of council tax reductions. Parking charges would be increased this year; he urged residents to use their Advantage Card wherever they could. In his capacity as a member of the Maidenhead Town Partnership Board he requested an eye be kept on charges in Maidenhead on a Sunday whilst the retail offer was still fragile.

 

Councillor Werner highlighted the self-congratulatory nature of budget meetings and commented he would join in this year. He highlighted that Councillor Mrs Jones had in 2015 predicted an adult social care overspend of £2m, which had come out at £2.1m. He hoped therefore that the Lead Member would involve Councillor Mrs Jones in budget discussions. He praised Councillor Coppinger for admitting the council had got it wrong in last year’s budget and welcomed the realisation that adult social care needed to be financed. In overview, Councillor Werner commented that the council seemed to be running out of revenue funding and be moving to selling assets, for example the land at Deerswood. He had also heard at Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel that Maidenhead Golf club may be up for sale. The council owned land at Reform Road and he therefore presumed a plan would be developed for the site. Selling of assets was not by nature bad but could only be done once. S106 had previously been a source of funding. He had heard a rumour that a lot of development in Maidenhead town centre would not have CIL paid on it, which was a serious concern as the infrastructure was not in place to support new homes.  Council tax was being increased by 2%. He often named budgets and suggested this one would be called the ’morning after’ budget.

 

Councillor D. Evans highlighted that the burden of taxation was being moved from central government onto the local taxpayer. Virtually every council was collecting the 2% precept which would raise £370m nationally. He compared this to the £350m that the UK paid to the EU Commission each week, which was then spent with out any democratic accountability. The EU auditor had said that £15m of this was either misspent or fraudulently spent. The referendum was an opportunity to regain control of our money.

 

Councillor Burbage commented that this was a great budget by a great local authority. In many previous years claims had been made about the unsustainability of council tax and these had proved to be completely false. In relation to the sale of assets, if an asset was taken for a capital sum that was the end of the matter, however the council was using its assets to generate revenue and therefore support lowering the council tax burden for residents. Faced with the challenges of a lower grant, rising costs and rising demands for services the council was the only Berkshire authority and one of few in the country to be able to freeze core council tax at a level the lowest outside London. Councillor Burbage referred to statutory Instrument 118 of 2016 which detailed the precept. It was therefore not part of core council tax although he recognised it was a charge to the tax payer. He highlighted that in 2008/09 the borough council tax was £200 lower than that of Reading. Since then the borough had reduced its charge by £100 whereas Reading had increased its by £200. There was therefore now a difference of £500.

 

Councillor Burbage commented that it had been a pleasure to chair the Fire Authority working party last year. With the support of Councillors Bicknell, Lenton and Mrs Bateson, the precept for the authority was only to increase by 1%. This was likely to be the lowest increase across combined fire authorities in the country. He highlighted that under the previous Liberal Democrat administration council tax had risen by 24.3% whereas it had fallen by 31% in real terms under the Conservatives.

 

Councillor Mrs Airey stated that, on behalf of the children and young people of the Borough she was very pleased to support the Lead Member’s budget this year. She specifically wanted to thank the Lead Member for always taking account of the needs of the less vocal residents, children and young people, who were not able to vote.

Over the last few years the administration had constantly reinforced its commitment to supporting children and young people and vulnerable families, for example: 

·         In 2013/14 an additional £330,000 (Safeguarding placements £200,000; Troubled Families £130,000)

·         In 2014/15 an additional £500,000 (Safeguarding placements £340,000; Social Workers £160,000)

·         In 2015/16 an additional £384,000 to reduce social work caseloads

·         In 2016/17 an additional £240,000 for safeguarding placements

Over the last four years, over £2m of additional resources had been diverted to working with children, young people, families and the most vulnerable. This additional resource had meant that the council could employ additional social workers, ensuring case loads were at an appropriate level so staff had the time to work  intensively with families.  The council had invested in its fostering system, ensuring foster parents were rewarded appropriately for the work they undertook on the council’s collective behalf, and ensured that additional resources were available to fund high cost placements for very vulnerable young adolescents. 

The increases were set against savings, which in the main had been delivered through efficiencies such as management realignment, contract renegotiation and joining together of service areas to deliver more holistic support services to families, such as children’s centres and parenting workers. Alongside these changes Children’s Services was continuing to improve operational practice, which would support further efficiencies in the future.  For instance the change in practice through the establishment of the MASH.  The MASH was now live with all parties co-located in the Town Hall. In other parts of the country where MASHs had been running for longer, they had proven to impact more quickly on lives.  There was national evidence to confirm the earlier you impacted on lives, turning lives around, the less cost there was to the state. The support for the MASH would affect in the future the level of demand, hence reducing costs, but more importantly it would enable some of the most vulnerable residents to flourish.

Councillor Mrs Airey had recently attended the Youth Annual Achievement Awards evening run by youth services.  Hundreds of young people and their families attended to collect their award to recognise their achievement.  She had also been impressed with the level of volunteering that was taking place by adult residents in supporting young people.  Investment in the youth service provided huge value for money as this secured the support of 59 volunteers, who supported a diverse range of young people.  She confirmed that the resource being invested in Children’s Service in 2016/17 would ensure the council continued to deliver to residents a range of services and also maintain its safeguarding services.

Councillor Rankin highlighted a number of important commitments to Windsor in the capital programme, in particular enhancements at Alexandra Gardens. These included a new bandstand and £100,000 to enhance the entrance to the park and the riverside area. High quality public realm projects in Charles Street, Peascod Place, Bachelors Acre and Chariots Place were also in place. The council had committed to support the Theatre Royal. Funding was also in the budget to ensure frontline services at York House.

Councillor Rayner highlighted projects in his portfolio area:

·         £150,000 for flood prevention

·         £285,000 for the lower Thames Flood Relief Strategy

·         £1.6m resurfscing programme

·         £500,000 for Maidenhead Station Interchange

·         £550,000 for Jesus Hospital Bridge

·         £30,000 for the A4 cycle route

·         £250,000 for Windsor Primary School.

He explained that 63 of 64 schemes in the council’s road resurfacing scheme were complete. The budget was £1.6m and £1.5m had been spent. The balance of funding was to be spent on pre-patching works in advance of the 2016/17 programme. Approximately 130 resident parking schemes had been delivered within approved budget. A number of traffic management schemes had been delivered within budget. A new roundabout at Cookham Road / Ray Mill Road West had been delivered within budget, with a saving of £6,000. The overall Highways & Transport revenue budget was projected to deliver savings against a budget of £150,000within 2015/16.

In relation to parking charges, he explained that they were reviewed every year but usually only increased every other year. There had been no increase in season ticket costs since 2010. Tickets could bought on a quarterly or monthly basis so there was no need for all the money up front. The increase was equal to a cup of coffee a week in McDonalds. In comparison to other Berkshire authorities, the borough still had the lowest season ticket price.  Residents could use Advantage Cards for a discount on the first three hours of parking in council car parks. If this were applied to season tickets which were valid all day, the discount would have to be excluded for all tariffs.

Councillor Cox highlighted the investment of £3.7m next year and the year after to replace street lights with LED lamps. The council had looked at re-procurement contracts including for waste disposal. Waste was being transferred to an energy for waste plant rather than costly landfill. This had resulted in a cost saving in conjunction with a maintained weekly bin collection and improved recycling rates. Cabinet on 25 February 2016 would consider continuing with the night-time economy pilot in Windsor, which had been a success. The manifesto commitment to increase the number of community wardens would then follow. It would be wrong to put a figure in the budget at this stage when it had not yet been worked out how this could best be delivered.

Councillor Lenton thanked Andrew Brooker, Head of Finance, particularly in relation to the administration of the Berkshire Pension Fund. He thanked the Lead Member on behalf of the people of Wraysbury for the staff facilities at the primary school, proposals for Wraysbury Bridge and dredging of the vital flood relief channels. He also highlighted the council’s commitment to the River Thames programme.

Councillor Grey thanked the Lead Member on behalf of Datchet. He commented on the improved cycle route, a bus service to Windsor, rehousing of a number of residents who had fallen on hard times, with excellent back up from adult social care. All major roads had been resurfaced or improved. Riverside investment included benches, lighting, a restored fountain, fencing and planting.

Councillor Mrs Bateson commented that each of the ten neighbourhood Plans were given £20,000 to develop their plan to the point of resident consultation. In Ascot and the Sunnings the council had invested into refurbishment of Victory Field, a new roundabout at the Berystede crossroads and improvements in Sunningdale High Street. Councillor Mrs Batson commented that these were tough times for local authorities, however all had to share the burden to get he country back to stability. The council had made savings through efficiencies, smarter working and listening to residents.  Where other councils were making cuts, the borough had been prudent and was still able to open new buildings such as schools and libraries.

Councillor Saunders stated that the budget added to the success of the administration. Despite the efforts of the opposition achievements had been made in the absence of any major concerns. The deployment of a ringfenced budget was actually a Liberal Democrat approach, for example the pupil premium.

Councillor Ed Wilson commented that the pupil premium was one of the most important figures in the budget as it helped schools bridge the gap in attainment. A condition of the funding was that schools were required to tell the council how they were using the funding and how effective it was. Unfortunately not all schools provided this level of reporting. He suggested a conference of schools be convened to discuss how the money was spent, reported and recorded. The Children’s Overview and Scrutiny Panel regularly called on schools to come forward and tell the Panel what they were doing with the money. In relation to Dedworth, Councillor Ed Wilson highlighted the new park and Astroturf. He called the budget a ‘builder’s budget’.

Councillor Beer stated that the opposition was very constructive and highlighted the work in conjunction with colleagues on Overview and Scrutiny Panels. He commented that in the first two years of the administration council tax had risen, but all the focus was on the following six years. He agreed with the comments of Councillor Rayner in relation to funding for the Lower Thames Scheme. Councils were being asked to provide funding to deal with discharge from higher up the Thames in the Cotswolds, therefore he felt this should be a national charge. The planning department was under staffed and was not able to cope with the number of applications coming in. The Local Plan was getting on for a being a year out of date as it had not been adequately resourced. The council was therefore losing out on CIL. Nothing had been done about potential housing problems related to the extra runway at Heathrow. In relation to the Stafferton Way contract, it had been said this was complete yet works were still ongoing. There were claims in the background that costs were above contract price. The project was not on time or budget.

Councillor Rayner commented that the Stafferton way Link Road had been 30 years in the planning, and was now delivered. Some changes had been needed during construction due to requests from residents. This included making the bridge wider for the Waterways project, extra lighting and improved sound barriers. The project may therefore be slightly over budget but a road had been built that councils for decades had not achieved.

The Lead Member for Finance commented that he liked campaigning because residents could see the product of the council’s hard work. He had moved to the borough 25 years ago, bought a house and brought up his family. The council’s aim was to give others the opportunity to do the same, including the facilitating of the building of homes. The council had spent more money to protect the most vulnerable last year and would continue to do the same. He proposed an additional recommendation to award Willows Mobile Home Park an additional grant of £8125 to improve disabled facilities at the social club. He highlighted the cumulative savings for the council tax payer over the last seven years as detailed on page 246 of the report. The council was expanding popular schools and opening new schools so that every child could have the opportunity to achieve their maximum potential. The local government settlement had caused huge distress in some councils. Some had had to go cap in hand or state they would have to close services. The borough was instead able to put the transition funding into the Development Fund.

Councillor Mrs Jones reiterated the issues she required a commitment on, to determine how she would vote on the budget. The Lead Member responded that it was for Mrs Jones to make her mind up how to vote.

It was proposed by Councillor Dudley, seconded by Councillor Sharma, and:

 

RESOLVED: That:

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 £325k to the budget for Disabled Facilities Grant once demand for those grants has been established and to add a £325k increase in Disabled Facilities Grant to the Better Care Fund (see paragraph 3.40).
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 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 Willows Mobile Home Park be awarded an additional grant of £8125 to improve disabled facilities at the social club.

(44 Councillors voted in favour of the motion: Michael Airey, Natasha Airey, Malcolm Alexander, Christine Bateson, Hashim Bhatti, Phillip Bicknell, John Bowden, Paul Brimacombe, Clive Bullock, David Burbage, Gerald Clark, John Collins, David Coppinger, Carwyn Cox, Simon Dudley, David Evans, Lilly Evans, Jesse Grey, Geoffrey Hill, David Hilton, Charles Hollingsworth, Maureen Hunt, Mohammed Ilyas, Richard Kellaway, John Lenton, Sayonara Luxton, Ross McWilliams, Marion Mills, Gary Muir, Eileen Quick, Jack Rankin, Colin Rayner, Samantha Rayner, Wesley Richards, MJ Saunders, Hari Sharma, Shamsul Shelim, Adam Smith, John Story, Claire Stretton, Lisa Targowska, Derek Wilson, Ed Wilson and Lynda Yong. 1 Councillor, Malcolm Beer, voted against of the motion. Two Councillors, Lynne Jones and Simon Werner, abstained.)