To consider the Council’s proposed revenue and capital budgets for 2024/25 and the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) through to 2028/29.

 

The appendices summarised in the report and appended to it provide detailed information in each of the areas and all form part of the plans in the short to medium term:

·       Appendix A Council Plan

·       Appendix B Response to budget consultation

·       Appendix C MTFS & MTFS graph

·       Appendix D Growth

·       Appendix E Efficiencies

·       Appendix F Fees and Charges

·       Appendix G Flexible Use of Capital Receipts

·       Appendix H Capital Strategy

·       Appendix I Capital Bids 2024/25 and Consolidated Capital Programme

·       Appendix J Detail of Highways and Footways capital expenditure

·       Appendix K Treasury Strategy

·       Appendix L Dedicated schools grant

·       Appendix M RBWM Pay Policy

·       Appendix N EQIAs

·       Appendix O Report of the CFO

·       Appendix P Minutes of the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny committee

 

As recommended by Cabinet, Council is asked to consider all the information provided and approve the council’s approach to balancing the budget.

As recommended by Cabinet, Council was asked to consider all the information provided and approve the council’s approach to balancing the budget. The Council considered the proposed revenue and capital budgets for 2024/25 and the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) through to 2028/29. The appendices summarised in the agenda report and appended to it provided detailed information in each of the areas and all form part of the plans in the short to medium term:

·          Appendix A Council Plan

·          Appendix B Response to budget consultation

·          Appendix C MTFS & MTFS graph

·          Appendix D Growth

·          Appendix E Efficiencies

·          Appendix F Fees and Charges

·          Appendix G Flexible Use of Capital Receipts

·          Appendix H Capital Strategy

·          Appendix I Capital Bids 2024/25 and Consolidated Capital Programme

·          Appendix J Detail of Highways and Footways capital expenditure

·          Appendix K Treasury Strategy

·          Appendix L Dedicated schools grant

·          Appendix M RBWM Pay Policy

·          Appendix N EQIAs

·          Appendix O Report of the CFO

·          Appendix P Minutes of the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny committee

 

Councillor Jones, Deputy Leader and Cabinet member for Finance was invited to propose the 14 recommendations, as listed on page 32 of the agenda.

 

Councillor Jones introduced the budget explaining that it would support the vision and aims in the new Corporate Plan which would kick start the transformation of services that would ensure the viability of the Council. She observed that although many councils across the country were setting budgets in a challenging environment of increases in social care demand and costs, interest rates and contract costs this Council also had to deal with the legacy of decisions such as low council tax and capital spending which both had a long-lasting effect on their spending power. She stated that the Council had £322 per resident which meant less to spend on services, lower than the average of comparable councils and this was reflected in the impact on increases to fees and charges in order to support the provision of services.

 

She reported that the outgoing Section 151 Officer had warned the previous February that due to the levels of savings identified the council needed to “assure itself that there are robust plans and processes to deliver and report on the delivery of savings during 2023/24”. She had been concerned that continual non-achievable savings plans were being presented by the previous administration and this had now been proven to be correct and statutory costs under budgeted which reduced reserves by half in the last year.

 

She explained that they had taken a different approach to the budget by starting from the bottom up, calculating current demands, costs, income and looking at trends to strengthen their confidence in the numbers used and addressed issues as they were found. Plans were in place to provide growth of nearly £10m and savings of £7.5 and, unlike the budget approved last February, there was appropriate resources to achieve the targets as well as improved procedures to ensure that there was the capability to monitor the budget.

 

Councillor Jones continued that they were investing just under £50m into Adult Social Care and Health which included supporting vulnerable residents as they left hospital to reduce the risk of care home placements and addressing the real issues around recruitment and retention of permanent staff. They were investing nearly £30m into Childrens Services and were prioritising Family Hubs. £7.5m would be invested in highways, paths, bridges and street lighting as they acknowledged the impact those areas had on public safety. An investment in just over £1m in additional officer posts was to ensure effective services, adherence to legislation and cost savings.

 

She stated that they were aware of the cost-of-living crisis and had retained the Council Tax reduction scheme and now had two Financial Inclusion officers that could support the poorest and those ‘just managing’ residents. The ‘Here to Help’ service, that brought together the areas of financial support available, was an excellent resource for residents. Officers and councillors continued to work with the borough’s voluntary organisations to support residents across the borough.

 

She reflected that the statement by the lead member for Finance in 2019 that the Council could choose to be ‘debt free’, including the pension deficit, in the medium term future had not happened. There had been no reduction in the £200m debt in the last four years and no receipt expected in the next four years to reduce the debt. The cost of this borrowing was estimated to reach £13m which was 11% of the budget that could not be spent on services.

 

In both this years Revenue budget, and the Medium Term Financial Strategy, officers had made assumptions based on trend analysis and using best information available regarding forward factors. Given the estimated low reserves they had increased the contingency budget from £2.4m last year to £3.6m and the intent was to add any unused contingency into reserves in April 2025.

 

The capital receipts expected from large scale projects would help reduce Capital Financing requirement e.g. debt but, based on historical agreements, the income from those would not be realised within the next four years, and were impacted by the amount of interest the Council was paying until the receipts were received.

 

Councillor Jones explained that Appendix D, E, F & H identified Growth, Efficiencies, Fees and charges and Capital spend. The most notable Growth was £5.2m in Adult Social Care and £2.6m in Childrens Social Care to address the inadequacies in the 23/24 budget.

 

In the last decade Social Care had increased from being 54% of the Council’s net revenue expenditure to 77%, which greatly impacted other services, but they were are also seeing increased funding in other areas. The Council was spending:

·       £130k for tree inspection & maintenance

·       £2.5m to cut carbon emissions and save money on energy consumption

·       £1m on provision improvement for Special Educational Needs

·       £300k investment in our asset portfolio to attract improved rental,

·       £200k investment in transforming the Health Suite at Windsor Leisure Centre

·       £310k of funding for identified remedial works to Braywick Leisure Centre

None of which would incur borrowing.

 

She continued that Capital spend was being restricted to the necessary infrastructure, funded by external grants which therefore reduced the need for borrowing. They were ensuring that they prioritised any schemes coming forward that delivered a healthy return.

The Treasury Strategy (Appendix K) highlights the importance of the Council’s cashflows, borrowing and investments. Large amounts of unfunded borrowing had left the authority with around £200m of debt. They were continuing to enhance processes to produce better quality forecasts to inform future management decisions and support was already in place to strengthen both capacity and capability.

 

There were some recommendations from Corporate Scrutiny that have been considered by Cabinet and feedback was given at Cabinet last week.

 

The Chief Financial Officer had set out the risks and mitigations within her report at Appendix O.

 

Councillor Jones concluded that the answer to why they had not issued a Section 114 – this was a statement that they would not be able to cover future costs was because it would not be politically prudent to, but it was a good question and the responsibility lies with the Council’s Chief Financial Officer and not elected members. The professional opinion of the CFO was that there was a plan for a balanced budget, a small reserve, a good contingency built into the budget and a Medium-Term Plan with surpluses being generated. Therefore Government, following a review of our situation, could refuse the Council support on the basis that they were still financially viable.

 

Councillor Jones stated such a decision would damage their reputation and credibility and they were not in that situation at this time. The borough finances were challenging and had taken a serious ‘knock’ following the undeliverable budget set in February 2023 which had necessitated officers and members taking very difficult decisions that they would rather not have taken. Thanks to the Chief Financial Officer and her team, the senior leadership team, Lead members, scrutiny panels and officers across the council they had a challenging but balanced and deliverable budget. She commended the budget to Council.

 

The proposals were seconded by Councillor Werner.

 

Councillor Sharpe replied on behalf of the opposition. He thanked the officers for their hard work in preparing the budget. He commented that 12 months before a budget had been prepared that had over £10 million pounds in reserve and after only ten months in charge the new Administration was admitting that over £6m of reserves had been spent and the other surpluses that had been built up very carefully over previous years were destroyed. He asked how this represented good financial management of residents’ money and stated this was a ‘shambles’. He considered that the proposed budget lacked ambition and a situation where they were spending more and charging residents more and charge our families as much as they can for through rising fees and charges. He commented that a plan was still lacking after nearly a year.

 

He highlighted that the solar panel initiative developed under the previous administration and free parking allowance to all electric vehicles to enhance the green agenda but this had been abolished. He stated that prior to the budget and without consultation they had put up parking charges and was enormous for many residents especially during the cost-of-living crisis. He queried how much consideration had been given to the livelihood of businesses in Maidenhead and Windsor impacted by the increased parking charges and expected to see them decline. He commented on the low number of residents supporting the proposals.

 

He observed that Community Infrastructure Levy was supposed to be paid out to

compensate communities for the additional housing burden in their areas and to provide the necessary infrastructure required by residents in that area whether it was schools, roads for example but instead within Maidenhead it was decided not to levy CIL. Where houses were currently being built in Ascot and Sunningdale there would be a complete change in the community and most of the CIL raised in the south of the borough was being spent in Maidenhead and more non-Ascot based projects benefiting from CIL collected. His residents were furious with the distribution of funds. He stated that had been advised that there was no money for a very inexpensive scheme to alleviate some needed local traffic issues.

 

He concluded it was a ‘shambles’ with a council that had no plan, an Administration that had failed to get a grip of the situation, there were areas of huge spending across this borough and these needed to be managed very carefully to ensure the safety and security of the Council.

 

The Mayor reminded everyone present that each speaker had five minutes to make their points, he asked everyone to listen to the debate and to avoid repeating others.

 

Councillor Werner started by saying that this was not the budget that he wanted to be supporting as his first budget as Leader of the Council. He had known that the finances were in a mess but had no idea quite how fake the last conservative budget had been. He paid tribute to both the councillors and officers for their collegiate approach that with the Liberal Democrats, Independents and officers coming together to sort out the mess. He reflected that he had previously been ignored at each budget meeting so it was satisfying to be able to actually make changes happen to fix the finances.

 

He stated that they had started the process of taking back inhouse where it made sense to do so to provide better value for money and better services for residents, making better use of assets and not just selling them off to benefit developers but rather bringing them back into use.

 

He continued that commercialisation or making better use of the councils skills would bring in revenue such as from the council run a gold standard CCTV control operation. He stated that better procurement and contract management was another complete mess to be fixed with many cases where the contract was effectively left to mark their own homework. They would be expanding the procurement team so they could focus on contract management and hold contractors to account.

 

He commented that his worry was that every time they thought they’d uncovered all the mess they picked up another stone and uncovered something else. The amount of debt collected last year bore no resemblance to the budget and most of all the fake transformation program but this year the transformation was based on reality that the services had proposed to implement.

 

Councillor Werner explained that they had introduced a financial recovery plan for survival and the budget was the next vital step on the way to recovering the finances. He explained that each year he named the budget to appropriately summarise it. There had been the ‘Titanic budget’, the ‘gamblers budget’ and the last ‘fantasy budget’. He concluded that this year’s budget was about fixing the mess so he had determined to call it ‘The Phoenix budget’ with the council rising out of the ashes of 16 years of the previous Administration.

 

Councillor C Da Costa commented that she was very encouraged to hear that they were looking at insourcing again. She believed that bringing adult social care back inhouse would make a saving but also an opportunity generate income by selling that service to neighbouring councils. She was pleased to see that they had not affected the Council Tax support work with many people in financial need having have to pay any more would be devastating for them and mean the difference between having enough electric to cook the food that they had received from the food bank to feed their children. She stated that if the was budget presented in any other circumstances, she did not think she would be happy to support it but she acknowledged these were exceptional times. She ended by saying that depending on the rest of the debate she may be forced to support a budget that she would normally never would.

 

Councillor W Da Costa thanked officers and lead members for their hard work. He stated that Windsor residents and businesses were really not happy about the parking rates in Windsor with businesses reporting that they were losing business to other places. He requested confirmation that Windsor Museum would stay open as residents did not want it to close.

 

He stated there was an amount of obscurity and the lack of transparency within the budget papers as presented due to the lack of detail in the budget as it was not broken down into service areas and headings were too broad to be scrutinised. He queried that there was no balance sheet to consider especially on the long-term debt there was not enough information on reserves. He observed that staffing levels kept being cut and RBWM staff were overworked and underpaid. He asked what was being done to secure external income streams, maximize grants and look at building their trading operations.

 

He asked what the strategy was for increasing council tax and stated that they must hold an open, honest and transparent discussion in public about the impact of low council tax on the borough and lobby the government. He considered that there were flaws in the consultation and the implementation as they were basing the budget on an unapproved Corporate Plan which showed poor ambition on climate change and many other environmental crisis. 

 

The Mayor announced an adjournment commencing at 8.33pm. The meeting re-started at 8.44pm. During the adjournment Councillor Walters left the meeting.

 

Councillor Hill started by thanking officers for their work and diligence in producing the budget. He listed the features the new Administration had been left with: £203m of debts; land values set by developers; Council Tax at £322 per household below neighbouring authority; borrowing money to fund revenue expenditure and non-revenue generating capital projects; Adult Social Care debt of £5.8m with performance targets in customer service doubled due to reduced head count; stagnation of officer pay causing difficulties in recruitment and retention; the real capital receipts from Maidenhead Golf Course reduced from £500m to circa £100m; reduced officer capacity with 75% of staff to do 100% of the work and a budget around £30m per year below what was needed. He queried why the Auditors did not highlight these issues and where were the members of the past Administration. 

 

He continued that despite the challenges they had a balanced budget with double the previous year’s contingency at over £3m. They would still maintain the borough’s streets, bus services and improve cycling and walking routes. He reported that they were increasing footfall within their towns and car park usage had markedly increased following initiatives noting that car parking charges had not increased in Victoria Street in Windsor and Hines Meadow in Maidenhead to ensure residents had an option. He stated that planned ICT upgrades had either taken place or were taking place. The adult social care debt was under control, reducing and they expected it to be below £5m by the end of the financial year. He commended the budget and urged all colleagues to support it.

 

Councillor Story commented that fundamental to understanding the proposed budget was understanding what had happened to the finances since May 2023 when the Liberal Democrats took over the Council. He reflected that unfortunately the Council would have its first budget deficit in five years which would wipe out the four years of budget surpluses under the Conservatives. He recalled that the Council's reserves had been more than £1m above the minimum of £7.9m and the effect of this year's deficit was that reserves were now less than £4m with over half the reserves being spent in less than a year. He queried what had gone wrong. He reflected that lamenting the low council tax previously set meant that the borough’s families would have a council tax bill that was hundreds of pounds a year higher than it is now. He found that an extraordinary concept in the current tough economic times. He stated that the Council was not on the list of councils with excessive debt published by Moody’s Investment Services. He stated that the budget papers make it clear that It is the Chief Financial Officer who has the statutory duty to ensure a council's budget is robust then if you accept that the Chief Financial Officer this year and last fulfilled that duty rigorously then the true reason for the financial collapse lies in what happened and what did not happen in those five months between May and the October crisis council meeting. He suggested that officers would have briefed the new Administration on every aspect of the finances including the immediate corrective required to deal with any likely budget variances so why the way until October. He concluded that they must monitor this budget carefully and take corrective action quickly in order to mitigate significant unforeseen and maybe unavoidable costs. That is what they had failed to do this year.

 

Councillor K Davis thanked the Place directorate and the Sustainability Team for their creative, positive and proactive approach to tackling the incredibly tough financial position. She stated that the financial circumstances had not stopped them from being ambitious in their approach to reducing carbon and increasing biodiversity. She highlighted £6m of investment for decarbonisation at Windsor Leisure Centre which was fully funded by a public sector grant and topped up by Section 106 money to replace gas fired boilers with air source heat pumps, air handling units and a solar PV array; centralising energy billing to save money administrating hundreds of invoices across the entire Council and the money saved would fund an energy analyst to help identify areas of unusual usage across the Council estate; and continuing to fund the Climate Partnership would build on the valuable projects to share knowledge and skills and increase capacity across businesses organisations and community groups. She stated there were many examples of local groups but mentioned in particular The Wilds wildlife groups who were working hard with the Council to deliver the biodiversity action plan. She referred to infrastructure improvement plans across the borough to support electric vehicles by accelerating the role out of EV charge point implementation plan, plans to support healthy active travel with the Great Park Link in Windsor, and Healthy Routes to School in Old Windsor and West Windsor. She noted the financial position remained extremely challenging but was very excited for the future of the council's work on climate change and biodiversity and commended this budget.

 

Councillor Howard focused on the thing he received most comments from his residents about and that was a frustration about service delivery in front of them such as potholes. He had discovered that the Council had ‘hollowed out’ professional contract negotiators and professional staff who are able to manage their contracts properly. He supported the proposal because to bring the management of contracts back inhouse that were aligned with the objectives of residents rather than letting suppliers mark their own homework. He believed his residents would support this effective management of contracts going forward.

 

Councillor Del Campo recalled that in 2020 a former conservative member of the Council described his own party's financial legacy as a ‘cultural failure of epic proportions’ but the next three years did little to remedy that situation. She commented that they were facing the challenge of how to rescue their finances whilst remaining true to their principles, it had not been easy but she felt they had brought back some humanity and started to give officers the support and resources they need to deliver priorities.

 

She continued that within Adult Services they had corrected the base budget so that it was much closer to the actual cost of delivering services but as it was almost entirely statutory, and demand led it only took a few complex cases to have a profound effect on the finances. They would however not be starting the year with the challenge of needing to find £5m of in year savings. In January they had begun an invest to save project to reallocate funds for long-term unfilled social worker posts to uplift full-time salaries to favourably compare with nearby boroughs and reduce their dependence on agencies. At a recent Graduate Fair there had been six expressions of interest compared to zero previously. A reduction in staff turnover was also good for residents in terms of giving them consistency of care.

 

They were also looking into developing their own Care Home although they were at the very early stages of this process business modelling what could be done, what was available, what was happening in other boroughs and shaping the business plan to generate income through privately funded residents and influence local care prices.

 

She stated that Optalis provides a very high standard of care and they were exploring bringing more of the statutory services back into RBWM so that decisions about the care people need, the commissioning of services from third party providers and the finances would be brought back together with the help of the new case management system.

 

She noted that their pledge on social housing would take time to realise but she was delighted that when the new development of Saw's Close opened there would be 32 additional homes for social rent available to the housing team. She concluded by welcoming the new Housing Assistant Director and extending her thanks to officers across Adults, Health and Place, the senior leadership team, Cabinet and members who had worked so hard to help them bring the budget forward.

 

Councillor Hunt thanked the senior officers and finance team for all the work that had gone into producing the budget. She noted that councils across the country were having difficulties and RBWM was no exception. She noted that approximately 80% of funding was for statutory social services and the cost of providing this was increasing. She welcomed some of the outsourced services being brought back into the Council, the last Administration had started this in some areas, and she was very pleased that this was continuing. She also welcomed the increased monitoring of finances and commented that there was a lack of detail as to how the new corporate transformation program would achieve the aims and deliver the savings promised. She was concerned this was one of the key risks in the medium-term financial strategy and that assumptions regarding Capital Income and CIL are affected by outside influences. She reflected that these figures seem to fluctuate greatly from one budget to another and she would like to have more assurance that the reserves had been fully examined and were robust to ensure the budget was deliverable.

 

She queried whether enough budget had been allocated to recruitment and retention to attract and retain staff and what focus had been placed on income generation outside of increases to charges for residents such as parking charges, pitch charges and planning fees. She wanted to see better use of the Council’s assets to make the best of them to be more attractive for marketing use. She wanted to see the full list.

 

She stated that the budget as it stands did not appear to deliver the surpluses needed, there were too many acknowledged and incorporated risks and there was already an emerging gap between the rebased budget and the rising reality with significant risk of capacity and capability within the budget. She concluded that she could not support the budget.

 

Councillor Moriarty focused on consultations observing that the consultation approach that they had inherited had not been good enough and residents had reported that their voice was simply not heard. One of the new Administration’s stated aims was to give that Community a voice which was central to decisions therefore consultations should be easy to engage with, easy to understand and free from technical information to extract the most insight. He suggested that consultation should ask questions providing the widest possible picture and not a narrow focus; should create opportunities to listen on platforms that residents already interact with rather than relying on surveys and make it clear how they can expect to see the results. He advised that the Administration did not think that the current approach to consultation was good enough and were determined to work with officers to raise the standard of consultations.

 

Councillor Bermange commented that the first aim of the emerging Council Plan was to put the Council on a strong financial footing in order to meet their vision for the borough. He focused on one important priority which was to drive efficiencies through strong asset management through optimising the use of buildings, land and other assets that the council owns in order to generate income and also to streamline the Capital programme to reduce further borrowing and make better use of CIL and Section 106 funding. He advised that the Council had a modest portfolio of purely commercial assets. He supported improvement works to attract a better rental yield but also bring them up to the minimum energy efficiency standards. Where assets were currently deployed for delivery of services, they were looking to make savings such as relocate the Pensions Fund staff out of Minster Court to make better use of spare capacity within the Town Hall offices. Part of their commitment was to deliver more services inhouse so considering their own properties with a view to establishing their own Care Home facilities and temporary accommodation. He stated that the social value of assets would also be considered beyond the financial receipts but if there was no viable option for maintaining and optimising an asset’s use, then applying the proceeds of any sales to reduce inherited debt would help fund the program of service transformation. He concluded that the Council was in a ‘financial perilous situation’ but he was optimistic that the proposed budget was tough a vital step towards a sound financial future. 

 

Councillor Price commented that her concern was the impact that any proposed cuts had on the borough’s poorest residents as they were facing food price, rent and service charge increases with rises disproportionately impacting them more. She did not believe they had analysed the social economic profile of those who had responded to the consultation and wanted this to be addressed in future consultations. She observed that the removal of the library inclusion post, the printed copies of ‘Around the Royal Borough’ and of school transport to excluded pupils would disproportionately impact the poorest residents despite the Council Plan stating that the priority was to reduce inequalities.

 

Councillor Price continued that she welcomed the signposting to alternative services and in particular community groups. She really welcomed the creation of the Volunteering Community Sector Partnership and along with the continued work of the Household Support Fund Partnership with its 18 partners to support vulnerable communities would help creative more streamlined and cohesive working. Other positive examples were the Household Support Fund and the Council Tax Reduction Scheme. She stated that it was important to work with housing providers to ensure there was not a duplication of effort, resources and to identify any gaps in provision. She concluded by highlighting the relaunch of the volunteering campaign to encourage residents to volunteer. Councillor Douglas encouraged and supported volunteering within Maidenhead and in Windsor a paper-based directory of community groups and volunteering opportunities was soon to be published. She stated that they all had a role to play in supporting the poorest residents. 

 

Councillor Reeves stated that he had been driven to make a difference and to stand as a Councillor because he did not want to allow the continual risk that the borough was being put under by the previous Administration by the decisions being made. As a contract professional he was quite dismayed by the contract decisions that were previously made and when he’d discussed processes, he understood officers shared his concerns about procurement and contract management. He considered that it was by continuing improvements within contract terms that they could regain the spending power. He pointed out that 77% of the budget was spent on social care, 11% to service interest payments which left only 12% of the budget to spend on these non-statutory services. He concluded that officers and fellow members had made the best of what the Council had but he wanted to continue to work to build this secure foundation for residents in the future.

 

Councillor J Tisi commented that despite the low level of reserves and the £7m deficit, they would have been able to get very close to a balanced budget had it not been for some of the demand led statutory increases in costs within Adult Services and Children's Services. He considered that borrowing was one of the most important items with £13.5m to cover interest and MRP which was 11% of the Council’s budget or £1 in every £9 for which the residents would get nothing to service this cost. In relation to refinancing until recently a very junior officer undertook the refinancing at spot rates with no financial management for such a big debt but this had now changed.

 

He explained that accountants had to be realistic and prudent. He gave the example of the use of Capex to cover revenue overspend and quoted the CiFPA report’s observations on the lack of scrutiny in place. Improved spending control and income generation ideas. He welcomed the Observation Wheel and supported the limited £40m in the budget for revenue generation unlike previous unrealistic assumptions. He stated that he welcomed the use of some of the capital funding that the Council received from CIL as he thought that was a good idea to utilise this free money. He concluded that the amount in the budget for the demolition of the Novello Theatre was not intended as they were working with the community who want to save it.

 

Councillor Douglas commented that there was no budget line for volunteering. He reiterated that the Council was in a difficult position and there were a lot of things that the Council would like to fund that it was unable to, and volunteers were stepping into the gap in many different ways doing amazing work. He noted that the budget called out the role of volunteers saying that volunteering was building a sense of community and strengthening residents feeling of responsibility and ownership for local areas. He continued that it was a rare win-win area where everybody benefited even the volunteers themselves who deserved so much thanks for spending their time and energy. He mentioned some examples to illustrate: Waterway volunteers, Goodgym missions across the community, the Maidenhead Town team and the Braywick Heath Nursery. He noted there were hundreds of other groups whose work should be recognised as it affected the boroughs health, wealth and well-being. 

 

Councillor Majeed joined colleagues in thanking the officers for their hard work producing the budget. He stated that a major concern that had been raised by residents in Ascot was law and order. The previous administration had included in their budget to pay for four dedicated police constables to be deployed across RBWM to focus on local priorities. This was the first Partnership of its kind in the Thames Valley Police area and reflected concerns around lack of neighbourhood policing. The Crime Summit held in March last year with residents and stakeholders shaped the priorities for these new Police Constables. He noted that this partnership seems to have been dropped from the current budget. He stated he could not support the budget because he believed the budget was a cost cutting exercise and not for the benefit of residents.

 

Councillor Carpenter clarified a comment made earlier in the meeting that the Council had a partnership Cabinet but not a partnership Council. She was an independent Councillor and was not in partnership with any other party.

 

Councillor Carpenter expressed her thanks and appreciated to Councillor Jones and the officers for devising a balanced budget which would give the Council much needed breathing space for the upcoming year. She had concerns regarding its long-term viability and feared that they might face potential imbalances before the end of the next financial cycle. With the demand for statutory services increasing, an aging demographic and people moving here for RBWM’s exceptional services she did not believe they could maintain a balanced budget even with the upcoming transformation project. She noted that the largest savings in Adult Social Care relied on people remaining in their own homes and older people being taken in by younger people. Whilst she supported the principle she was concerned that carers were rarely paid more than the minimum wage and there were significant recruitment and retention challenges in the sector. Councillor Carpenter reported that her residents were questioning the value of their council tax as they had witnessed a decline in services such as adequate grass cutting, park maintenance, potential reduction in bus services and lack of any noticeable enforcement. Increasing parking fees in Windsor was a tourist tax and that the Council should provide discounted parking to residents. She reiterated the request for Cabinet to secure a more favourable deal than receiving only 10% of the profit for the proposed Ferris Wheel in Alexander Gardens. She noted the low income from the three month Windsor on Ice attraction. Councillor Carpenter stated that whilst Windsor remained unparished the monies contributed could be spent anywhere within the borough whereas if it was parished it could be ring fenced. She was pleased to hear that there were plans to relocate the museum to a more suitable location but was concerned about the potential costs associated with this relocation and refurbishment of the Guildhall. She concluded that there were too many uncertainties and hopeful outcomes to provide her full support for the proposed budget.

 

Councillor Luxton commented that the new Administration claimed to be near bankruptcy since 20 September 2023 but they were spending, they were not showing income generating solutions or real efficiencies in services only cuts, price hikes and tax increases for residents. She could see no plans for debt repayment, housing solutions or to increase income on new housing. She stated that residents were entitled to have answers to why taxes were increasing in difficult times during the cost-of-living crisis. She asked that the present Administration take responsibility for the budget moving forward rather than looking back and blaming the Conservative administration. She concluded that she would not be supporting the budget.

 

Councillor Reynolds reported that when asked what their top five priorities were whilst in Administration and he stated that their number one priority was still being there as a council in 12 months’ time. He considered the budget to be stable and something that could be built on. They had fixed the mess that they had been given. He commented on the horrible legacy from the previous administration of 18 tower blocks in Maidenhead Town Centre. He listed the retailers and restaurants they were bringing to the town including Nandos, Bombay Story, Hobby Craft and Wagamamas among others being brought back onto the High Street. He referred to scaremongering about the amounts spent on taxi livery and advised that nothing had been spent so far. He referred questioning colleagues to Appendix A Council Plan reciting the key objectives: strong finances; cleaner greener safer; children and young people being given a great start in life; healthy and independent lives and a council that delivers for residents of the borough. He gave examples of how the Council would demonstrate the plan through £6.3m of decarbonisation money, £850k for additional street lighting, £1.2 m for repairs and maintenance in borough schools, £200k for a new health suite in Windsor Leisure Centre and £110k to fix the Braywick Leisure Centre that was not fit for purpose; £1.2m for pot hole repairs; £2.5m for highways and footway resurfacing; £200k in roadway safety schemes; £300k in healthy routes to school, £600,000 for EV infrastructure delivering 500 new EV chargers by May 2025 all funded by grants, S106 and CIL money.

 

Councillor Gosling thanked all those involved in the onerous task of producing the budget. She observed that nationally there was a total combined Council debt of £97.8 billion pound. Although she welcomed change to combine services to save costs but considered the Windsor Museum should be preserved in its current position as it was an iconic institution, that there would be moving costs and it might no longer be visited. She could not support the budget as felt that there were further revenue opportunities that could have been explored.

 

Councillor Cross thanked Councillor Jones and the Chief Finance Officer for their hard work to get the Council to this position from a very challenging starting point. She commented that her concern around the budget was that it was reliant on delivering and delivering at pace the transformation and efficiency targets that have been mentioned. Financial resiliency was low and she argued that the margin for error was high. She highlighted that they had two years of unaudited figures so there was a lot that could go wrong. Through the briefings she had received in advance of the meeting she had received assurances that they had a team inside the council with the experience to successfully deliver this balanced budget, that the governance was in place and early warning triggers to highlight if any of the efficiency savings were not going to plan and spotlight if any of the growth targets were stalling. She recognised this would not be easy but hoped they could move forward with conviction and confidence. She raised one area of significant spend in the budget which was home to school transport that was costing the Council multiple millions of pounds and the cost was increasing. She noted that work was already underway to see if efficiencies could be made but she would like to see this on the priority list of areas to be scrutinised for additional financial efficiencies and reviewing operationally how it was delivered.

 

Councillor A Tisi began her comments by offering a vote of thanks to the Lin Ferguson, Executive Director for Children’s Services, Clive Haynes Deputy Director for Education, Sarah Moran Deputy Director for Children’s Social Care and Early Health and all staff from Achieving for Children delivering Children’s Services in RBWM. The team had come together and face the challenge of finding new ways to identify savings that would not risk the fundamental service provided to families and generate income in an already high achieving but relatively low spending service.

 

Councillor A Tisi reflected on her final budget speech in opposition and how she had previously pledged that if she was made lead member she would defend early Health Services. Despite the extreme pressures facing the budget she was proud to say that they had done that. She noted that early intervention in the families that were struggling could prevent children having to be taken from their family home which was better for the council’s budget but ultimately it was better for those children. £2.6m had been added to the base budget as a more realistic starting point. She noted that just one or two expensive placements could cause a huge impact and the service was at the mercy of markets. Achieving for Children were having a renewed drive to increase the number of In-House Foster carers including connected carers. Educational psychology services were being commercialised to other boroughs. Grant funding was being used to increase provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities at existing special and mainstream schools. She noted that by supporting the young people locally they would be able to reduce some of the home to school transport costs with an extensive review of the service being undertaken.

 

Councillor G Singh commented on the observations made about the lack of Community Infrastructure Levy within Maidenhead Town Centre noting that it was the previous administrations’ zero charging schedule in order to support developers that had contributed to the current financial position as there were so many missed opportunities to receive these contributions.

 

Councillor Coe commented that at the heart of the problems faced by the Council was the Conservatives’ policy of borrowing to spend. He observed that the plan was to cut Council Tax, borrow millions, invest the borrowing in income generating assets to replace the missing council tax revenue, pay off the debt by selling land to balance the books. From this plan he reflected that Vicus Way Car Park was losing thousands every week and the Magnet Leisure Centre and the Golf Course had been sold below their proper value resulting in the debt not being paid and the books not being balanced. He stated that Conservatives’ hubris broke the borough’s finances as they overestimated their business acumen and underestimated the risks. He stated that the new administration was delivering a responsible budget incorporating tough decisions for many of their residents to get the council back on track. He concluded by thanking officers working within his portfolio, who had delivered significant savings, the chief financial officer for her hard work and all the officers for their hard work in delivering the budget to help fix the mess.

 

Councillor Larcombe commented that things could have been worse as the previous administration had pulled out of the river scheme Channel One which would have meant a contribution of £53m from the Council. He stated there was currently a consultation on the scheme as it is now e.g. channels two and three. He stated there was a new channel proposed with the Council’s contribution expected to be in the region of £10m for a substandard scheme in comparison with the one that was already developed. He noted that the Council already had a contract indicating that the Council was due to contribute £900k over the next two years but it did not appear to have been signed. He finished by asking for a future response why the four directors went simultaneously from the property company.

 

Councillor Jones started to sum up the debate by stating it was not the amount of debt a council had but their ability to pay it off that affects the Revenue Budget. She reflected that interest rates were almost zero when the Conservatives grew the debt to £200m, those interest rates had gone up and borrowing costs were now £13m which is 11% of the budget. The statutory unbudgeted social care was the cause of reserves being halved because the costs were not optional, the numbers of people accessing care had remained stable within 2% but they were unbudgeted at the time of the budget and should never have happened. She stated that they would not be repeating the mistakes of the previous administration where no plans were in place with a Transformation Subcommittee that never met. The Transformation Boards was already in place, project resource had been provided with proposals made by officers, backed by plans and overseen by the Executive leadership and then reported to Cabinet.

 

Councillor Jones reflected on the potential impact of four police officers working with one officer per shift across the whole borough each day. She did not consider that a good deal, believed the money should be spent on Community Wardens and stated it was a disgrace to see their numbers reduced.

 

Councillor Jones continued that she would welcome any ideas for increased revenue generation but was surprised that those mentioning these opportunities had not already spoken to officers to contribute to the viability of the Council because that was why they were all there. She was surprised due to the comments made that there were no amendments proposed in the budget.

 

She was surprised to hear from Councillors who had previously voted for the maximum council tax rise for four years in the medium-term budget last year were now saying that this should not happen.

 

Councillor Jones concluded that their first priority was financial stability. Without it they could not provide the services that the residents want and need without the money to do it. The only way to do that was to put back the financial stability into the Council which had been lost over the last decade.

 

A recorded vote was held.

 

 

 

On the proposition of Councillor Jones, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet member for Finance and seconded by Councillor Werner it was

 

RESOLVED that the council’s approach to balancing the budget be approved:

 

i)               the net budget for 2024/25 of £118.721m as set out in the main body of the agenda report;

 

ii)             Fees and Charges for 2024/25 as set out in Appendix F to the agenda report, noting that this excluded the pitch fees referenced in paragraph 11.4;

 

iii)            that delegated authority be given to the Executive Director of Place, in consultation with the Cabinet member for Communities and Leisure, to approve the final amount to be charged for the Outdoor Facilities section of Fees and Charges, set out in the Appendix F to the agenda report, as referenced in paragraph 11.4;

 

iv)            the Flexible Use of Capital Receipts for the purposes outlined in Appendix G of the agenda report;

 

v)             the statement of MRP policy contained in Appendix H to the agenda report under the heading Minimum Revenue Provision;

 

vi)            the Capital Strategy 2024/25 as set out in Appendix H to the agenda report;

 

vii)          the consolidated Capital Programme for 2024/25 as set out in Appendix I of the agenda report;

 

viii)         that delegated authority be given to the Executive Director of Place and the S151 Officer, in consultation with the Cabinet member for Finance to approve the inclusion of the proposed PSDS project, subject to business case;

 

ix)            the breakdown of projects with the highway resurfacing programme as detailed in Appendix J to the agenda report;

 

x)             the breakdown of projects within the footway maintenance and construction programme as detailed in Appendix J to the agenda report;

 

xi)            the Treasury Management Strategy for 2024/25 as set out in Appendix K to the agenda report, including the Treasury Management Policies and Lending Counterparty Criteria;

 

xii)          the prudential indicators as set out in Appendix K to this report, including the Operational and Authorised limits for external borrowing;

 

xiii)         the allocation of the £165.017m Dedicated Schools Grant as set out in Appendix L to the agenda report; and

 

xiv)         the updated Pay Policy Statement for 2024/25 as set out in Appendix M to the agenda report.