Agenda item

To consider the reports of the Cabinet and to receive answers to any questions asked on those reports as follows:

 

a)    Reports of Cabinet – Matters which require a decision; and

b)    Report of Cabinet – Summary of decisions taken.

 

The Council had before it a detailed report on the 2022/23 Budget and Medium-Term Financial Plan Update 2022-24, which Cabinet had considered on 3 February 2022 and which the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet were recommending for adoption by the Council.

 

All Councillors had received or had access to the full report and Appendices considered by the Cabinet on 3 February 2022.

 

The Leader of the Council introduced the report and moved the recommendation as set out in paragraph 1 of the report; this was seconded by Cllr Adrian Hardman. The Leader commented that the report set out a growing budget for 2022/23 alongside an ambitious capital programme and medium term plan. He thanked all those who had contributed to preparing the budget paperwork. The budget process had been a good example of collaborative working with positive input from stakeholders, partners, staff, trade unions, scrutiny panels and the Overview Scrutiny and Performance Board (OSPB). The budget would help to improve services, invest in the county, and recover from the pandemic. The budget addressed the demand-led pressures in adult and children’s social care with an extra £25m investment to protect the most vulnerable in society. The budget would fund a three year capital programme totalling £146m providing certainty in the development of projects.

 

He added that the budget provided additional funding for the priorities identified as important and in need of improvement by residents in the Council’s residents survey. The three key area were: Better roads and pavements; tackling congestion; and public transport. Over the three year plan, an extra £36m would be invested in surfacing more roads, £12m for pavements, £11m for rail projects including a new rail station in Redditch, the continuation of the cutting congestion programme, major infrastructure projects and bus services. Further investment had been outlined to support economic development including the ‘Open for Business’ initiative. Support would be provided to deliver the net zero carbon plan and sustainability plans (in addition to the existing plan to plant 150k trees) and £6m to support the LED street lighting replacement programme helping to lower energy use and carbon emissions. Additional funding would be provided to improve the highways including: the highways control centre being open for seven days a week; more highways response teams and highways liaison officers; and more funds for highway drainage works.

 

The budget included funding to empower councillors including the continuation of the members divisional fund, an extension to the local members capital fund and £500k per annum for small scale works for example pedestrian crossings. The parish lengthsmans budget would also be uplifted to help parishes get more things done locally including £100k to support the Jubilee celebrations (which included the waving of the fee for road closures).

 

The budget included investment for the next generation with increased funding in education including the provision of additional school places to keep pace with a growing county. £53m had been included for additional school place including the development of a new secondary school.

 

The budget would be affordable because the Council’s income had increased by £40m as a result of a growing and successful county, an increased tax base and Collection Fund. The additional resources received from Government was welcomed. Mindful of the pressure on household budgets, the increase in Council Tax would be limited to an extra pound a week on a Band D property, meaning that the Council would have the second lowest council tax of any comparable council in the country. Although the precise figures for the government grant was awaited, the local government settlement included additional funding for social care services and a better than expected funding for higher needs (£9.9m in additional funds).

 

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Adult Social Care paid tribute to the Leader of the Council for his work to help put together a budget that was proportional to the council taxpayers and continued to defend and enhance the services to the most vulnerable in society whilst addressed the concerns of local residents.

 

He added that the Council had ended the last financial year with a balanced budget and therefore had not need to use the Adult Social Care precept. However, the budget for Adult Social Care would rise by £17.3m for the most vulnerable, £15m of which would support the increasing demographic demand in the county. The extra money in this financial year would deal with the complexity and rising cost of Adult Social Care and help retain and train staff. The spending on Adult Social Care totalled £260m partly due to Government funding initiatives. Part of this additional funding included a top up of the Better Care Fund which had enabled the Council to work with colleagues in the NHS and CCG to provide additional funding of £3.6m. It represented the start of an integrated care system which would enable people to live longer in their homes and in better health with better conditions. The budget allowed further investment in reablement and develop assisted technology. However, there were considerable challenges in the medium term with the integrated white paper and increasing demands in adult and children’s social care.

 

An amendment was moved by Cllr Mel Allcott and seconded by Cllr Lynn Denham proposing:

 

Amendment: Further Investment in improving Children’s Services 

Unity Group Revenue Budget Amendment Proposals 2022/23	£ million	£  million
Expenditure - investment in the following areas:
Further enhance our targeted support services to all vulnerable children including those with additional needs. ·         Development of Family Group Conferencing service which helps families to co-ordinate a network of support within their wider family and community. ·         Development of Green Hill Lodge to specifically cater for Children with SEND and EHCP’s to have community support groups to promote independent living skills. We propose to delegate to the Chief Executive WCF and Director of Children’s Services the final allocation based on their assessment of need.		0.455
Funding - reduction in planned increase in capital expenditure on highways borrowing:
Reduction of Carriageway works for the car by 33% to support the Climate Change Emergency declared in 2021 and promote Active Travel. ·         Reduce £12 million planned capital structural carriageway maintenance expenditure by 33% to £4.5 million.  This will reduce planned borrowing costs by £0.455 million for redeployment to Children’s Services.	-0.455
Net Total Impact 2022/23	-0.455	0.455
Balance / gap		0

 

The mover and seconder of the amendment then spoke in favour of its adoption; Comments made in support of the amendment included:

 

·         The Council had decided to take only 1% of the available 3% Adult Social Care Precept in the last financial year. Consequently, it was proposed to increase Council Tax by 3.94% this financial year rather than 1.94% at a time of huge financial pressures for residents. The Council had received an unexpected additional £4m of capital funding and it was proposed re-allocate this funding to support WCF and in particular, SEND provision to improve the lives of children and families. The reduction of the capital programme by £4.5m would also enable £450k savings in borrowing costs. The recent Ofsted report into the Council’s SEND provision had highlighted four remaining areas in need of improvement. Council needed to fully support these services to build back trust with partners, carers, and professionals

·         The justification for the Council’s commitment to funding roads had been based on a residents survey in 2021 which had only received 248 responses

·         The proposals in the amendment would involve the transfer of a relatively small amount of money within existing budgets

·         The long-term benefits of an increase in the SEND funding would include an improvement in the health and well-being of children, an increase in educational achievement and a potential reduction in ant-social behaviour. It accorded with the Public Health Strategy and the priorities of WCF and Public Health. The establishment of a family group conferencing service for children with SEND would help families co-ordinate a network of support in their wider family and in local community. The development of a county facility which would specifically cater for children with SEND with community support groups to promote independent living skills

·         It would seem sensible to transfer funds from a well-funded road network maintenance budget to the SEND service which had been underperforming. The state of the road network would always be recognised as an issue by residents compared to SEND because of the limited number of people who needed to access SEND services. Parents of SEND children were losing money as a result of the delays in Council service provision.

 

Comments made against the amendment included:

 

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Transport and Highways commented that the amendment envisaged reducing the spending on road maintenance by 33% but only in relation to cars. However, the proposed reduction would impact on all road users. In particular, the failure to maintain the road surface would be create major hazards for cyclists and pedestrians. There would also be an impact on the reliability of buses and the response times of the emergency services. The proposals in the amendment would lead to 65k potholes not being repaired and 20 miles of new road not being resurfaced/maintained. Roads, footways and congestion had been identified every year by local residents as their main concerns in the Residents’ Viewpoint Survey which was why the Council had invested in the road network

·         The main issue that local residents raised with their local councillors was the quality of the road network. The quality of this County’s road network was far superior to neighbouring counties. The impact of any reduction in the budget for road maintenance would have negative long-term implications

·         Schools had a vital role in providing support to children with SEND but a reduction to the road maintenance budget could impact on the ability of those children to travel to school to access the support

·         The amendment would have a negative impact on the safety of the road network and discourage cycling and walking and thereby negatively impact on active travel and the climate change agenda

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Education commented that the proposed budget amendment would not necessarily solve the issues associated with SEND provision. The budget was not concerned with the prioritisation of roads over vulnerable children but in supporting both services. The Council had received an extra £9.8m funding within the Dedicated Schools Grant to support higher needs and SEND

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families commented that since 2017, an extra £33m funding had been invested in children’s services. Since the publication of the agenda papers, the Council had received an invitation to bid for funding from a new innovation fund aimed at improving care including the provision of short breaks for children and young people with disabilities and their families

·         The additional funding received for highways maintenance was not a windfall but included as a result of feedback from the scrutiny process and taking account of the relevant data, in particular about the need repair the County’s unclassified roads

·         Any cut to the road maintenance budget would result in greater spending to resolve deterioration to the road surface in the future

·         The Leader of the Council commented that this amendment would reduce the carriageway resurfacing programme by a considerable amount in year three which would undermine the Council’s good track record of maintaining the highways in a good condition which was a top priority for local residents. It would lead to more reactive emergency highways works with more inspections necessary and be contrary to previous scrutiny report recommendations and represent poor value for money. It would also impact on all aspects of Active Travel. The Council was also protecting the most vulnerable members of society with significant investment in children’s services. Investment in higher needs had increased by over 50% in four years.

 

At the conclusion of the debate and on a named vote this amendment was lost.

 

Those in favour of the amendment were: Cllr Mel Allcott, Cllr Dan Boatright, Cllr Lynn Denham, Cllr Matt Jenkins, Cllr Natalie McVey, Cllr Josh Robinson, and  Cllr Richard Udall. (7)

 

Those against the amendment were: Cllr Steve Mackay, Cllr Alastair Adams, Cllr Salman Akbar, Cllr Allan Amos, Cllr Marc Bayliss, Cllr Bob Brookes, Cllr David Chambers, Cllr Brandon Clayton, Cllr Kyle Daisley, Cllr Nathan Desmond, Cllr Allah Ditta, Cllr Matt Dormer, Cllr Elizabeth Eyre, Cllr Simon Geraghty, Cllr Laura Gretton, Cllr Peter Griffiths, Cllr Karen Hanks, Cllr Ian Hardiman, Cllr Adrian Hardman, Cllr Paul Harrison, Cllr Marcus Hart, Cllr Bill Hopkins, Cllr Adrian Kriss, Cllr Aled Luckman, Cllr Emma D Marshall, Cllr Karen May, Cllr Tony Miller, Cllr Jo Monk, Cllr Dan Morehead, Cllr Richard Morris, Cllr Tony Muir, Cllr Tracey Onslow, Cllr Scott Richardson Brown, Cllr Andy Roberts, Cllr Linda Robinson, Cllr Chris Rogers, Cllr David Ross, Cllr Mike Rouse, Cllr James Stanley, Cllr Emma Stokes, Cllr Kit Taylor, and Cllr Shirley Webb. (42)

 

Those abstaining were: Cllr Martin Allen, Cllr Beverley Nielsen, and Cllr Tom Wells. (3)

 

In debating the budget as originally moved and seconded the following points were raised:

 

Comments made in support of the proposed budget included:

 

• The additional funding for Highways Liaison Officers was welcomed and those officers were thanked for their work and support provided to local councillors and residents
• The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Children and Families commented that the budget included funding of £18.8m for People’s Services of which £7.9m funded Children’s Services to continue moves to improve the resilience of the service. In particular, it provided support for the Early Help service to enable children to be kept with their families rather than being taken into care with the associated additional costs
• The budget would allow local councillors to have more of an input into local highways issues, particularly with the extension of the local councillor highways budget
• The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Economy and Skills highlighted the proposals in the budget to continue the Open for Business programme which had helped numerous businesses through the pandemic and would help to build the economy going forward and provide support for young people finding employment. The budget also provided the opportunity to continue the economic development programme with the development of a number of important projects
• The budget provided everything that local residents had requested at the second lowest comparable council tax rate of any council in the country 
• The budget was an ambitious budget with increased investment that improved the services provided to local residents
• The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Education explained that the budget included an allocation of £109m for WCF which included an additional £6.4m staffing costs for SEND. 70% of the budget had been allocated to 2% of the population of the county helping the most vulnerable members of society
• The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Transport and Highways indicated that an extra £6m had been invested in roads on top of the existing budget over 3 year which would provide: An additional 135 miles of road; an additional £4m over 3 years for footways providing 108 miles of new footways; and an additional £1m a year for 3 years for drainage and flood alleviation. A new infrastructure fund had been established for members to spend on street lighting. £6m would be provided for the street lighting LED replacement programme. Funding would be provided for eight Highways Liaison Officers in the County. £75k had been allocated to the Lengthmens Scheme. The opening hours of the Highways Control Centre had been extended. Each member would be allocated £110k to spend on highways projects in their local area
• The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Environment commented that the Council assessed all aspects of its budget against climate change and sustainability targets. £900k had been allocated to the warmer homes project with 121k applications received to date. £250k of this fund had been allocated to vulnerable households to reduce energy costs and improve standards of living
• The Leader of the Council commented that the budget protected and enhanced services with investment in all parts of the county. It was forward-looking and would drive recovery and protected the most vulnerable in society.

 

Comments made against the proposed budget included:

 

·         The budget had not addressed the issue of climate emergency. The climate emergency should be a key theme running through the entire budget. It was not potholes that deterred people from cycling on the road network but congestion and the perception of the dangers of cycling. More funding was necessary for cycling and Active Travel in general. A key theme running through the budget where carbon-related funding had been provided, it was by the Government and without any matching funding by the Council. The majority of the budget associated with the environmental issues related to funding for the road network rather than any specific green issues

·         The Council had not listened to the residents of Bromsgrove in relation to proposals for the A38 relief road and other local highways concerns

·         The Council’s education provision had and continued to be underfunded.

 

On a named voteRESOLVEDthat:

 

a)    The budget requirement for 2022/23 be approved at £373.199 million as set out at Appendix 1B, having regard to the proposed Transformation and Reforms programme set out in section 9;

 

b)   The Council Tax Band D equivalent for 2022/23 be set at £1,396.78 which includes £169.47 relating to the ring-fenced Adult Social Care precept, and the Council Tax Requirement be set at £301.346 million, which will increase the Council Tax Precept by 3.94% in relation to two parts:

 

·         0.94% to provide financial support for the delivery of outcomes in line with the Corporate Plan ‘Shaping Worcestershire’s Future’ and the priorities identified by the public and business community;

 

·         3.00% Adult Social Care Precept ring-fenced for Adult Social Care Services of which 2% was carried forward from 2021/22, in order to contribute to existing cost pressures due to Worcestershire’s ageing population;

 

c)    The Capital Strategy 2022-25 and Capital Programme of £146.064 million be approved as set out at Appendix 1C and 1D and section 8;

 

d)   The earmarked reserves schedule as set out at Appendix 2 be approved;

 

e)    The Treasury Management Strategy and Prudential Indicators set out at Appendix 4 be approved; and

 

f)     The Council’s Pay Policy Statement set out at Appendix 5 be approved.

 

[NB Appendices referred to are those presented to 3 February 2022 Cabinet.]

 

Those in favour of the motion were: Cllr Steve Mackay, Cllr Alastair Adams, Cllr Salman Akbar, Cllr Allan Amos, Cllr Marc Bayliss, Cllr Bob Brookes, Cllr David Chambers, Cllr Brandon Clayton, Cllr Kyle Daisley, Cllr Nathan Desmond, Cllr Allah Ditta, Cllr Matt Dormer, Cllr Elizabeth Eyre, Cllr Simon Geraghty, Cllr Laura Gretton, Cllr Peter Griffiths, Cllr Karen Hanks, Cllr Ian Hardiman, Cllr Adrian Hardman, Cllr Paul Harrison, Cllr Marcus Hart, Cllr Bill Hopkins, Cllr Adrian Kriss, Cllr Aled Luckman, Cllr Emma D Marshall, Cllr Karen May, Cllr Tony Miller, Cllr Jo Monk, Cllr Dan Morehead, Cllr Richard Morris, Cllr Tony Muir, Cllr Beverley Nielsen, Cllr Tracey Onslow, Cllr Scott Richardson Brown, Cllr Andy Roberts, Cllr Linda Robinson, Cllr Chris Rogers, Cllr David Ross, Cllr Mike Rouse, Cllr James Stanley, Cllr Emma Stokes, Cllr Kit Taylor, Cllr Shirley Webb and Cllr Tom Wells. (44)

 

Those against the motion were: Cllr Mel Allcott, Cllr Martin Allen, Cllr Dan Boatright, Cllr Lynn Denham, Cllr Matt Jenkins, Cllr Natalie McVey, Cllr Josh Robinson, and  Cllr Richard Udall. (8).