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.

 

Council considered the 2023/24 proposed budget and Medium-Term Financial Plan 2024/25 to 2026/27.

 

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 Marcus Hart, the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Communities. The Leader commented that the net budget for 2023/24 had increased to over £400m. In addition, the capital programme totalled approximately £430m. He thanked all those who had contributed to the budget-making process including contributors at the County Roadshows, scrutiny members, MPs, staff and stakeholders. The budget would improve services, invest in the county, and help residents and businesses deal with all the challenges that were collectively being faced.

 

He added that the backdrop to the budget was the increasing demand-led pressures in Adult Social Care, pay and contract inflation, higher home-to-school contract costs, a tighter labour market, considerable cost and supply issues on capital projects and the impact of a growing county. Cumulative pressures totalled approximately £67m and these proposals addressed them with three key elements: Government funding, Council Tax and the reform programme.

 

He considered that the local government settlement was one of the best in many years providing significant additional resources totalling £26.3m with more money particularly for Adult Social Care. This was on top of the 3-year extension of the high-needs deficit payments and record investment in schools. Residents would be asked to contribute more through Council Tax with a rise of 2.94% together with a 2% precept ring-fenced for Adult Social Care. The additional income would contribute an extra £14m. The rise was half the rate of the Consumer Price Index inflation. The Council continued to set one of the lowest levels of Council Tax in the country for comparable councils. The efficiency and reform programme totalled £22m. A quarter of that total had resulted from the excellent stewardship of the Pension Fund which following the triannual review had lowered employer contributions without impacting on pensions.

 

This significant package would ensure that the Council provided adequate resources to protect the most vulnerable members of society, meet rising costs and fulfil the Council’s core duties. The budget sought to address the public’s priorities as outlined in the residents’ viewpoint survey including better roads and pavements, tackling congestion and transport.

 

The budget included further capital funding of £19m to keep the county’s highways in top condition for all users, negating the impact of inflation, to deliver the targets in last year’s budget. The capital programme included cutting congestion schemes, major infrastructure upgrades and funding for Redditch Railway Station and improvements to other rail stations. In total, an additional £5.5m of revenue to fund the cost of borrowing had been included to deliver projects set out in the 3-year programme agreed last year in relation to the economy, environment, school places and highways. It also included the roll out and completion of LED lighting, planting of 150k trees, contribution to flood defences and mitigation works, highways drainage and support for businesses.

 

The budget sought to empower all members of the Council though the continuation of the divisional funding scheme, the capital highway fund, small-scale works and pedestrian crossings and £500k for revenue funding for highways. Parish councils had also benefitted with an uplift of 5% on top of the 15% added to the lengthmens scheme last year. The budget would tackle the ambitious agenda set out in the plan last year, protect the most vulnerable and keep improving the county and he commended it to Council.

 

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Communities commented that the budget had struck the right balance between competing communities and competing pressures by using the Adult Social Care precept of 2% and a general Council Tax increase of 2.94%. This compared to the majority of upper tier authority increases of 4-5%. The budget invested in the most vulnerable members of society through adult and children’s social care. The City Council had announced that they would be recommending to not continue to fund the net revenue expenditure of £178k for St John’s and Warndon libraries. He confirmed that the County Council would meet this funding gap out of the Business Rate Reserve for 2023/24 and then include it as part of the Council’s base budget if that decision was made. The Council continued to invest in highways to the benefit of everyone and detriment of nobody. The Government had listened and provided one of the best settlements for this council for many years.

 

The Cabinet Member for Corporate Services and Communication commented that it was a major achievement to present a balanced budget with a Council Tax increase less than the rate of inflation given recent global events and inflation pressures. It was vital for local residents that the Council provided value for money, increased productivity, reduced bureaucracy and innovated in the way services were delivered. Income generation had been achieved with changes to the County Hall campus and staff were returning to work in the building.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport commented that over the last 3 years, the Council had invested in the quality, safety and accessibility of the highways network across the whole county as well as in a wide range of travel options. The proposed additional investment of £500k for maintenance projects alongside the net passenger transport budget of over £10m demonstrated the continued commitment to improving highways at all levels to ensure that it remained safe, accessible and sustainable. He welcomed the hybrid approach adopted to enhance and support bus services with the benefit of demand-responsive services alongside arterial services. The Council was committed to improving the quality of the road network, enhancing public transport services and continuing to invest in active travel options to promote healthy and sustainable transport options.

 

A budget amendment relating to the investment in St John’s and Warndon libraries in Worcester was withdrawn by the mover and seconder based on the commitment expressed by the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Communities to provide the necessary funding should Worcester City Council decide not to fund the net revenue expenditure of £178k.

 

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

 

Capital Amendment: Disposal of Farming Estates

 

Unity Group Capital Budget Amendment Proposals 2023/24	£m	£m
Capital Receipt – Disposal of a portion of WCC Farming estate	(12.5)
Increased investment in Green Technology		2.0
Investment in Positive Activities for Young People		2.0
Investment into Educational settings for SEND		2.0
Investment into Adult Social Care to promote Independence at home		2.0
Investment into Libraries		2.0
Repayment of Capital Borrowing		2.5
Net Total Impact 2023/24	(12.5)	12.5
Balance / Gap		0

 

Unity Group Revenue Budget Amendment Proposals 2023/24	£m	£m
Reduction in income		0.10
Reduced cost of borrowing	0.10
Net Total Impact 2023/24	0.10	0.10
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 owned a lot of land much of which was not in use. It was proposed that this land be sold to enable it to be put to good use. Despite the higher than usual Government settlement, there remained budgetary pressures. The money from the sale of the land would be invested in a number of different areas: Green technology, for example solar and wind energy (£2m), positive support for young people who had suffered as a result of the pandemic; Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) (£2m) to support mainstream schools support and improve the education of these children, technology and equipment to promote independence at home; and investment in library services, particularly the insulation of buildings

·         The farming estate was a significant but under-utilised asset which did not produce a significant income and was not activity used for the community, sustainability, food security, carbon reduction, or address climate change. It was therefore appropriate to sell these assets and reinvest the funds in capital projects that would make a difference to local residents

·         The promotion of independent living, particularly assistance to younger adults was particularly expensive. This additional funding would bolster existing funds and help these individuals be supported at home

·         The Council had failed to use its smallholding assets in a more progressive way, for example as places for education and training, to enable young people to gain experience through short tenancies and develop traditional and new skills to help small industries, environmental protection and create jobs and opportunities. It was therefore important to look at other ways to use these assets to benefit the community

·         The sale of a smallholding would not necessarily impact on the tenancy arrangements. The funding could be used to support youth centres that would not lead to revenue spend

·         The Council had a record of selling off areas of land in the past. The intention of this amendment was to sell the land not to the detriment of the rural economy but for better use

·         £60k was being spent to educate SEND children in private settings. This extra money could prevent this expenditure entering the private sector.

Comments made against the amendment included:

 

·         The Council’s smallholdings were a gateway and opportunity for young people to enter into farming that would not exist in any other way. The amendment would result in the large-scale sale of the Council’s portfolio potentially for housing development and the potential for the land to become fallow and disused

·         There had been no attempt to raise this budget amendment during the budget scrutiny process to allow it to be properly evaluated

·         The amendment included a fire sale of half the Council’s entire landholding over a one-year period and would not achieve the best value for the assets. A sale value of £12m would not be achievable in one-year.  The impact of this amendment would lead to smallholders being thrown off their land

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Adult Social Care commented that the sale of the smallholding estate would create revenue demands which had not been addressed in the proposed amendment. The Disabled Facilities Grant already existed to provide funding for assisted technology for Adult Social Care. The sale of the Council’s smallholdings was not the right way to provide these additional funds. The Council’s smallholdings provided produce to a number of major retailers in the county

·         A number of the funding suggestions in the amendment were already being done

·         This amendment would have a negative impact on local rural businesses, local communities and the environment with produce being transported greater distances. The Council’s smallholding tenants were receiving support through the NFU

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Education commented that it was difficult to invest £2m in a SEND capital project without incurring revenue costs which had not been included in the amendment

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Health and Well-being commented that youth provision and positive activities was funded annually through the public health ring-fenced grant £530k. Part of this funding was spent on an infrastructure contract which helped to build and bid for additional youth capacity. District councils had also received an extra £350k from 2021-2024 for additional youth work following the pandemic. Every effort was being made to enhance youth provision and engage with young people

·         The Leader of the Council commented that when assets were rapidly sold the best price would not be achieved. It would also be difficult to protect the future use of the land, leading to unintended consequences as well as  impacting on the tenants.

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 Andy Fry, Cllr Luke Mallett, Cllr Josh Robinson, and Cllr Richard Udall. (7)

 

Those against the amendment were: Cllr Chris Rogers, Cllr Alastair Adams, 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 Adam Kent, Cllr Adrian Kriss, Cllr Steve Mackay, Cllr Emma D Marshall, Cllr Karen May, Cllr Natalie McVey, Cllr Tony Miller, Cllr Jo Monk, Cllr Dan Morehead, Cllr Tony Muir, Cllr Beverley Nielsen, Cllr Tracey Onslow, Cllr Scott Richardson Brown, Cllr Andy Roberts, Cllr Linda Robinson, Cllr David Ross, Cllr Mike Rouse, Cllr James Stanley, Cllr Emma Stokes, Cllr  Shirley Webb and Cllr Tom Wells. (42)

 

Those abstaining were: Cllr Matt Jenkins. (1)

 

An amendment was moved by Cllr Matt Jenkins and seconded by Cllr Beverley Nielsen proposing:

 

Revenue Amendment: Revenue Budget for Environmental/Sustainability Feasibility

 

Green & Independent AllianceRevenue Budget Amendment Proposals 2023/24	£m	£m
Establish a dedicated revenue budget for feasibility study/business case development into environment and sustainability schemes.		0.150
Funding – further drawdown on usable reserves	(0.150)
Net Total Impact 2023/24	(0.150)	0.150
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:

 

·         With the increase inenergy prices, it would be appropriate to look at reducing energy use to save money and reduce CO2 emissions to meet net zero targets. The pay back for such schemes was usually under 7 years. The extra £150k would allow for 7-8 feasibility studies to be carried out. The level of capital funding required would follow from the business cases which showed the best return on investment

·         This amendment asked for a low-cost investment of £150k with potentially lead to a high yield for the Council.  It was becoming increasing difficult to find energy saving measures which was why it was important to look at this issue now from a strategic point of view

·         There did not appear to be any financed schemes to deliver renewable energy within the budget

·         As part of the proposed feasibility work, the Council could re-examine its decision not to purchase green gas on the basis that it was too expensive

·         The work done to date by the Council to meet its net zero targets had been the easier aspects to achieve. There remained considerable work to be done. This amendment intended to speed up progress.

Comments made against the amendment included:

 

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Corporate Services and Communication commented that the amendment was suggesting that the Council employed additional consultants to undertake work that was already underway. The Council had undertaken a number of initiatives to reduce carbon emissions leading to an 83% reduction since 2010. The Council continued to pursue opportunities to find efficiencies, to secure further grant funding and make business cases for energy saving schemes. The review of county buildings would lead to a reduction in costs and the Council’s carbon footprint. There was sufficient funds in place to allow the necessary work to take place including capital consumption and staffing levels

·         The budget scrutiny process was the best way for this proposal to be assessed, not via a budget amendment

·         The Leader of the Council commented that resources and work was underway to review the Council’s buildings and assets to ensure they were fit-for-purpose and energy efficient. It was essential that schemes met the 7-year payback criteria. Given the limited resources available, existing cases were given priority which would deliver quicker and higher expected return payback and value for money. There was always more that could be done but great progress had been made.

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 Andy Fry, Cllr Matt Jenkins, Cllr Luke Mallett, Cllr Natalie McVey, Cllr Beverley Nielsen, Cllr Josh Robinson, and Cllr Tom Wells. (10)

 

Those against the amendment were: Cllr Chris Rogers, Cllr Alastair Adams, 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 Adam Kent, Cllr Adrian Kriss, Cllr Steve Mackay, Cllr Emma D Marshall, Cllr Karen May, Cllr Tony Miller, Cllr Jo Monk, Cllr Dan Morehead, Cllr Tony Muir,  Cllr Tracey Onslow, Cllr Scott Richardson Brown, Cllr Andy Roberts, Cllr Linda Robinson, Cllr David Ross, Cllr Mike Rouse, Cllr James Stanley, Cllr Emma Stokes, and Cllr  Shirley Webb. (39)

 

An amendment was moved by Cllr Matt Jenkins and seconded by Cllr Beverley Nielsen proposing:

 

Revenue Amendment: Revenue Budget for Fuel Poverty Advisors

 

Green & Independent AllianceRevenue Budget Amendment Proposals 2023/24	£m	£m
Additional Expenditure – Fuel Poverty Advisors		0.105
Funding – further drawdown on usable reserves	(0.105)
Net Total Impact 2023/24	(0.105)	0.105
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 amendment aimed to help local residents who were suffering the most from the energy crisis. Action on Energy had been working with the county and district councils as part of the warmer Worcestershire home energy efficiency partnership. They had indicated that the additional funding for 3 advisors would make a huge difference to support struggling local residents. Advice given included cutting energy debt, reducing energy bills and helping people apply for grants. It helped people move out of fuel-poverty and improved quality of life especially as the Government support was ending in March 2023

·         The Council had managed to employ staff at short notice in other circumstances so it should be possible in this case,

·         The Council had under-estimated the cost-of-living crisis in this country and anything that could be done to improve matters should be done

·         The debt advisors had full case-loads and therefore were not able to support every request for support

·         The proposed amendment was not a duplication of existing work but an enhancement to help more people.

Comments made against the amendment included:

 

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Corporate Services and Communication commented that although the energy market was uncertain at present, energy prices had been reducing. Under this amendment, the Council would need to recruit 3 people in a short period of time on short-term contracts. There were a number of energy projects already underway in liaison with district councils and partner organisations which had received significant investment. Further investment was therefore unnecessary in this area especially as it impacted on the Council’s reserves

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Health and Well-being commented that this amendment represented unnecessary duplication of work being undertaken

·         The Leader of the Council commented that a well thought out a co-ordinated programme was in place to tackle this issue in Worcestershire. The Council had already pledged to use some of its business rate reserve to support libraries if required. Those reserves could only be used once.

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 Andy Fry, Cllr Matt Jenkins, Cllr Luke Mallett, Cllr Natalie McVey, Cllr Josh Robinson, Cllr Richard Udall, and Cllr Tom Wells. (10)

 

Those against the amendment were: Cllr Chris Rogers, Cllr Alastair Adams, 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 Adam Kent, Cllr Adrian Kriss, Cllr Steve Mackay, Cllr Emma D Marshall, Cllr Karen May, Cllr Tony Miller, Cllr Jo Monk, Cllr Dan Morehead, Cllr Tony Muir,  Cllr Tracey Onslow, Cllr Scott Richardson Brown, Cllr Andy Roberts, Cllr Linda Robinson, Cllr David Ross, Cllr Mike Rouse, Cllr James Stanley, Cllr Emma Stokes, and Cllr  Shirley Webb. (39)

 

An amendment was moved by Cllr Matt Jenkins and seconded by Cllr Beverley Nielsen proposing:

 

Capital Amendment: Capital Budget Business Energy Efficiency

 

Green & Independent AllianceCapital Budget Amendment Proposals 2023/24	£m	£m
Increase Capital Programme Allocation - Business Energy Efficiency Programme		2.000
Decrease Capital Programme Allocation – Structural Carriageway/Bridgeworks Programme	(2.000)
Net Total Impact 2023/24	(2.000)	2.000
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 Business Energy Efficiency Programme was due to end in June. It was very popular and demand had been very high. As the energy crisis was likely to continue for some time, it made sense to extend the programme. £500k per annum was needed over 4 years to continue the programme. This reduction in energy costs would help to keep small-to-medium sized businesses afloat in the county as well as help to meet the net-zero emissions target for 2050

·         The request for £2m funding out of an £120m Capital Programme Allocation would not have any significant impact on highways maintenance

·         It made sense to allocate this funding to the Business Energy Efficiency Programme now and if necessary, add funding to the capital programme for highways maintenance at a later date. It might slow the highways maintenance programme down but the Council needed to recognise a greater need at this particular time

·         The amendments had been carefully considered including officer input before being submitted to Council

·         Highways maintenance contracts tended to go to large firms which had no financial benefit for local residents

·         The cost of energy was impacting on local businesses ability to retain staff and invest in their business

·         The Council needed to look at the bigger picture, not just what residents were telling them on the doorstep.

Comments made against the amendment included:

 

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Highways and Transport commented that the proposed transfer of funding from the highways maintenance budget could result in significant losses for highways maintenance and infrastructure projects and impact on the Council’s Active Travel aims. If the highways and transport infrastructure budget was reduced, there could be negative impacts on the productivity of local businesses, and the economic well-being of the county. It was important to find a balance between supporting local businesses and the maintenance and improvement of the highways network.

·         There was a danger that this amendment would divert funds away from Active Travel routes that had already been commenced or were planned

·         The amendment called for the Business Energy Efficiency Programme to be extended for 4 years whether or not a need had been established

·         The Council was delivering the main priority for local residents which was the maintenance of the highways infrastructure

·         A key issue for local businesses was the ability of their employees to get to work and therefore highways maintenance and tackling congestion was important to them

·         The Leader of the Council commented that the Council spent extensively on local businesses, for example through Open for Business programme albeit the way funding was accessed would be changing in the future. A large proportion of highways funding was received from the Government for specific projects and if funding was not allocated, it would be returned. Therefore, the proposed budget reduction represented a bigger reduction to Council spending than it appeared. Roads and pavements were a key priority for the public. The amendment would undermine years of good work to create high quality roads and pavements. The impact on cyclists would be particularly significant from a safety point of view.

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 Andy Fry, Cllr Matt Jenkins, Cllr Luke Mallett, Cllr Natalie McVey, Cllr Josh Robinson, Cllr Richard Udall, and Cllr Tom Wells. (10)

 

Those against the amendment were: Cllr Chris Rogers, Cllr Alastair Adams, 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 Adam Kent, Cllr Adrian Kriss, Cllr Steve Mackay, Cllr Emma D Marshall, Cllr Karen May, Cllr Tony Miller, Cllr Jo Monk, Cllr Dan Morehead, Cllr Tony Muir,  Cllr Tracey Onslow, Cllr Scott Richardson Brown, Cllr Andy Roberts, Cllr Linda Robinson, Cllr David Ross, Cllr Mike Rouse, Cllr James Stanley, Cllr Emma Stokes, and Cllr  Shirley Webb. (39)

 

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

 

Comments made in support of the proposed budget included:

 

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Adult Social Care commented that the Council had committed £26m of the budget to the demands in the People Directorate with £6.3m directed to older people, £4m increase to mental health, £2.4m increase for young people with disabilities  and £7m to cover pay inflation to enable a full weight budget across services. The full amount of the Adult Social Care precept would be taken up. He thanked colleagues in health for their contribution of £2.5m to the budget from the Better Care Fund. It still meant that a savings programme was necessary of over £10m. The Council had also adopted a vacancy management process

·         It was appropriate to keep Council Tax as low as possible to the reflect

current financial difficulties of local residents

·         A lot of work had gone into producing what was a balanced and substantial budget

·         The Leader of the Council commented that he would not wish to increase Council Tax to 4.99% whilst local residents were struggling financially. The environment was a core element of the Corporate Plan and not only had funds been directly included in the budget but it had also been recognised as a cross-cutting theme. £3.5m was being added to the budget to support bus services as well as support for the train network, walking and cycling. The budget had been adjusted to take account of inflation. In relation to Council Tax, the Council should only ask for resources that were absolutely required and justified. He encouraged anyone with a budget amendment to put it through the scrutiny process before bringing it to Council. The Government settlement had been received later each year which had put pressure on the budget-making and scrutiny process.

Comments made against the proposed budget included:

 

·         The proposal to increase Council Tax by 4.94% rather than the full 4.99% represented an increase of just 70p a year for a Band D property and under 20p for Band B. The continued insistence on being one of the lowest Council Tax rates in the country had implications for the quality of the services provided to local residents

·         The Council had been subject to the Government’s austerity programme since 2010 and services had been reduced as a result. Although this year’s settlement was better than usual, it did not make up for the money lost over the years. There were huge demand pressures in Adult Social Care and education and extra funding was necessary. Over the long-term, the funding mechanism for Adult Social Care needed to be reformed nationally

·         Scrutiny of the budget process needed to take place earlier in the budget-setting process

·         There was no acknowledgement in the budget that the County was facing an ecological crisis. There was a lack of funding and urgency to tackle what should be a core part of the budget

·         The Council’s General Fund Reserve was 6.38% whereas the LGA recommended that the minimum should be 5%. The LGA had expressed concern about the Government settlement and emphasised that reserves could only be spent once

·         Concern was expressed about the Council’s pay policy which meant that the lowest paid council employees received as little as circa £18k per annum

·         The Council’s decision to only take 1% of the Adult Social Care Precept in 2021 meant that that deficit in funding had accumulated over time so that a considerable amount of funding had been lost since then

·         The Chairman of the OSPB suggested that the budget scrutiny process should be reviewed so that scrutiny took place earlier. It would also be preferable for budget amendments to be considered earlier in the process.

On a named vote RESOLVED that the budget be approved as follows:

 

(a)  The budget of £400.813 million as set out in Appendix 1;

(b)  The capital programme of £432.720 million as set out in Appendix 2;

(c)  The Earmarked Reserves Schedule as set out in Appendix 5;

 

(d)  That the Council Tax Band D equivalent for 2023/24 be set at £1,465.78 which includes £197.40 relating to the ring-fenced Adult Social Care precept, and the Council Tax Requirement be set at £317.337 million, which will increase the Council Tax Precept by 4.94% in relation to two parts:

 

·         2.94% 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; and

 

·         2.00% Adult Social Care Precept ring-fenced for Adult Social Care services, in order to contribute to existing cost pressures due to Worcestershire's ageing population;

 

(e)  The Treasury Management Strategy and Prudential Indicators as set out at Appendix 6; and

(f)   The Pay Policy as set out at Appendix 7.

 

Those in favour of the motion were: Cllr Chris Rogers, Cllr Alastair Adams, 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 Adam Kent, Cllr Adrian Kriss, Cllr Steve Mackay, Cllr Emma D Marshall, Cllr Karen May, Cllr Tony Miller, Cllr Jo Monk, Cllr Dan Morehead, Cllr Tony Muir, Cllr Tracey Onslow, Cllr Scott Richardson Brown, Cllr Andy Roberts, Cllr Linda Robinson, Cllr David Ross, Cllr Mike Rouse, Cllr James Stanley, Cllr Emma Stokes, and Cllr Shirley Webb. (39)

 

Those against the motion were: Cllr Mel Allcott, Cllr Dan Boatright, Cllr Lynn Denham, Cllr Andy Fry, Cllr Matt Jenkins, Cllr Luke Mallett, Cllr Natalie McVey, Cllr Beverley Nielsen, Cllr Josh Robinson, Cllr Richard Udall and Cllr Tom Wells. (11).