Agenda item

Members gave consideration to a report which presented the Executive Business Plan and the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) for 2023/24 onwards.  The purpose of the MTFP was to set a robust overall framework for the Council’s Financial Strategy and spending plans over the next five years in supporting delivery of the Council’s Corporate Plan.  The report outlined the revised financial plans within the financial analysis for changes in Government Funding, the economic environment, local engagement and Council priorities. The Plan reflected the revisions approved to previous estimates and covered the period up to 2027/28.

 

The Section 151 Officer advised that the report proposed a balance budget for 2023/24 without draw-down from general fund balances. Members were advised the final Local Government Finance Settlement was delivered in February 2023 and had included announcement of a further year’s New Home Bonus for 2023/24.  This additional funding would be allocated to the Growth Reserve and also a new Funding Guarantee Grant for one year. The re-setting of Business Rates and a wider review of Local Government funding were not now expected until 2025/26.  This delay provided the Authority additional time to consider savings which would likely be required from 2025/26 onwards.  The magnitude of these savings was currently unknown but Local Government Funding was expected to be reduced in the medium to longer term.

 

The Section 151 Officer drew Members’ attention to the change in referendum threshold for 2023/24 and 2024/25.  With Council now being allowed to increase Council tax by 3% or £5 (which ever was the greater) (previously 2 % or £5….).  As such the MTFP was predicated on a Council Tax rise of 2.99% for 2023/24 and 2024/25 before reverting back to 1.99% thereafter.  Members noted for 2023/24 this equated to an annual rise (for West Lindsey’s element) of £6.80p for a Band D property or the equivalent of 13p per week.

 

Members’ attention was drawn to the reserves section of the MTFP which included a recommendation to set up a new “Invest to Save” reserve.  It was envisaged this would provide initial investment in projects which would deliver savings in the medium to longer terms.  The report requested £500,000 be transferred into this new reserve from the general fund balance.

 

Finally, Members noted the numerous appendices which formed the MTFP including the fees and charges schedules, noting the new fee, added post consideration by the Policy Committees and published by supplement prior to the meeting.  Further appendices set out the Capital Programme, the Treasury Management Strategy, including Minimum Revenue Provision Policy, details of the Council tax charges raised by each parish and the Pay Policy and Human Resources Statement.

 

The Leader of the Council made the following speech in response: -

 

“As Leader of the Council I am pleased to present our Executive Business Plan and Medium Term Financial Plan, along with the Budget for 2023/24, all of which contribute to achieving our vision of making West Lindsey a great place to be where people, businesses and communities can thrive and reach their potential.

 

The Financial Strategy supports our ongoing aim to be non-reliant on Government funding.

 

The 2023/24 budget has been set to ensure we continue to provide award-winning services, whilst investing for the future through the delivery of the capital programme.

 

The 2023/24 Local government finance settlement has allowed us to set a budget for this year without service cuts and provided us with some time to reduce expenditure before further savings are required in 2024/25 and onwards. A new reserve for ‘Invest to Save Projects’ is recommended to be approved which gives us £500,000.00 to support upfront costs to deliver projects that will realise savings in the medium to longer term.

 

The 2023/24 Budget supports delivery of our Corporate Plan objectives, protects our award-winning services, improves our customers’ experience, delivers efficiencies and will continue to deliver value for money for the residents of West Lindsey.

 

I therefore commend these measures to Council and am delighted to propose the recommendations”      

 

The Leader of the Opposition in responding, referenced the struggle every household in the country was facing on a daily basis with the cost of living crisis, average mortgages increasing as much as £7k pa, families forced to rely on food banks. Heating and energy costs crippling most families, leaving many people without heating. Vehicle fuel cost had risen by nearly 40%.

 

Under these proposals residents’ council tax bills across the District would increase by a total of £99 pounds West Lindsey’s increase being 2.99% increase.

 

Political statements regarding the financial situation, he considered were created by a Conservative national Government and Conservative led local authorities, were made.  It was questioned whether the District received value for Money, referencing the increase requested by the Police and Crime Commissioner stated verbally as £15p/w* whilst with an intention to reduce the number of PCSOs in West Lindsey by 50%.

 

Referencing Office Accommodation and the investment made in the Guildhall on the creation of Marshall’s Yard, the Leader of the Opposition considered the interface with the public had almost disappeared, with only a handful of staff working there on a daily basis.

 

He highlighted the expenditure incurred on consultants during the past year, including over £100,000 pounds on a failed selective licensing scheme.  He stated town centres were ghost towns with over 30 empty retail units in Gainsborough town centre.  Night-time economy he was of the view had been ignored for years by the Council. The once thriving market, reduced to a single stall some Saturdays.  He referred to an amendment which had arisen in Policy Committees regarding extending free car parking to attract visitors and support businesses.  This has been rejected due to a cited deficit of £1.9m in the budget.  The report now before Members suggested this to not be the case.  It was suggested the Council could have done more but there was a lack of will for the ruling Administration.

 

In concluding Opposition opening remarks, noting the planned financial expenditure included in the 2024/25 budgets for a civic car, he questioned the acceptableness of this spend, at the cost of tax payers, during a financial crisis?

 

The Leader responded to a number of the points raised but clearly stated that he would not comment on the precepting levels or use of resources of those other organisations raised by the previous speaker, only those applicable to West Lindsey for which the Council had responsibility

 

The Leader was very much of the view that this Council was delivering outcomes only usually delivered by much larger organisations for individuals, households, businesses, and organisations throughout the District, demonstrated by the Council’s LGC Awards. shortlisting for Council of the Year.  The work on the Scampton site was exemplar, large scale, ambitious and created a long-term future investment plan, jobs, heritage, regeneration and innovation; an incredible achievement for a district of 95,200 people.

 

The Leader indicated he had discussed his wider budget proposals with local colleagues, residents, organisations and partners across the District and considered them to be reasonable, deliverable and importantly created a sustainable situation whilst allowing future investment on behalf of the residents, Members served.

 

Administration Members spoke in support of the budget prepared, its merits and the outcomes delivered.  It was suggested that reference to political affiliation were unnecessary, and inaccurate, as all Councils regardless of control, where faced with similar difficulties, and the challenges faced had not arisen from local decisions made by West Lindsey.  All Council’s had seen reducing Government funding and yet this Council continued to produce a balanced budget, whilst spending vast sums of money towards supporting communities, with a range of grant funding opportunities, making a real difference.  Improvements to the Riverside, large scale investment in Gainsborough.

 

There was political exchange during which a number of points raised by the Opposition Leader were challenged, and counter challenged, with the Chairman suggesting a number of unsubstituted statements had been made and requested the meeting not become procedurally frustrated

 

Following a formal point of information being raised, it was placed on record that Gainsborough Town Council was not controlled by Liberal Democrats as had been suggested.

 

Administration Members spoke of the budget preparation process and engagement undertaken throughout the year; the various aspects presented to Committees in advance and as such the budget tonight was a culmination of that work on which Members of all Groups had had ample opportunity to express their views on.

 

The Chairman of Governance and Audit Committee, in response to statements in opening speeches, referred Members to the outcome of the LGA Peer Review and follow up, praising the Council for its open honest and transparent culture.  The Authority had also recently received its value for money Audit, with quotes read aloud to the Chamber, which suggested Value for Money services could not be doubted.

 

Other Members acknowledged that every Council faced similar difficulties arising from Central Government funding. Those who sat on several tiers of Local Government considered it was evident that more needed to be done to ensure fairer funding for Lincolnshire, including West Lindsey and those services like the police, social care, highways, water through internal drainage boards.  It was suggested this should be a Council focus over the next election term and more pressure should be applied by elected Members and Officers to ensure there was a fairer funding deal for rural areas.  It was suggested that Lincolnshire on a per capita basis was one of the least funded authorities in the country as such it was suggested it was essential that alongside the budget that this Council continued to lobby for that extra funding.

 

Comments turned to the contents of the Executive Business Plan with a view expressed by some that areas were lacking the weight or detail they required.  Referring to Digital Connectivity it was suggested access to fibre broadband was virtually non-existent, access in rural areas didn’t appear to be improving at an acceptable rate.  Broadband played an important role in attracting and retaining businesses, affected people’s desire to live in an area and hindered modern living. It was suggested more direct action was required than implied by the Business Plan

 

The Future Use of Land was something else opposing Members believed should be better addressed.  Noting the conflicts between food production, farming subsidies and more attractive financial offers from companies to host large scale solar farms. Whilst renewable energy was required there needed to be a food/land strategy to secure all of the above rather than one at the detriment of another.   Concern was expressed that there was heavy reliance on LEP data and this was not West Lindsey specific, again it was suggested more direction on specific actions on this issue was required.

 

With the figure verbally quoted for the Police and Crime Commissioner increase questioned, the S151 Officer outlined the precept element for each precepting body as set out in Section 3.1 of the report, with the Police and Crime Commissioner’s being circa £15 per year not per week.  The Leader of the Opposition acknowledged and apologised for his earlier misrepresentation. 

 

The earlier suggestion for a future focus in ensuring a fairer funding deal for Lincolnshire received cross party welcome.  Members considered national governments, regardless of political persuasion, historically had failed to understand rural poverty and rural isolation and this needed to change.

 

In re-butting statements which had been made, it was suggested a large amount of work had been undertaken to improve broadband with the offer to provide evidence of such and the need to recognise the factors considered by large fibre companies in identify areas to service, including settlement size.  The decision to reduce PCSOs did not lie with the Police and Crime Commissioner but rather the Chief Constable.  Furthermore, the reduction was not 50% as suggested and an additional 125 police officers would be recruited.    Members welcomed the prudent and sensible approach to risk which had been adopted by the Council in respect of commercial investments.

 

Further political exchanges ensued seeking to counteract previous speakers, during which it was suggested the Opposition Councillors, had the right to and could have produced an alternative budget detailing their spending proposals but had chosen not to do so. 

 

In responding, the Leader of the Opposition outlined the work he and his Group had undertaken on alternative proposals, noting the differing level of Officer resources afforded.  He gave assurance that should his Group control the Council they had plans they could implement from Day 1 and he thanked the Officers for the support and time they had afforded.

 

The creditability of the LGC Award, as a success measure, was questioned but robustly challenged; only six authorities had been shortlisted with West Lindsey being the only District Council.

 

Turning debate back to Council commercial investments, the prudence which had been shown, and how the lack of it by other Councils, had resulted in changes being made by Central Government restricting the use of, or borrowing from, the Public Works, Loan Board to fund those commercial investments in the future.  It had been those investments which had helped  produce a balanced budget over a number of years and were producing returns; returns  greater than those originally predicted. Whilst the merits of the Policy could be argued, those investments were producing a return, were balancing the books and the change in policy would narrow options going forward.  Therefore, risk awareness and prudence were required to ensure that the authority had the resources it needed to be able to fulfil not only the statutory duties, but also those other projects which it undertook which provided immense value to communities in the years to come and not just short term.

 

Further debate about police resourcing was curtailed given the Authority had little control over this.

 

Having had the recommendations, as set out in the report, moved and seconded, they were put to the vote. In accordance with required legislation for voting on the Council’s budget, a recorded vote was taken.

 

Votes were cast as set out below:

 

For: - Councillors Bierley, Brockway, Coulson, Darcel, Devine, Ellis, Fleetwood, Grimble, Lawrence, McCartney, McNeill , Milne, Morris, Patterson, Regis, Rodgers, Summers, Waller and Welburn(19)

 

Against: - No Votes (0)

 

Abstain: - Councillors Boles, Bunney, Clews, Dobbie, Oliver, Rainsforth, Rollings, Snee J, Snee M, White and Young  (11)   

 

With no Councillors voting against the proposals, the recommendations were declared CARRIED unanimously and on that basis it was:-

 

RESOLVED that: -

 

(a)    Members recognise the external environment and the financial challenges which the Council could face in the medium to longer term depending on future government policy;

 

(b)    the Statement of the Director of Corporate Services (Section 151 Officer) on the robustness of estimates and adequacy of reserves at paragraph 1.10 be accepted;

 

(c)    the Medium Term Financial Plan 2023/24 to 2027/28 be approved with an awareness of the associated risks as detailed at Appendix 2;

 

(d)    the Council tax for 2023/24, be approved, this being a Band D equivalent amount of £234.54p;

 

(e)    the Revenue budget 2023/24 detailed at paragraph 1.4 be approved;

 

(f)     the movement in earmarked reserves detailed at paragraph 1.6 including the creation of an ‘Invest to Save’ reserve and Members ICT Reserve be approved;

 

(g)    the level of fees and charges for 2023/24 as detailed at appendix 3 (as amended by supplement) be approved;

 

(h)    the Capital Investment Strategy at Appendix 4 be approved;

 

(i)     the Capital Programme 2023/24 – 2027/28 and financing detailed at Appendices 5 and 6 be approved;

 

(j)     the Treasury Management Strategy 2023/24 be approved and the Treasury Investment Strategy, the Borrowing Strategy and the Treasury and Borrowing Prudential Indicators detailed at Appendix 7 be adopted;

 

(k)    the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) Policy as contained in the Treasury Management Strategy at Appendix 7 be approved; and

 

(l)     the 2023/24 Pay Policy Statement and Human Resources statement at appendices 13 and 14 be approved.