Cabinet Member for Finance

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19.3, immediately after any vote is taken at a budget decision meeting of the Council the names of Councillors who cast a vote for the decision or against the decision or who abstained from voting shall be recorded in the Minutes of that meeting.

 

At its meeting on 10 February 2020, Cabinet considered Paper MCa/19/43, together with amendments to the General Fund Budget.  Paper MC/19/38 now includes all the relevant updated information, together with the necessary recommendations.

 

92.1         The Chair of the Council referred Members to the revised Appendix C in the tabled papers and invited Councillor Whitehead to introduce report MC/19/38.

 

92.2         Councillor Whitehead, Cabinet Member for Finance, informed Members that the budget was a result of a period of strong financial discipline and strict prudence implemented by the administration and the significant contribution of the management team, whom had consistently delivered positive financial outturns against the budget.

 

92.3          He continued that the General Fund Budget report had been presented to Cabinet on the 13^th January 2020 and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the 17^th January 2020.  Several Member briefings have also taken place in January for the Budget.

 

92.4          He directed Members’ attention to the fact that the Council had minimised the use of the new Homes Bonus and had not used any New Homes Bonus for the Council’s normal running costs.

 

92.5          He referred to paragraph 8.10, table 5, which illustrated that the New Homes Bonus would end in 2023/24 and currently it was uncertain what and how much would be replacing it.

 

92.6          The Central Government’s revenue support grant had fallen away in recent years and it was therefore important that the Council generated its own income. This was achieved by the following four income steams:

 

·       Income received from various pool investments, all of which produce income streams

 

·       The building up of CIFCO to £50m by investing in secure real estate assets, which generated a significant income stream

 

·       Growing of the council tax base by building new housing and bringing empty properties back in to use, which provided a 1%+ tax increase each year.

 

·       An increase in council tax of 1.66%, which equated to a £2.26 increase per year for a Band D home.

 

92.7          Councillor Whitehead continued that the budget was healthy and included £1m for the development of a Commercial Risk Management Reserve for the Councils’ development sites and £0.5m for Climate Change initiatives for 2020/21. Despite these investments the reserves would still be above £10m for 2020/21, as illustrated in paragraph 7.6.

 

92.8          He then detailed the revised Appendix B, which included information regarding investments into CIFCO, the development of the Needham Market Lake Visitor Centre, development of the Leisure Centre, a proposed change to reduce the 25% council tax discount from three months down to 28 days for Empty and unfurnished properties in section 11.  He also referred to the Pay Policy in section 12.

 

92.9          He thanked the Finance Team for the work undertaken.

 

92.10       Councillor Whitehead MOVED recommendations 3.1 to 3.5 in the report, which was SCEONDED by Councillor Morley.

 

92.11       Councillor Eburne advised Members that the Green Party and Liberal Democrat Groups of Councillors coordinated to produce a series of budget proposals in November 2019, and having had discussions with the Finance Team, then presented 10 key proposals to the ruling Administration for the next financial year.  They were pleased that the Administration had progressed some of these proposals including:

 

·         Promoting sustainable new homes through the provision of technical and planning advice

·       Improving tree cover across the District

·       Providing greater access for all to the Council

·       Improving democratic relationships with residents especially young people

·       Improving residents and businesses confidence in and experience of planning

 

She felt, however, that it was important that further proposals were taken forward in order to respond to the Climate Emergency and future-proof Mid Suffolk District to fulfil residents’ and businesses’ sustainable potential. The proposals had been sense checked by the Finance Team and Legal Team and had been part of the discussion with the Chief Executive, Members and Officers and she was pleased that there had been so much attention for these proposals.

 

92.12       She PROPOSED the following amendments to the draft budget 2020/21 and that the majority was funded through the “Growth and Efficiency Fund”, which stood at £9.235 million as at 31 March 2020:

 

This Council agrees that:

 

i)        All new housing, where possible within commercial constraints, should be zero carbon and the Council should do everything within the Council’s powers to promote this especially with its own building programme; indicative cost £70,000 additional officer time to support all new housing developments and £1 million upfront capital funding to borrow against for own house-building programme plus approximately £40,000 in interest.

ii)       A “competition” is run to produce plans for a series of sustainable Suffolk house designs - that can then be provided to local builders and developers for free; indicative cost £5,000 for officer time to set up and £20,000 fund for the “winner”

iii)     Electric vehicle (EV) use is promoted through installing EV points in all public car-parks in Stowmarket, Needham Market and Council premises; as well as providing funding support and advice for businesses to install EV points in towns and surrounding villages; indicative cost £15,000 officer time for set-up, £40,000 capital cost for installation of up to 20 points, £5,000 ongoing annual maintenance

iv)     Visitors are encouraged to extend their stay in Stowmarket with the introduction of free parking after 3pm one day per week and through providing vouchers for interconnecting community buses; indicative cost £15,000 for voucher trial per year over two years with the loss of income from parking of approximately £30,000 expected to be covered by increase in spend in the local economy.

v)       Confidence in planning is restored through providing additional highways consultation expertise; indicative cost £60,000 in year one for consultancy services.

92.13       Councillor Field SECONDED the proposed amendment and said he recognised that there had been an adjustment to the budget including the £500k for delivering Climate Change.

92.14       He thought that the proposed amendment was much wider than just the environment.  The proposal included an action to build houses as close to zero carbon as possible, and that an increase of the building of houses at a cost of realistic borrowing.  Over the next 30 years the Council should replace the housing stock through the Right to Buy scheme and ensure that modern standardised houses were available to local tenants at a reasonable rent.  This included ensuring that local builders could provide modern designs without high individual start up expenditure.

92.15       He continued that to progress with electric vehicles, the Council should allow taxi vehicles to switch to a hybrid plug-in version.

92.16       Better Highways planning was necessary and that current highway solutions for new developments were not sustainable and he asked that Members supported this amendment.

 

92.17       The Chair asked the Proposer, Councillor Whitehead if he accepted the proposed amendment.

 

92.18       Councillor Whitehead responded that he did not accept the amendment. 

 

92.19       He felt that during the work already undertaken to incorporate some of the key projects into the Corporate Outputs, it had become clear to him that the five proposed projects in the amendment already existed in similar format in the Corporate Outputs. However, he recognised that further work was needed to ensure that the proposals were deliverable.

 

92.20       Councillor Eburne raised a point of order, when Councillor Otton was denied asking Councillor Whitehead a question, on account that Councillor Whitehead had provided a substantial response for rejecting the amendment.

 

92.21       Councillor Otton asked why Councillor Whitehead could not support Item 5 of the amendment, as she believed there was support amongst members of the public that when the Council was dealing with major planning applications, more serious consideration should be given to highways expertise.

 

92.22       Councillor Whitehead responded that Suffolk County Highways advised on all planning applications and attended planning committees as the Highway Authority.  He felt that providing the Councils’ own highways expertise was not what the Council was trying to achieve.

 

92.23       Councillor Passmore enquired if some of these projects could be included in the corporate plans without the allocation of resources, even if they required more precise definition.

 

92.24       Councillor Whitehead agreed.

 

92.25       Councillor Eburne expressed her concern regarding implementation of electrical vehicle charging points, which were not being installed in the District, even though other authorities were progressing with this. She informed Members that there was a local company, which could install these for the Council and that it was a simple action to do to help climate change.

 

92.26       In response to Councillor Matthiessen’s question regarding expertise consultation for highways, the Chief Planning Officer replied that he was not aware of the immediate figures for work with SCC, but that he thought the work was effective and coordinated.

 

92.27       Councillor Carter considered the alignment between the parties referred to earlier and where was the action evidencing this alignment, especially with regards to the environment.

 

92.28       Councillor Fleming felt it was disingenuous to suggest that nothing had been done, and that the anticipated work of the Climate Change Taskforce would be presented to Cabinet in April.  She thought that there was no point in progressing before consideration of which action would be the most effective with regards to the carbon reduction in the long-term.

 

92.29       Councillor Carter reiterated his point that action was needed now, and that carbon reduction had to be achieved not to prevent irreversible damage.

92.30       Members continued to discuss the cost and the options for building zero carbon housing in the District, and whether zero carbon housing would be affordable on a large scale.  Some Members thought that this was possible based on the cost of building a zero carbon house in comparison to the current building cost per square metre, other Members referred to the recent presentation on building zero carbon housing and the cost implied there.

 

92.31       Members progressed into debate and Councillor Eburne explained that other authorities were building carbon zero housing and that this should be a criterion for all new build.  She stated that all the amendments had been undertaken by other authorities.

 

92.32       Councillor Meyer reminded Members that the Council had voted for Climate Change and referred to the work of the Climate Change Taskforce.  He felt that the first three amendments undermined the work of the task force.

 

92.33       Members continued the debate in relation to electrical vehicle charging points, zero carbon housing, reduction of heating bills and the wider benefits to the community.  

 

92.34       Councillor Eburne thought that the work of the Climate Change Taskforce was important, but that it was unfair to pin everything to the Taskforce, especially when action could be taken now and agreed by Members today.

 

92.35       Councillor Mellen, who was a member of the Climate Change Taskforce, thought that the recommendations from the Taskforce were not yet ready to be presented to the Cabinet. He referred to the Terms of Reference, which referred to the urgency of the work to be done. However, the timeline set for the work of the Taskforce did not reflect the urgency and was slow in reaction to the Climate Emergency, he therefore commended the amendment.

 

92.36       Councillor Stringer referred to amendment two in relation to the zero-carbon housing, and that there were issues within the planning process. The housing design was standard and was not environmentally sustainable.  He wanted to support the building industry and to get Suffolk Preservation Society involved with specific ‘Suffolk’ design for future housing to fulfil future demands for environmental sustainability and he asked that Members at least supported amendment two.

 

92.37       Councillor Caston said that the Climate Change Taskforce needed time to develop a suitable action plan to ensure its effectiveness and best value for money for reduction in carbon and to develop the best eco systems for the District.

 

92.38       Members continued the debate including the development of  infrastructure in relation to SCC Highways, the details of the amendment in relation to funding, the intellectual properties of any winning design from a design competition for housing and how this would work in practice, the appropriate allocation of resources in the budget and the robustness of the amendment.

92.39       Councillor Geake was concerned that the lack of understanding of the urgency of climate change influenced the decision for how to implement infrastructure in the District. A budget setting meeting should act if the crisis was real and that the amendment was an essential minimum start. She recommended the use of the expertise available amongst officers and Members and asked that lack of understanding did not defeat the purpose for change.

 

92.40       Members debated further the development of electrical charging points and Councillor Welham explained the importance of getting more residents to use electrical vehicles and the wider implementation on the community, the reduction of public transport and services to rural areas to allow residents to access local shopping, town centres and leisure facilities, free car parking and cycling paths.

 

92.41       Councillor Scarff detailed the cost of free parking in relation to the revenue income from car parking charges.  He suggested free car parking one afternoon a week.

 

92.42       Councillor Pratt supported the amendment and thought that the funding provided for climate change was small compared to the funding invested into the Council’s investment company.

 

92.43       Councillor Morley advised Members that the proposed £1m capital funding to borrow against for the Council’s housing scheme required further investigation, as the General Fund could not contribute to the HRA stock in this way. She reminded Members that carbon zero housing was not required of the Councils Planning Charter and could therefore not be part of the requirements for housing developments. She clarified that the local taxis did not currently have any electrical vehicles and that it was therefore not good use of taxpayers’ money to install electrical charging points for taxis. She stated that the Council was working on implementing some of the proposed elements of the amendment and she was distressed if all the good work undertaken during the past month would be undermined by the disagreement of the amendments.

 

92.44       Councillor Mansel informed Members that zero-carbon housing should be for all housing and not just the Council’s own developments and therefore the General Fund Budget could be used for this purpose.  If the General Fund budget could not provide the funding, then the £9.2m in the Reserves could provide it. 

 

92.45       Councillor Eburne clarified that the taxi licensing was part of a previous version of the amendment and that the charging points points within the Outputs referred to policy and actual action points. Contact had been made with architects to discuss the proposal to provide a design competition and they had been delighted by the idea. She thought the discussion had been fantastic and that the debate and ideas put forward had been good.  Some of the previous proposals had been included in the budget and she thought that the proposed amendment should be included too, as Members and officers had conducted useful discussions to produce these achievable proposals. She reiterated the fantastic suggestions and debate that had taken place across the floor in the Chamber this evening.

 

92.46     The amendment was put to Members for voting and the vote was LOST

 

92.47     In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19.3, the vote was recorded as follows:

FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
Oliver Amorowson
	Gerard Brewster
	David Burn
Terence Carter
	James Caston
Rachel Eburne
	Paul Ekpenyong
John Field
	Julie Flatman
	Jessica Fleming
Helen Geake
	Peter Gould
	Kathie Guthrie
	Lavinia Hadingham
	Matthew Hicks
	Barry Humphreys MBE
Sarah Mansel
John Matthissen
Andy Mellen
	Richard Meyer
	Suzie Morley
	Dave Muller
Mike Norris
Penny Otton
	Timothy Passmore
Daniel Pratt
	Harry Richardson
Keith Scarff
Andrew Stringer
Wendy Turner
Rowland Warboys
Keith Welham
	John Whitehead
Total                    16	Total                       17

 

92.48        Members then returned to the original Motion for questions and debate.

92.49       Councillor Eburne referred to paragraph 7.6 in the report and asked for confirmation if the £500k for Climate Change had to be spent in 2020/21 and why there were no increases in the forecast for the Business Rates in paragraph 8.14.

 

92.50        Councillor Whitehead clarified that the £500k had been allocated to the 2020/21 budget, however, he thought that the funds would be carried over to the following financial year, if the funds had not been spent.

 

92.51        In a response to Councillor Welham’s question regarding the New Homes Bonus, Councillor Whitehead clarified how the Council spent the New Homes Bonus and that some had been included in the Growth and Efficiency Fund and related projects.  He believed that the Government had decided to remove the New Homes Bonus, as many authorities no longer used this funding for the daily running of the Council.

 

92.52        Councillor Otton referred to paragraph 7.7 and asked for assurance that there was enough funding for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and that there should be some indication of the amount for the CIL funding. She also enquired about the Section 106 CIL exemptions that the Council had provided. She asked for reassurance that the Council was fulfilling the legal requirements for CIL provisions. She also asked for reassurance that the provision for Disabled Facilities Grants would be improved and managed better in the future.

 

92.53        Councillor Whitehead responded that Table 7, indicated the CIL figure separately, as there was a specific use for CIL funding. CIL funding would be spent, as the CIL bids came forward. He thought that CIL funding should be a separate budget, as the spending of this funding was very specific.  The spending on CIL was available on the Website.

 

92.54        Councillor Flatman updated Members on the Disabled Facilities Grants and the new arrangements recently agreed.

 

92.55        In response to Councillor Carter’s question regarding the Disabled Facilities Grants, Councillor Flatman offered to speak with him after the meeting.

 

92.56        Councillor Hicks thought that the budget papers were clear, and he referred to the principles of the budget located on page 43 of the papers. He appreciated the funding set aside for the Climate Change emergency. He thought the budget was well considered, sustainable and focussed on the needs of the Council’s residents.

 

92.57        Councillor Fleming supported the budget as it was principled and a prudent use of Mid Suffolk’s public money. It provided good service to customers, and social and environmental values were included in everything the Council did. Investment targeted for climate change and biodiversity had been included for the first time and the Climate Change Task Force would provide important direction in April for how to best proceed with projects to support the work for Climate Change.

 

92.58        Councillor Eburne would like to deliver a forward-looking budget and she felt that the budget was not supporting the wishes of many of the residents in the District.  The reserves of £9.23m should be utilised to support businesses and residents in the community and she felt that the budget was not going far enough, and she could not support the budget.

 

92.59        Councillor Field appreciated the cross-party work and the cross-party discussion that had taken place. However, there were still issues which he did not agree with, such as the £50m invested in high street properties and business premises. Although these investments were currently yielding a good return, he thought the risk was too high.  He also questioned if enough was done to address the Climate Emergency declaration and for the leisure centres in the District. He could not support the proposed budget

 

92.60        Councillor Geake challenged the economic strategy of the administration and the decision to keep funding in reserve for ‘a rainy day’, actions which she thought was ideologically driven. She described the housing surplus in relation to the housing crisis in the country and how this could be resolved by bringing more housing forward for social renting as a temporary measure on the way to owner-occupation.

 

92.61        Councillor Richardson detailed the low rise in Council Tax compared with the growth in average earnings and inflation. He thought that the budget would continue to deliver a high-quality public service and ensured investing in the future, especially as local governments’ finances were challenged.  This budget recognised that the New Homes Bonus would be coming to an end and overall, the budget represented responsible management of the Council’s finances, and he supported the budget.

 

92.62        Councillor Carter did not support the budget, as he did not feel that climate change had been supported enough in the budget.

 

92.63        Councillor Whitehead thought that the budget reflected the changing times and he hoped Members would support it.

 

92.64        The recommendations were put to Members for voting and the vote was CARRIED.

 

92.65        In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19.3, the vote was recorded as follows:

 

FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
	Oliver Amorowson
Gerard Brewster
David Burn
	Terence Carter
James Caston
	Rachel Eburne
Paul Ekpenyong
	John Field
Julie Flatman
Jessica Fleming
	Helen Geake
Peter Gould
Kathie Guthrie
Lavinia Hadingham
Matthew Hicks
Barry Humphreys MBE
	Sarah Mansel
	John Matthissen
	Andy Mellen
Richard Meyer
Suzie Morley
Dave Muller
	Mike Norris
	Penny Otton
Timothy Passmore
	Daniel Pratt
Harry Richardson
	Keith Scarff
	Andrew Stringer
	Wendy Turner
	Rowland Warboys
	Keith Welham
John Whitehead
Total                    17	Total                             16

 

It was RESOLVED: -

1.1          That the General Fund revenue budget proposals for 2020/21 and four-year outlook set out in the report be approved.

1.2          That the General Fund capital budget proposals for 2020/21 set out in Appendix B in the report be approved.

1.3          That the General Fund Budget for 2020/21 is based on an increase to Council Tax of 1.66%, which equates to £2.76 per annum (5p per week) for a Band D property, to support the Council’s overall financial position.

1.4          That from the 1st April 2020 properties that are unoccupied and unfurnished (Class C discount) receive a 25% reduction for the first 28 days as set out in section 11.

That the proposed Pay Policy Statement for 2020/21 as set out in section 12 be approved.