Amendments to the budget published 21 February 2024.

The Leader introduced the report which sought Council’s approval to the Council Tax requirement, Revenue Budget, the Capital Programme for 2024/25 to 2027/28 and the Medium Term Financial Plan for 2024/25 as set out in the report to the Policy and Resources Committee on 7 February 2024, subject to any amendments, and to approve the Council Tax resolutions set out in Appendix I of the report.

 

The Leader thanked officers in the Finance team for their hard work and support and said there had been extreme challenges in producing a balanced budget.  He highlighted that Swale Borough Council (SBC) were in a better position than some other Councils facing being issued with Section 114 Notices and bankruptcy.  He said that Council income had remained static over time due to the real time reduction in Government funding and Councils were dependent on Business Rate income which could be varied.  He proposed the recommendations which were seconded by the Deputy Leader, Councillor Baldock who reserved his right to speak.

 

The Mayor advised that nine amendments had been received, circulated to Members, and published on the Council’s website and in accordance with procedure rule 3.1.14.3, included information from the Section 151 Officer on the impact of implementing the amendments.

 

Amendment 1 – Use of reserves as a result of loss of KCC waste enabling payments

 

Councillor Tim Gibson proposed that:

 

“Following the last minute announcement that KCC waste enabling payments of £297k will no longer be provided to Swale, I am proposing reserves are used to offset the loss of the £297k and officers are tasked with identifying savings to the waste collection service that mitigate the loss of support from KCC over the medium term.”

 

Councillor Baldock seconded the amendment and reserved his right to speak.

 

The Mayor read out the response from the Section 151 Officer, as set out on the Agenda.

 

Members debated the amendment and made points including:

 

·         Disappointed for SBC but the payments from KCC were temporary;

·         would support the amendment but SBC should have been better prepared;

·         such short notice in withdrawing the payment was unreasonable;

·         KCC budget did not support residents;

·         how practical was it for officers to find savings so soon into the new waste contract?;

·         disappointed that an SBC Councillor who was also a KCC Councillor voted to withdraw the funding;

·         highlighted that KCC Members voted against officers’ advice to withdraw funding;

·         lower tier Government were picking up the cuts from central Government;

·         the funding from KCC was always time limited and the contract had come to a natural end;

·         KCC had its own financial issues;

·         it was not well publicised that the grant had been temporary and notice that it was being withdrawn was too short;

·         spoke of the impact on Swale residents that closing facilities in the borough to bridge the funding gap;

·         drew attention that SBC officers had already agreed another year of grant funding with KCC officers before KCC Members voted to withdraw it;

·         what income came from recycling?; and

·         the cut from KCC came too late to prepare.

 

Councillor Baldock said there had been an agreement with KCC for over ten years and he set out the impact to SBC’s budget in having to fill the gap at such short notice.

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.19(2), a recorded vote was taken, and voting was as follows:

 

For: Councillors Baldock, Bonney, Booth, Bowen, Brawn, Carnell, Chapman, Cheesman, R Clark, S Clark, C Gibson, T Gibson, Golding, Gould, Harrison, Hunt, Jackson, Jayes, Last, Lehmann, MacDonald, Marchington, B J Martin, C Martin, Miller, Neal, Noe, Nundy, C Palmer, R Palmer, Perkin, Shiel, Speed, P Stephen, S Stephen, Thompson, Tucker, Valls, Watson, Wooster, Whiting and Wise. Total equals 42.

 

Against: Total equals 0.

 

Abstain: Moore. Total equals 1.

 

The Mayor announced the amendment had been agreed.

 

The Mayor used her discretion to bring forward amendments 8 and 3 for discussion.

 

Amendment 8 – Funding to Faversham Pools

 

Councillor Hannah Perkin proposed that:

 

“Faversham Pools funding be restored to 22/23 budget levels with £20,000 being funded from the additional Government settlement.”

 

Councillor Perkin set out the popularity and many benefits of Faversham Pools to residents including local schools ‘learn to swim’ and the positive impact on health.  She drew attention to the use of the facility by those with disabilities and the benefits it brought.

 

In seconding the amendment, Councillor Ben J Martin reserved his right to speak.

 

The Mayor read out the response from the Section 151 Officer, as set out on the Agenda.

 

A Member spoke in support of the amendment and the positive impact on the health of residents.

 

Councillor Ben J Martin gave a history of the setting up of Faversham Pools and spoke of its popularity as a visitor attraction. He said as a charity it did not receive the same funding that public pools did and it was important to support the amendment to protect swimming facilities in the east of the Borough.

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.19(2), a recorded vote was taken, and voting was as follows:

 

For: Councillors C Gibson, Gould, B J Martin, Perkin and Thompson. Total equals 5.

 

Against: Councillors Baldock, Bonney, Booth, Bowen, Brawn, Carnell, Chapman, Cheesman, R Clark, S Clark, T Gibson, Harrison, Hunt, Last, Miller, C Palmer, R Palmer, Shiel, P Stephen, S Stephen, Tucker, Valls, Watson, Wooster, Whiting and Wise. Total equals 26.

 

Abstain: Councillors Goulding, Jackson, Jayes, Lehmann, MacDonald, Marchington, Moore, Neal, Noe, Nundy and Speed. Total equals 11.

 

As Councillor Claire Martin sat on Faversham Pools as a trustee, she did not take part in the discussion or the vote.

 

The Mayor announced the amendment had fallen.

 

Amendment 3 – Grant to Citizen Advice Service (CAS)

 

Due to the re-order of discussion, Councillor Charles Gibson proposed an amendment to his original amendment so that the amended amendment proposed was:

 

“Citizens Advice Swale to be awarded full funding in line with 23/24 budget, funds to be taken from additional Government settlement and the remaining grant funding of £113k moving to reduce the budget gap.”

 

The seconder of the amendment, Councillor Claire Martin, accepted the amendment to the amendment.

 

Councillor Charles Gibson spoke about how vital the Swale Citizens Advice was for residents across the whole borough and said that the service needed to be protected. He drew attention that the funding to support the amendment would come from the unexpected Government funding and said that most users of the service were the least able to rely on other resources if the service was withdrawn.

 

In seconding the amendment, Councillor Claire Martin reserved her right to speak.

 

The Mayor read out the response from the Section 151 Officer, as set out on the Agenda.

 

Other Members made comments including:

 

·         Highlighted the important service;

·         Citizens Advice needed to look at alternative funding;

·         gave suggestions of how funding could be sought and encouraged the CAS’s representatives to assist;

·         grants had been cut to SBC resulting in cuts in providing grants to other services;

·         amendment was very worthy;

·         service gave important housing advice;

·         highlighted that previous cuts in grant to the service were withdrawn when additional money became available, but the service needed to find alternative means of funding;

·         all Members should offer their skills and help to the service; and

·         should advise that full amount of funding would be awarded this year but there would be no future funding.

 

The proposer of the amendment encouraged all Members to support the full grant.

 

The Leader, Councillor Tim Gibson, said that as a former trustee he had advised the service to seek additional funding.  He suggested that Members could offers their skills to help secure funding as in future there might be none.

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.19(2), a recorded vote was taken, and voting was as follows:

 

For: Councillors Baldock, Bonney, Brawn, Carnell, Chapman, Cheesman, S Clark, C Gibson, T Gibson, Gould, Harrison, Jackson, Last, Lehmann, MacDonald, Marchington, B J Martin, C Martin, Miller, Moore, Neal, Noe, Nundy, C Palmer, R Palmer, Shiel, P Stephen, S Stephen, Thompson, Valls, Watson, D Wooster and Wise. Total equals 33.

 

Against: Councillors Booth, R Clark, Hunt, Speed and Tucker. Total equals 5.

 

Abstain: Councillors Bowen and Whiting. Total equals 2.

 

As Trustees of the CAS, Councillors Golding, Jayes and Perkin did not take part in the vote.

 

The Mayor announced the amendment had been agreed.

 

In response to a Member question, the Section 151 Officer advised that as the remaining £113k of funding was committed to reducing the budget gap, any further amendments would require funding from reserves.

 

Amendment 2 – Grant to Swale CAS

 

The proposer of the amendment, Councillor Carole Jackson, with the agreement of the seconder of the amendment, Councillor Tom Nundy, withdrew the amendment.

 

Amendments, 4, 5 and 6 – Use of Member grants to fund alternative services

 

The proposer of the amendments, Councillor Charles Gibson, with the agreement of the seconder of the amendment, Councillor Ben J Martin, withdrew amendments 4, 5 and 6.

 

Amendment 7 – Member grants to be split to support the work of Area Committees

 

Councillor Hannah Perkin proposed that:

 

“Members’ grants to be reduced to £0 and the resultant £47,000 to be split between the Area Committees to support the work programme of the Committees.”

 

Councillor Perkin admitted that the amendment might not gain support but said it was important that residents’ concerns were discussed and acted on.

 

Councillor Claire Martin seconded the amendment and reserved her right to speak.

 

The Mayor read out the response from the Section 151 Officer, as set out on the Agenda.

 

In the discussion that followed, Members made comments including:

 

·         Welcomed the need to do more but different groups controlled different committees;

·         it was important to keep Members’ grants but needed to consider how Area Committees could continue to be successful;

·         groups and charities already approached Area Committees and not all could be supported; and

·         some Members had agreed their allocation of funding to charitable groups.

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.19(2), a recorded vote was taken, and voting was as follows:

 

For: Councillors C Gibson, B J Martin, C Martin and Perkin. Total equals 4.

 

Against: Councillors Baldock, Bonney, Booth, Bowen, Brawn, Carnell, Chapman, Cheesman, R Clark, S Clark, T Gibson, Golding, Gould, Harrison, Hunt, Jackson, Jayes, Last, Lehmann, MacDonald, Marchington, Miller, Moore, Neal, Noe, Nundy, C Palmer, R Palmer, Shiel, Speed, P Stephen, S Stephen, Thompson, Tucker, Valls, Watson, Wooster, Whiting and Wise. Total equals 39.

 

Abstain: None. Total equals 0.

 

The Mayor announced that the amendment had fallen.

 

Amendment 9 – Various

 

In proposing the amendment, Councillor Lloyd Bowen, put forward amendments to the amendment so that the proposed amendment now stated:

 

“We wish to propose the following amendments to the 2024/25 budget and fees and charges.

 

Income:

·         Introduce planning fee costs for large majors (50+ houses or flats) of £150 per house/flat. Expected income £7500.

·         Introduce a minimum fee for major (10-49 houses and flats) of £2871.25 +VAT or £150 = VAT per dwelling for applications of 20 or more dwellings. Estimated income £7500.

·         Introduce an overnight camper van parking fee of £25 per night.  Estimated income in excess of £25k.

·         Scrap publication of Inside Swale saving £21k per annum.

 

Expenditure:

 

·         Reduce the cost of the proposed night time parking from £3 to £2 (estimate £133k)

·         Retain the free car parks we currently have (£38k)

·         Freeze pitch fees for under 16 and mini football (rounded up to £1k)

·         Scrap the proposed charges of £3.50 per box of clinical waste (sharps) and 2 collections (est £16k)

·         Maintain CAS grant funding at current level as per amendment 2 already agreed (£66k)

 

Use the additional grant money of £179k to offset and use £14k from reserves to balance.”

 

Councillor Bowen said the amendment helped assist the night time economy and helped put money in residents’ pockets.  He said the costs were put on developers and visitors rather than residents. Councillor Bowen confirmed that in proposing the amendment, the decision to use £113k to fill the shortfall of the deficit as agreed earlier in the meeting, would be reversed, but £66k to fund the CAS would be included.

 

The seconder of the original amendment, Councillor Mike Whiting, accepted the amended amendments and reserved his right to speak.

 

Councillor Ben Martin declared a pecuniary interest and left the room during the debate and did not take part in the vote.

 

The Section 151 officer addressed the amended amendment by advising that:

 

Income:

 

·         the income for large, major pre-applications of £150 per dwelling and for overnight camping were assumed figures; and

·         the savings for scraping Inside Swale were the current year’s net budget position.

 

The above proposals, if deliverable, would generate additional income of £61k.

 

Expenditure:

 

·         The expenditure for reducing the cost of parking would now be £133k;

·         retaining free car parks would cost £38k;

·         freezing pitch fees would cost £563 (rounded up to £1k);

·         scrapping the proposed charges of £3.50 per box of clinical waste; (sharps) after 2 collections would cost approximately £15k to £20k; and

·         maintain CAS grant funding at current level as per amendment 2 already agreed (£66k)

 

She advised that the net position had left a budget gap of £14k which was proposed to be taken from reserves.

 

Members were invited to debate the amendment and made comments including:

 

·         Was critical that prior to 2019, the previous administration were short sighted and had not increased Council Tax and in some instances had reduced it;

·         supported the charge for overnight parking of camper vans;

·         the retaining of free car parks would be better discussed at the relevant Committee;

·         scrapping the publication of Inside Swale excluded residents who were in internet poverty;

·         there was a financial and social cost in excluding some parts of the population by scrapping Inside Swale;

·         the estimate for motorhome income fees was unrealistic and was unlikely to be achieved;

·         spoke of the strong feeling of residents who had attended the previous evening’s Sheppey Area Committee who could not afford the proposed parking fees on the Isle of Sheppey, and the impact it would have;

·         a former opposition group attempted to scrap Inside Swale previously, before more residents than currently, had access to internet;

·         car park fees led to a decrease in foot fall and there would be an impact on the night time economy;

·         reducing parking charges was a compromise; and

·         no other group other than the Conservative group had proposed amendments that increased income.

 

Councillor Mike Whiting, the seconder of the amendment, said that businesses and the voluntary economy would be impacted by the increase in car park fees.  He said it was immoral to charge for sharps boxes collections for those that had health issues.  Councillor Whiting referred to charging developers more so residents were not impacted.

 

In response to the amendments, the Leader, Councillor Tim Gibson said that all amendments were estimated, not fiscally sound and too vague and he could not support.  He said that Inside Swale had been refreshed and was now more current and relevant than it had previously been and was vital for many residents.

 

In response to a Member’s question, the Section 151 Officer and the Chief Executive explained how the Parking Policy, which included the structure of the parking fees, would be discussed at the Community Committee on 6 March 2024 and if the introduction of some charges for car parks was not supported it would lead to a budget gap

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.19(2), a recorded vote was taken, and voting was as follows:

 

For: Councillors Booth, Bowen, R Clark, Hunt, Marchington, Moore, Neal, Noe, Speed, Tucker and Whiting. Total equals 11.

 

Against: Councillors Baldock, Bonney, Brawn, Carnell, Chapman, Cheesman, S Clark, T Gibson, Golding, Gould, Harrison, Jackson, Last, Lehmann, Miller, C Palmer, R Palmer, Shiel, P Stephen, S Stephen, Thompson, Valls, Watson, Wooster and Wise. Total equals 25.

 

Abstain: Councillors C Gibson, Jayes, MacDonald, C Martin and Nundy, Perkin. Total equals 6.

 

The Mayor announced the amendment had fallen.

 

After discussing all the amendments, Members debated the substantive motion.

 

Councillor Bowen acknowledged that the budget was the coalition’s budget that was set in economically challenging times.  He referred to the cost of living crisis and said that higher costs would translate to residents.  Councillor Bowen highlighted that all increases proposed by the administration were above the rate of inflation.  He urged the administration to seek alternative funding streams and said that of all the amendments, only the Conservative group had submitted an amendment that could increase additional income to the authority and that the reserves currently being relied upon were built up by the previous Conservative administration.

 

Councillor Perkin said her group would support the administration’s good decisions and challenge where there could be improvements.  She said her group were sad that Faversham Pools had not received the funding that was necessary but there were other aspects of the administration’s budget that were commendable. Councillor Perkin said SBC should declare a financial emergency supported by the Local Government Association and the Local Government Information Unit, as other authorities had.  She highlighted the decisions made by Central Government that had impacted local authorities.

 

Other Members made comments including:

 

·         The budget was tight and the Council had provided services as best it could from the limited funding from Central Government;

·         SBC had received more grant money than many other authorities in Kent in recent years;

·         referred to three petitions that had been handed in prior to the meeting addressing the car parking fees, that would be discussed at the relevant committee in due course;

·         the decisions made would impact all;

·         KCC needed to be more fair;

·         local authorities significantly helped residents during the Covid-19 pandemic and the long term finance of local government needed to be looked at;

·         the grant money received was mostly Covid-19 pandemic money to help businesses during and after the 9 pandemic;

·         the aftermath of assisting to recover from Covid-19 pandemic was still impacting; and

·         the budget faced was a direct result of Government Policy.

 

A Member queried whether the figures on parking fees were correct on pages 3 and 4 of the report and asked whether SBC were subsidising funding under the new bin contract, and whether this was included in the figures on page 11. The Section 151 officer explained the difference in car park fees and agreed to set this out more clearly and she agreed to find out and update the information on funding as part of the new bin contract.

 

In seconding the recommendation, the Deputy Leader, Councillor Baldock said that SBC still had the second lowest Council Tax in Kent.  He said that where savings were found, they were swallowed up by KCC withdrawing the waste grant funding and he paid tribute to officers in putting together a budget with minimal impact to residents.

 

The Leader, Councillor Tim Gibson, acknowledged the robust debate during challenging times.  He referred to the withdrawal of the KCC waste grant funding, the cost of living crisis and said that the UK was now officially in recession. Councillor Gibson praised Members and Officers for their work on the budget in ensuring that SBC had not been issued with a Section 114 Notice as some other Councils had.  He spoke about the efforts being made to seek more funding support from Central Government, including for temporary accommodation and homelessness, so far without success.

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3.1.19(2), a recorded vote was taken, and voting was as follows:

 

For: Councillors Baldock, Bonney, Brawn, Carnell, Chapman, Cheesman, S Clark, T Gibson, Golding, Gould, Harrison, Jackson, Jayes, Last, Lehmann, MacDonald, Miller, Nundy, C Palmer, R Palmer, Shiel, P Stephen, S Stephen, Thompson, Valls, Watson, Wooster and Wise. Total equals 28.

 

Against: Councillors Booth, Bowen, R Clark, Hunt, Marchington, Moore, Neal,  Noe, Speed, Tucker and Whiting. Total equals 11.

 

Abstain: Councillors C Gibson, B J Martin, C Martin and Perkin. Total equals 4.

 

Resolved:

 

(1)  That members note the Director of Resources opinion on the robustness of the budget estimates and the adequacy of reserves.

 

(2) That minute number 604 of the Policy and Resources committee on 7 February 2024 on the report on the Medium Term Financial Plan and the 2024/25 revenue and capital budgets be approved.

 

(3) That the resolutions contained in Appendix I be approved.

 

(4) That in accordance with the proposals contained within SI 2014 No. 165 that a recorded vote be taken on the 2024/25 Budget and Council Tax and the budget be approved including the agreed amendments.