The Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance introduced the report which set-out the Council’s Revenue and Capital budget proposals for 2022/23, the Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP) and the Capital Strategy.  The report had been submitted to Cabinet on 8 December 2021 and since then there had been some updates.  The Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance explained that the Local Government Finance Settlement 2022/23 had been issued in December 2021 and this included an additional £984,000 in grants and he advised that this was for one year only, rather than a multi-year settlement.  The funding needed to be balanced against increased costs.  Following the Government Settlement, the gap of £2.3 million had now reduced to £1.6 million of funding required from the budget reserve fund.  The Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance said the Council was in a similar position to other Local Authorities.

The Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance drew Members’ attention to the tabled paper which set-out the two recommendations, in relation to Fees and Charges, submitted by the Scrutiny Committee at their meeting on 26 January 2022.

(1)      That the appropriate committee, post May 2022, consider the creation of an intermediate fee between minor and major applications for pre-application advice; reviewed the whole pre-application advice charging structure; and charges for individual households also be considered. 

The Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance said that consideration needed to be given on the impact of the recommendation on the Council’s budget, and that it would not be sound to make changes when the budget had already been set.  The Director of Resources said that fees and charges could be changed in-year, but this would need to be looked at overall to address any loss in income to be compensated by budget savings.

A Member reminded Members that the planning fees had been discussed at previous meetings, with comparisons made with other Local Authorities, and she considered there was no need for the matter to be debated each year, but looked at every couple of years going forward.  There was some discussion on the planning fees being considered by the relevant committee, post May 2022, and that it was not up to Cabinet to make the decision to change the fees, but the relevant committee.  A Member highlighted that the category of ‘intermediate’ was not included within planning guidance and other authorities did not include that category in their planning fees.

Councillor Richard Palmer moved the following motion:  That Cabinet do not progress the recommendation from the Scrutiny Committee.  This was seconded by Councillor Angela Harrison.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

(2)      That the fee for replacement bins be removed.

At this point, the Cabinet Member for Environment introduced his tabled report on replacement recycling and residual bin costs following concerns raised by members of the Scrutiny Committee.  He acknowledged that measures needed to be put in place to mitigate any problems with the addition of the new charge.  The Cabinet Member outlined the financial pressure of having to replace damaged/missing bins and drew attention to Table 2 which set-out the costs to provide/replace bins to Swale residents.  The cost of replacement bins was rising rapidly and this was a pressure on the budget.  The Cabinet Member said that the charge would provide a contribution to costs and would also ‘dampen down’ demand for replacement bins and promote a more sustainable approach to the care of bins.  The majority of Local Authorities had introduced charges for the replacement of their bins.  The Cabinet Member said that bins damaged by the contractor would still be replaced free of charge, and there would be no charge for the food waste caddies or garden waste bins.  The scheme would be monitored in the first 12 months.  The Cabinet Member added that the charge was one of the lowest in Kent and he acknowledged that there would be challenges, but this was a responsible thing to do and the costs to the Council were significant if the charge was not introduced.

A Member said that bins should be left in the appropriate position for collection and then taken back and stored at the property and not left in the street, and this should be enforced to minimise the loss of bins.   The Member added that if contractors were aware of residents having more than one bin, then they should take surplus bins away.  She was concerned that some residents presented their bins for collection some way from their property, and said that contractors needed to be aware of what was happening with the bins, such as them being lost in the refuse lorry.

A Member referred to Table 1 and noted that the £30 charge did not cover the full cost of replacing the bin.  He welcomed the no charge aspect for food and garden waste and said the reserve fund would run out and it was unsustainable to continue to carry on with no charge.

A Member supported the charge and noted that the Council was in the lower half of the charges set-out in Table 1.

Members thanked the Cabinet Member for Environment and the Head of Environment and Leisure for the tabled report.

Councillor Julian Saunders moved the following motion:  That Cabinet continued to progress with the charge for replacement bins.  This was seconded by Councillor Tim Valentine.  On being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Members then voted on the recommendations in the report.

Recommended:

(1)      That the 2022/23 Revenue Budget proposals be approved.

(2)      That the proposed Council Tax Band D increase for 2022/23 to £189.27 be approved.

(3)      That the Medium-Term Financial Plan be noted.

(4)      That the Capital Strategy be approved.

(5)      That the Capital Programme proposals be approved.

(6)      That the additional amount of Council Tax for Parish Precepts be noted.

(7)      That the Minimum Revenue Provision Statement as set out in Appendix VII of the report be approved.