Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR – RESOURCES

For Council to consider and approve a Budget for 2026/27.

RESOLVED: That Council:

(1) Noted the position on the Collection Fund and how it would be funded.

(2) Noted the position relating to the General Fund balance and that due to the risks identified a minimum balance of £3.5 million was recommended.

(3) Noted the Chief Finance Officer’s section 25 report (Appendix D) which provided a commentary on the risks and reliability of estimates contained in the budget.

(4) Approved the revenue savings and investments as detailed in Appendix B.

(5) Approved the capital programme as detailed in Appendix C.

(6) Approved a net expenditure budget of £27.524m as detailed in Appendix E.

(7) Approved a Council Tax increase of 2.99%, which was in line with the provisions in the Medium Term Financial Strategy.

(8) Approved bringing forward the capital budget for pool covers at the outdoor pools to 2025/26.

(9) Noted that a Council Tax premium on Second Homes would be implemented from 1 April 2026, which adopted the decision taken by Council on 29 February 2024.

REASONS FOR DECISIONS:

(1) To ensure that all relevant factors are considered in arriving at a budget (revenue and capital) and Council Tax level for 2026/27.

(2) To ensure that the budget is aligned to Council priorities for 2024-28 as set out in the Council Plan.

Audio recording – 9 minutes 44 seconds

The Chair invited Councillor Val Bryant, as Leader of the Council, to present the referral from Cabinet and she advised that:

· The Council had a duty to set the budget for the forthcoming year.

· The financial settlement from the Government had been better than expected and they would use this to invest in the district through a value for money approach to create a fairer, greener North Herts.

· 500 residents had responded to the Budget Consultation Survey

· While those who had responded were in favour of freezing Council Tax, this would not be financially viable as they would need to ensure that service would deliver for residents and remain sustainable in the medium-term before Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) in 2028.

· Council Tax was proposed to be increased by 2.99% in line with the Medium Term Financial Strategy, which was the equivalent to 15p per week for a Band D property. However, the Council continued to see its share of the Council Tax bill decrease despite this.

· Their Council Tax Reduction Scheme would continue to remove the need for the poorest residents to pay Council Tax, and pension age residents would also continue to receive Council Tax reductions through the Government Scheme.

Councillor Ian Albert, as Executive Member for Resources, presented the report entitled ‘Budget 2026/27 (Revenue and Capital Budgets)’ and advised that:

· The reports for the Revenue and Capital Budgets had been combined to cover general spending, and the Investment Strategy which covered more technical matters such as treasury investments would be discussed as a separate item.

· The Finance Team should be thanked for their work on producing the budget

· The budget would be set with the knowledge that they had a 3-year funding settlement from the Government that would cover the next two financial years of the Council and the first year of a new unitary authority. However, if the Council existed beyond 2028, they would ensure that the necessary resources would be available.

· They were grateful to residents that had participated in the Budget Consultation Survey to ascertain financial priorities following concern over the new fair funding formula.

· However, the final settlement from this had been positive and enhanced by both a reduction in required pension contributions and a projected increase in Extended Producer Responsibility payments which had removed the need to find a further £2.5M in savings.

· Funding for the Council through the Core Spending Power would increase by 4.3% next year, and by 2.3% and 2.2% in the following years.

· Additional funding for homelessness prevention had also been agreed as part of the settlement.

· There would be a prudent use of financial reserves to enable investment in the district and maintain a medium-term balanced budget.

· Members had been engaged on the budget process via budget workshops and there had been no opposition to the proposals set out within these such as increased investment in the Economic Development Team to help deliver the Economic Development Strategy.

· The top four services as ranked by residents in terms of importance in the Budget Consultation Survey were waste collections, street cleaning, greenspaces and community safety.

· The change to 3-weekly waste collections had already generated £1.2M in savings for Hertfordshire County Council.

· Reserves were healthy and general fund reserves were at a similar level, and prudent management of these would yield long lasting improvements for their services.

· £4.75M would be invested in a new learner pool at Royston Leisure Centre, which would significantly improve access to swimming facilities for all ages.

· £200K of investment would go into interactive water play at North Herts Leisure Centre to create more engaging and inclusive play spaces for families.

· £200K of capital investment would be put into digital signage for Hitchin car parks which had been welcomed by Hitchin Town BID and local businesses.

· £295K had been allocated to greenspaces across the district to increase biodiversity, repair and improve footpaths, and support wildlife at various sites.

· The Community Safety budget would be doubled from £10K to £20K to deliver additional measures to reduce crime, tackle fly tipping and address antisocial behaviour.

· An extra £30K would be provisioned to local organisations through Community Forums, and £40K would be given to key partner organisations such as North Herts Citizens Advice Bureau to continue their important work.

· £70K would be allocated to Herts Futures subject to contributions from other local authorities in the county.

· £2M would be reserved for the delivery of LGR to secure capacity through the transition phase, and to support staff by helping them to undertake the required training ahead of joining the new unitary authorities.

· The Garden Waste collection charge had already been raised to £57 per year which was still less than most other councils.

· Parking charges would be raised overall by 2%, which was less than inflation.

· Risks posed to the Council when setting the budget and how those would be monitored were detailed in Appendix D to the report. Additionally, an assessment of the risks identified by each Director had been compiled and added to the risk register.

· The Finance, Audit and Risk Committee should be thanked for their review of the budget process and assumptions.

· The minimum recommended general fund balances were set out in paragraphs 8.14-8.16 of the report.

· There was a need to increase Council Tax to continue to deliver services and address their Corporate Priorities, particularly Sustainability.

· There was an assumption that they would increase Council Tax by the maximum of 2.99%, which would be £8.01 per year for a Band D equivalent property.

· This increase would generate an extra £400K and freezing rates or increasing them by a lower percentage would be irresponsible as there was no mechanism to recover the funding lost from not increasing rates, and services would be impacted without the extra funding.

· The Council Tax Reduction Scheme would continue to provide support to those in need, especially those who were terminally ill who were entitled to a 100% reduction.

· The Council were asked to bring forward capital expenditure on pool covers which would allow work on this to be complete before the outdoor pool season.

· Information on the implementation of a Council Tax premium on second homes was outlined at paragraph 8.30, which related to recommendation 2.9.

· They were proud of what the budget represented and would deliver for their communities.

Councillor Ian Albert proposed the recommendations in the report and this was seconded by Councillor Sean Nolan.

In response to a question from Councillor Claire Winchester, Councillor Val Bryant advised that additional spending on security at Council meetings had been proposed following recent incidents with members of the public and was a positive, precautionary measure to address the issue of safety for Members, Officers and other members of the public.

Councillor Ralph Muncer then proposed amendments to remove R1, R8, R9, R10, R15, R21, R22, R38, R40, R43, R44 and R47 from the budget and add CON1 and CON2 as detailed in the supplementary document, and highlighted that:

· They were in an age of uncertainty with the flawed approach to LGR implemented by the Government.

· Labour had increased Council Tax by 20% since being in administration, compared to other councils such as East Cambridgeshire District Council who had frozen it for the last 13 years.

· Raising Council Tax by the maximum would add to the increasing fees, charges and taxes across the board.

· No proposed amendments to the budget from the Liberal Democrats suggested an agreement between them and the administration.

· Their party represented low tax and good value for money for hardworking taxpayers and to prove this, they would cut Council Tax this year and the year after and ensure that it was frozen for the year after the Council ceased to exist.

· Should the Government delay LGR in Hertfordshire, they would be prepared to deliver additional savings and efficiencies within the Council.

· Their proposals would be paid for by reprioritising projects, reducing proposals to increase staff numbers, and diverting funding allocated to LGR back to residents as the Government should burden the costs of LGR, not the Council.

· They disagreed with the need for an Executive Member for LGR/Devolution as the responsibilities of this role should be undertaken by the Leader of the Council.

· They would be withdrawing the amendment to remove R52 as it was vital that Members and Officers should go unharmed while attending meetings.

· A Rural Parking Enforcement Officer would be introduced to ensure that rural parking was enforced and resident concerns were alleviated. An increase in Penalty Notice Charges (PCNs) would partly fund this.

· Investment into a learner pool in Royston was commended but would be consistently monitored and scrutinised so that costs would not spiral.

· Members nor members of the public had not been informed of the costs of the Churchgate project and it would be irresponsible to pay for it through borrowing.

· They wanted to take the necessary and difficult decisions for residents to retain their money, and reward working through tax cuts for residents.

This was seconded by Councillor David Barnard.

The following Members took part in the debate on the amendments:

· Councillor Ian Albert

· Councillor Alistair Willoughby

· Councillor Nigel Mason

· Councillor Sean Nolan

· Councillor Val Bryant

· Councillor Laura Williams

· Councillor Vijaiya Poopalasingham

· Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

· Councillor Tamsin Thomas

· Councillor Ruth Brown

· Councillor Daniel Allen

· Councillor Paul Ward

· Councillor Chris Lucas

· Councillor David Barnard

The following points were made as part of the debate on the amendments:

· The proposed amendments were financially irresponsible and would not balance in the medium-term.

· The proposed reduction in Council Tax was an attempt to grab short-term newspaper headlines.

· Opposition to the increase in planning fees and charges had not been justified.

· Budget workshops could have been used to discuss these amendments and there had been plenty of opportunities to table them.

· Many other councils had reserved funding for LGR such as Broxbourne.

· They wanted to provide sustainable futures for residents and funding cuts would remove stability within communities, leaving them worse off in the future.

· It was their duty as a Council to serve their community and safeguard parks and greenspaces.

· Savings on staff in the short-term would be felt by residents in the long-term.

· Amendments of this nature, submitted on the day of the meeting were not serious and were an annual performative exercise by the opposition.

· The real cost of these amendments would be £2.5M over the next three years.

· R8 would help to retain the resourcing for the Communications Team which looked internally at corporate projects that produced income and R9 would help improve services for residents not only now, but in the future. R10 would also help to support their resilience against cyberattacks and removing this, R8 and R9 were ill thought amendments.

· The Leader of the Council did not have the capacity to undertake both the responsibilities of the Executive Member for LGR/Devolution and their own.

· The Executive Member for LGR/Devolution helped to influence change in times to come and would not be needed in a business-as-usual setting. However, having an Executive Member for this was not unusual among other local authorities and would help to mitigate the lost opportunities from the transformation phase of LGR

· Time spent on LGR before May 2027 would be crucial as Members would not be able to discuss LGR after this date unless elected to a new shadow authority.

· Investment would be pulled away from staff, apprenticeship programmes and safeguarding in favour of convenient headlines that would increase pressure on already hardworking staff, weaken safeguarding capacity and incur higher costs later.

· Long-term opportunities and community investment should be chosen over short-term benefits associated with cost saving.

· Planning for LGR was key, whether it was liked or not.

· It would be reckless to cut the investment in their capacity and support structures for staff that would help to deliver the best outcomes for LGR.

· The addition of a Rural Parking Officer was an amendment designed to grab the attention of rural residents and rural parking issues could be resolved in a different way.

· The amendments would make the coordination of volunteers to help with the transfer of items from the existing museum collection facility to the new one difficult, and more expensive if they had to resort to a removal company. It would also prevent them from restarting their education outreach programme.

· R38 was needed to help the Town Hall and Museum continue to generate revenue which they had already proven they could do.

· The importance of staff in the context of LGR was not doubted.

· LGR proposals had been drawn out at the Herts Leaders Group, therefore, it was a leadership function, and they could not justify an additional £9K towards an Executive Member for this, therefore, R51 should be voted on separately.

· Council Tax reductions would be funded by the sacrifice of investment in LGR, which would be the biggest structural change the Council would ever face.

· Governance, resilience and future preparations would all be weakened by these amendments.

· The amendments had been costed, researched and discussed very carefully with Officers before submission. They would save taxpayers money which would then be spent in ailing town centres.

Following a vote, the amendments were LOST.

N.B. Following the conclusion of the vote, there was a break in proceedings and the meeting reconvened at 21:04.

N.B. During the break, Councillor Lisa Nash left the Council Chamber and did not return.

The following Members took part in the debate on the original motion:

· Councillor Paul Ward

· Councillor Tim Johnson

· Councillor Matt Barnes

· Councillor Martin Prescott

· Councillor Ruth Brown

· Councillor Vijaiya Poopalasingham

· Councillor Amy Allen

· Councillor Mick Debenham

· Councillor Daniel Allen

· Councillor Donna Wright

· Councillor Alistair Willoughby

The following points were raised as part of the debate:

· Finalisation of the budget had been fraught with uncertainty from the fair funding review, but the positive outcome from this that meant they would not have to use significant amounts of their reserves in the medium-term.

· The main proposals in the budget had not been challenged at workshops as they broadly delivered on the overall strategy of the Council.

· Security arrangements for Council and Committee meetings were supported.

· The feasibility study and business case built for a new learner pool in Royston was also welcomed as it would be a wonderful community asset that would address years of the facilities in the town not keeping up with growth.

· Thanks was put on record to Members and Officers who had continued work on the feasibility of the learner pool after an amendment to include it in the budget for 2025/26 had been lost.

· It was hoped that the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee and Overview and Scrutiny Committee would guard the Council against unexpected costs of the learner pool.

· There had been a lost opportunity to build the learner pool in tandem with the decarbonisation works in terms of the costs and disruption that could have been saved.

· There would be a fair financial return on the Royston learner pool by 2040.

· More funding towards North Herts Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB), North Herts Centre for Voluntary Services (CVS) and North Herts Minority Ethnic Forum (MEF) were welcome additions to the budget.

· £9K for the Executive Member for LGR/Devolution should be funded by existing budgets.

· This was a well-balanced, structured budget that put communities and residents first and included support towards local organisations and homelessness prevention.

· Funding for greenspaces would benefit the next generation of residents.

· Residents of Great Ashby were represented by those in the administration, correcting years of under representation and delivering for them.

· They were proud that the Council could deliver a new major asset for the district.

· It felt good to be able to address concerns expressed by Royston residents on pool facilities in the town.

· Continued support for North Herts CAB, CVS and MEF showed that they valued organisations within the district that worked behind the scenes to bring people together.

· Increased funding for community grants would empower local groups, volunteers and grassroot projects that would make a real difference in neighbourhoods.

· This budget demonstrated that the Council had remained in good health and the Executive Member and Director for Resources should be commended.

· Financial stability would not be compromised by the resilience that would be built by this budget ahead of LGR.

· Their commitment to new car parking signage in Hitchin would ease congestion across the town and support better parking.

· A huge difference was made to the community by the Wellbeing Team and the provision for a permanent Community Wellbeing Officer would help to keep this.

In response to points raised in the debate, Councillor Ian Albert advised that:

· There had been cross-party unanimity on budget issues, with Royston Learner Pool being an example of this.

· Budget provision for a Rural Enforcement Officer could have been accepted if it had been proposed further in advance, and Members were urged to discuss proposals like these with them in the future.

· Delivery of the learner pool would be scrutinised to ensure that it stayed on track.

Having been proposed and seconded and, the outcome of the recorded vote was:

VOTE TOTALS:

YES : 40

ABSTAIN : 5

NO : 0

TOTAL : 45

THE INDIVIDUAL RESULTS WERE AS FOLLOWS:

Cllr Ian Albert YES

Cllr Amy Allen YES

Cllr Daniel Allen YES

Cllr David Barnard ABSTAIN

Cllr Matt Barnes YES

Cllr Tina Bhartwas YES

Cllr Clare Billing YES

Cllr Sadie Billing YES

Cllr Ruth Brown YES

Cllr Cathy Brownjohn YES

Cllr Val Bryant YES

Cllr Rhona Cameron YES

Cllr David Chalmers YES

Cllr Jon Clayden YES

Cllr Ruth Clifton YES

Cllr Mick Debenham YES

Cllr Elizabeth Dennis YES

Cllr Emma Fernandes YES

Cllr Joe Graziano ABSTAIN

Cllr Keith Hoskins YES

Cllr Tim Johnson YES

Cllr Chris Lucas YES

Cllr Sarah Lucas YES

Cllr Ian Mantle YES

Cllr Nigel Mason YES

Cllr Bryony May YES

Cllr Caroline McDonnell YES

Cllr Ralph Muncer ABSTAIN

Cllr Michael Muir ABSTAIN

Cllr Sean Nolan YES

Cllr Louise Peace YES

Cllr Vijaiya Poopalasingham YES

Cllr Sean Prendergast YES

Cllr Martin Prescott ABSTAIN

Cllr Emma Rowe YES

Cllr Tamsin Thomas YES

Cllr Tom Tyson YES

Cllr Paul Ward YES

Cllr Laura Williams YES

Cllr Alistair Willoughby YES

Cllr Stewart Willoughby YES

Cllr Claire Winchester YES

Cllr Dave Winstanley YES

Cllr Donna Wright YES

Cllr Daniel Wright-Mason YES