Agenda item

This report outlines the latest Medium Term Financial Plan and the draft General Fund Budget for 2020/21. The Financial Plan sets out the key work streams for the Council to focus on which, collectively, aim to address the significant shortfall in annual budget projected over the medium term which is estimated to grow to £5.4million per annum or 40% of the total net service cost by 2023/24.

 

This report contains the following Annexes:

 

Annexe 1 – draft Medium Term Financial Plan

Annexe 2 -  draft General Fund Budget Summary 2020/21

Annexe 3 – statement of key variations from 2019/20 budget 

Annexe 4 – draft Fees & Charges for 2020/21

Annexe 5 – schedule of projected reserves and balances

Annexe 6 – draft Capital Programme

 

Recommendation

 

The Executive makes the following recommendations to Council, to:

 

1.    agree a 1.9% increase in Waverley’s element of the Council Tax Charge for 2020/21, equivalent to around 7p a week on a Band D property;

 

2.    agree to make no change to the Council’s existing Council Tax Support Scheme;

 

3.    agree the proposed Fees and Charges as shown at Annexe 4;

 

4.    approve the General Fund Budget for 2020/21 as described in this report, and in Annexes 2 and 3; and

 

5.    approve the General Fund Capital Programme as shown at Annexe 6.

 

In accordance with the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, a recorded vote will be taken on this item.

60.1    The Leader of the Council, Cllr John Ward, presented the budget to Council:

 

“Good evening Councillors and Ladies and Gentlemen in the Public Gallery. I am pleased to present to you the first General Fund Budget of this new administration which is outlined in the report on pages 23 – 84 of your Agenda packs. We may be a new Administration but the same problems and financial pressures confront us as they did our predecessors and so, before Cllr Merryweather; effectively my Chancellor; presents that report in more detail, I would like to set the scene with a number of more general remarks about the situation in which we find ourselves. By the way I should perhaps make it clear at once that I have no intention of knifing my Chancellor.

 

“This report relates only to our General Fundbudget and does not cover our social housing activities, dealt with by our Housing Revenue Account (HRA), which is an entirely separate entity that will be covered later under Agenda Item 11. Excluding our Housing Revenue Account activities, our General Fund is the account into which we receive all our other revenues and is the “pot” from which we expend money on all of our other day-to-day services. Therefore it is clear that having a robust General Fund Budget is essential to the delivery of all aspects of our Corporate Plan which, to remind you all, states explicitly that we “will promote and sustain a financially sound Council”.

 

“For some years now, it has been Central Government policyto reduce the funding this and other Councils receive, either in Grants or from the small share of Business Rates that it allows us to retain. It is doing so despite relentless upward inflationary pressureon our costs, and faster than we can reasonably be expected to make up the resulting gap from other income sources. There is, therefore, extraordinary pressure on us to cut costs and, by implication, risk services. This is captured on the adverse sideof the Medium Term Financial Plan, and summarised in the Table at §4.2 of your report (Page 24).

 

“I encourage you, during Cllr Merryweather’s remarks, to view the Chart at §4.12 (Page 27) of the report and, in particular Business Rates. While we, as Waverley, collect them, they are not set by us nor do we have any say in how much we can keep to fund our services. So, whilst we currently collect around £38m from Waverley’s businesses, for which they naturally expect to receive some services it will, I am sure, surprise many of you to learn that we are currently allowed to keep only around 5p in every £1. More importantly, we have not only been told by Central Government to expect that share to decline to zero, but there is a very serious threat that it may actually go further and tax us more than £1 for every £1 we collect from our hard-pressed businesses. The Government continues to insist that “Local Councils retain 50% of the Business Rates” which may be true overall as some northern (Tory Target?) Boroughs appear to be able to retain over 100% which is called “levelling the playing field” but seems to be political tilting of the available funding. All this is even before the other potential impact we may suffer – perhaps £800,000 or more – from the so-called “negative RSG” which is discussed in §4.14 (Page 28).

 

“You will also notice from that Chart that in 2010 Waverley used to receive £6 million in Government Grants but we have received no Central Government Support Grant funding since 2018-19 and the only Central Government support we have had since; the so-called “New homes Bonus” (a reward for building even more houses); will be cut by £300,000 in 2020-21 and we expect it to disappear altogether by 2023-24.The income that Councils can obtain basically comes from three sources – Central Government Funding (Grants) – the local population (Council Tax and other Charges) – Investment Income – the Government has cut off our Grants, capped our ability to raise Council Tax and not given us enough time to make prudent Investments to replace the “lost” revenue. No wonder Surrey County Council has felt it necessary to go to the Public with its Begging Bowl and is considering “inviting” residents to pay more Council Tax!

 

“The financial stresses that we face now were identified several years ago, and in 2018 the Budget Strategy Working Group was established to “drive forward the initiatives designed to resolve the projected budget shortfall.” The initiatives and targets they have been working on comprise the initiatives sideof the Medium Term Financial Plan, summarised in the Table at §4.4 (Page 25) of your report. These fall into three broad categories:

1. Cutting costs and making other efficiency savings that do not affect service delivery;

2. Increasing funding where we can from existing sources insofar as they are not affected by government policy;

3. Finding completely new sources of revenue, for example from investments.

 

“While some of these initiatives, like the ones for Property and Commercial, have evolved into strategies, others have not. Although Cllr Merryweather will discuss shortly their impact on the 2020-21 Budget, I must draw your attention now to the remarks made by Cllr Mulliner, the Chair of the Budget Strategy Working Group, to the Executive on 4 February, (summarised at §60.2 on page 170 of the pack) about the Group’s progress and findings to date after 2 years of work. The Group has concluded that it is “unlikely that any significant revenue could be generated from new revenue streams in the next four years, and also has reservations about the level and timing of savings achievable through the Customer Services Project”.

 

“Our new Administration has been following the work of the Group closely in the 9 months since the local elections and improved on some of initiatives where we can, for example the Property Investment Strategy. However, whilst we are as disappointed as Cllr Mulliner in that Group’s progress, we have no reason to disagree with his assessment, especially as to whether new income streams can impact soon enough.

 

“Some of you may already have thought that the scope of the Group’s initiatives may have been too optimistic because it didn’t include deep, strategic, service cuts. Whilst this Administration will if necessary, but only as a last not a first resort, consider making such strategic service cuts. I must make it clear that we feel it is a more realistic, and fair approach, steered by last year’s Residents’ Consultation, to cut costs and increase fees and charges. The Administration is already making contingency plans for the future but the challenge remaining after 2020/21, to deal with a further £3.5 million deficit represents over a quarter of our General Fund  Budget. On that depressing note, I would ask the Mayor’s indulgence to now hand over to Cllr Merryweather to deal with the detail of the proposed Budget.”

 

60.2    Cllr Mark Merryweather, Portfolio Holder for Finance, Assets and Commercial Services, highlighted the key details of the General Fund budget, which were summarised on page 45 of the agenda. A balanced budget was being proposed in very challenging circumstances. The council did not have the reserves to draw on to balance a deficit, and so the challenge had been to find a sustainable £1.9m in annual savings and new income. This was just the first step towards the £5.4m per year need in total by 2023/24. Within these constraints, the Executive was proposing a fair budget that reflected the Corporate Strategy that itself expressed the mandate granted to the administration through the election in 2019, and residents’ priorities as informed by the 2019 budget consultation.

 

60.3    Cllr Merryweather referred to Annexe 2, which showed the Council’s total service cost which at £10.8m was a net cost increase of £255,000 made up of large cost and revenue movements caused by budget pressures and compensating initiatives, including cost inflation, loss of recycling credit income, and 5% cost savings totalling almost £700,000 from Heads of Service. There were no planned structural cuts to services, but unintended consequences of planned savings would need to be monitored. The Council’s property investment portfolio was operating in challenging market conditions, and a voids reserve was proposed which was offset against investment income.

 

60.4    Cllr Merryweather outlined the proposals for raising car parking income: car park charges had not been increased for over three years, but neither had parking capacity; most central car parks were full at peak times. Waverley had listened to residents and businesses, and taken expert advice via an independent strategic review of off-street parking, and was proposing a range changes to charges, with some tariffs increasing, some decreasing, and some being frozen. The aim was to improve the availability of parking in areas of high demand whilst enabling longer stay parking at cheaper rates at less busy car parks. This would make better use of space, reduce town centre congestion and improve air quality. It was forecast that these changes would increase overall car parking income by £145,000 of which £100,000 would be earmarked to pay for the ongoing costs of delivering the climate change emergency action plan.

 

60.5    Other fees and charges were regulated to a large extent by central government, but a review was underway to make pricing fairer for residents and reflective of the council’s priorities. A freeze on the pricing of a Green Waste subscription was proposed and other discretionary charges were rising in line with inflation. Cllr Merryweather went on to detail the allocation of earmarked reserves to the capital programme, investment property voids, and a further £200,00 to the climate change emergency projects reserve making the total commitment for 2020/21 £300,000.

 

60.6    Cllr Merryweather outlined the approach proposed to mitigate risk on business rate income, and highlighted the impact of business rate ‘retention’ proposals and reduction in New Homes Bonus on forecast income. Finally, Cllr Merryweather explained the approach to increase Council Tax by 1.9%, which was less than the maximum allowed by government which would equate to a 2.7% increase. This approach in part allowed residents to benefit from the additional council tax income arising from new properties built in the borough.

 

60.7    The Mayor invited Cllr Julia Potts, Leader of the Principal Opposition Group, to respond to the budget presentation:

 

            “Madam Mayor, thank you. First I would like to thank Mr Clark, and the finance team, for their hard work, assistance and professionalism to us as a Conservative Group with budget briefings.

 

            “Before you this evening, we have what can only be described as an exceedingly optimistic one year budget. So, the very real concern of the Waverley Conservative Group is how does it fit into the 4 year budget strategy? Does this 1^st year budget address the structural issues that Waverley, like so many other district and borough councils, face over the next 4 years? There can be no doubt that savings not accomplished in year 1 will make years 2-4 far more difficult. We see this as a significant risk.

 

            “In particular, the key aspect to this, which we would question, is: are the significant expense reductions, and raising of revenue, in year 1 sufficient to ensure that financial problems are minimised in later years. I would ask the Leader to please clarify what the strategy is on Council Tax and car parking ongoing, because this is extremely unclear in this budget. We have proposals on car parking charges and have still not seen the review, so again, what is the proposed strategy? I do see that there is a 100% increase proposed in this budget for the car park in Milford so it will be interesting to see if the ward councillors support this.

 

            “We have a significant sum, £300,000, proposed for the Climate Change agenda in this first year. This is non-specific, and again we have seen no plan. Where is the costed plan? We have grave concerns that these critical aspects to the council’s financial strategy are somewhat vague and non-transparent.

 

            “From what we have seen of the Administration’s budget, income from property investment seems to play a crucial part - £1.2m, a huge assumption. £300,000 on income can come from one near-term investment paid for out of reserves. However, this is a huge risk that it is likely to fail to achieve for the following reasons:

1.    Our understanding from political comments at the Value for Money O&S was that the administration intends to limit themselves to Waverley-only properties. Simple arithmetic proves this to be a tiny pool of opportunities to be competed for in the open market.

2.    They won’t invest in some properties because they are ‘unethical’. How exactly is this defined? A tiny pool becomes microscopic.

3.    The arithmetic of the PWLB funded acquisitions has become almost insurmountable since the 1% hike in loan rate.

4.    Ideas of getting involved in residential development, whilst laudable, involve long time delays and significant risk before even being delivered.

 

“Continuing on investment, what is happening with our Leisure Centres, the jewels in our crown for so many years. What has happened to plans fro Cranleigh and given the Carbon Neutrality target now of this council, can a new leisure centre offering both dry and wet side facilities even be built. Or are they just ‘treading water’ until a private provider moves into the area? Godalming Leisure Centre, again delays; and whilst we know the school have to apply to the Secretary of State for the car park extension the delay to a £70,000 annual income is significant. Farnham, again what is happening? Dither and delay has cost the climbing wall; what assurances can be given that the rest of the expansion will proceed?

 

“Heads of Service are expected to create £699k of savings this year. The most exposed here is surely commercial services with savings of £246k. Waverley Training Services, Leisure, Ranger reduction, and proposed changes to Careline are all of serious concern. How realistic are the Business Transformation objectives. Whilst we understand there has been some slippage already we have serious concerns about staff morale. Never forget that our staff are our most important asset. Delivering such huge savings, through massive cuts, begs the question Are we really going to be adequately staffed to enable us to provide the core services for our residents?

 

So to summarise we have major changes to car parking charges being delegated, we have initiatives that are uncosted, and we have no coherent 4 year budget plan. This is from leadership who were on the previous council and should therefore be fully aware of the day to day funding requirements of Waverley. The Conservative Group have serious and very grave concerns about significant aspects of the General Fund budget proposals before councillors this evening, and do feel this potentially calls into question whether Waverley will even be able to remain a viable standalone authority long term if this General Fund budget as it is, is approved.

 

“Madam Mayor, given the concerns we have about the longer term transparency of changes to the car parking tariffs, we wish to bring an amendment to the recommendations in the General Fund Budget on page 3 of the main agenda by adding an additional recommendation to ensure greater transparency for all our councillors and residents. The amendment is as follows:

 

            That Council agree to add an item 6 to the recommendations to:

            Require any changes to car parking tariffs in the borough in 2020/21 be brought to Council for full transparent debate and decision, following all necessary consultation, and are not approved through delegated authority. “

 

60.8     Cllr Michael Goodridge seconded the proposed amendment. Cllr Potts spoke to the amendment proposed:

           

            “Further to comments I have already made about car parking charges and in the spirit of openness and transparency I move this amendment and additional recommendation. When fellow councillors approve the use of delegated authority for fees and charges last year I am sure many were unaware that this would potentially include car parking, indeed I am told by members of the Conservative group how surprised and indeed ‘shocked’ many of them were when they attended the Finance Portfolio Holders ‘drop-in sessions’ only to be told that car parking charges could be increased under delegated powers. Furthermore, some of the Conservative members of the Standards Committee recall this particular matter being discussed and being assured that would not be the case.

 

            “I am sure that members of this council – cross party – will agree that changes to car parking charges must have a fully open and transparent debate before any decisions are made. The Rainbow Alliance has made a point of expressing its desire to communicate and listen to residents in Waverley. It is crucial that happens with decisions as key as car parking, and that process includes all councillors as this impacts residents, businesses and those working in towns and villages across Waverley.”

 

60.9     Cllr Goodridge, seconding the amendment, expressed his concern that Council was being asked to approve the car parking charges as set out in the email of 4 February sent on behalf of Cllr Palmer by the Strategic Director, without them being in the council papers, having gone to public consultation nor to Overview & Scrutiny. The email also referred to further proposals concerning car parking to be brought forward in the near future. Cllr Goodridge referred to the powers reserved to Full Council in the Constitution, including approving car park fees and charges; the delegations to the S151 officer in the scheme of delegation; and the delegation to the Head of Environmental Services which excluded approval of fees and charges from his management powers in relation to car parks. Cllr Goodridge felt that it was clear that the Constitution required car parking charges to come to full Council for approval and the amendment would ensure that this happened.

 

60.10   The Mayor invited speakers on the amendment. Cllr Steve Cosser, Cllr Kevin Deanus, Cllr Peter Martin and Cllr Robert Knowles all spoke in support of the amendment. Cllr Nick Palmer, Portfolio Holder for Operational and Enforcement Services, noted that Cllr Cosser was the only councillor to have responded directly to him regarding the email of 4 February. Cllr Palmer explained that the objective of the changes to charges was to start to address the most immediate difficulties within the parking system, and these were a modest adjustment after several years of no change.

 

60.11   Cllr Paul Follows, Cllr George Wilson, and Cllr Andy MacLeod spoke against the amendment. In response to Councillors’ request for clarification, Robin Taylor, Head of Policy & Governance, confirmed that at its meeting on 10 December 2019, Full Council had approved recommendations from the Audit Committee to amend the Financial Regulations including a delegation to the Section 151 Officer in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Finance and relevant service Portfolio Holders to amend fees and charges.

 

60.12   In summing up, Cllr Potts emphasised that the amendment was about the principle of openness and transparency in decision-making, and this was not evident in the way the proposals for changes to car parking charges were being presented. It had not been clear to Members in December what was being agreed and the implications of that in relation to car parking charges.

 

60.13   The Leader responded that, having checked with Officers, he was confident that the Council had on 10 December approved the change to the Financial Regulations allowing the delegation to the S151 Officer. The reason for seeking the delegation was to have some flexibility to respond to demand in a business-like manner, and he was totally opposed to the amendment.

 

60.14   The Mayor put the amendment to the Council:

 

That Council agree to add an item 6 to the recommendations to:

            Require any changes to car parking tariffs in the borough in 2020/21 be brought to Council for full transparent debate and decision, following all necessary consultation, and are not approved through delegated authority. “

 

Votes in favour 16; against 31; abstentions 4. The amendment therefore was lost.

 

            For 16

Cllrs Brian Adams, Steve Cosser, Kevin Deanus, Patricia Ellis, David Else, Jenny Else, Jan Floyd-Douglass, Michael Goodridge, John Gray, Val Henry, Peter Isherwood, Robert Knowles, Anna James, Peter Martin, Julia Potts, Trevor Sadler

 

Abstentions 4

Cllrs Martin D’Arcy, Mary Foryszewski, Jerry Hyman, Penny Marriott

 

Against 31

Cllrs Christine Baker, David Beaman, Roger Blishen, Peter Clark, Richard Cole, Sally Dickson, Brian Edmonds, Paul Follows, Maxine Gale, Michaela Gray, Joan Heagin, George Hesse, Daniel Hunt, Jacquie Keen, Andy MacLeod, Peter Marriott, Michaela Martin, Mark Merryweather, Kika Mirylees, John Neale, Peter Nicholson, Nick Palmer, Ruth Reed, Paul Rivers, Penny Rivers, John Robini, Anne-Marie Rosoman, Liz Townsend, John Ward, Steve Williams, George Wilson

 

60.15  Returning to the debate on the General Fund budget for 2020/21, Members agreed that there was a need for united lobbying of central government on retention of business rates, but disagreed along Group lines on other aspects of the proposals. Members emphasised the importance of maintaining grants to voluntary organisations, and it was noted that the £300k fund for the climate change action plan was for 2020/21, and the action plan itself would come to the Executive in March 2020.

 

60.16  The Mayor invited the Leader to sum up before moving to the recommendations. The Leader welcomed the debate that had occurred, and assured Members that a similar level of debate had taken place between Executive members in drawing up proposals. On the procedural point raised, he assured Members that Council had approved the delegation to officers, in line with the recommendation of the Audit Committee from their meeting on 26 November. Expectations had been raised in Cranleigh by the out-going administration last year but the Executive was trying hard to resolve to find a way to meet those expectations and provide a new leisure centre. The Leader echoed support for voluntary organisations, and welcomed the cross-party unity on business rates retention.

 

60.17  The Budget called for a 1.9% increase in Council tax for our residents which was the 2^nd lowest in Surrey and compared favourably with the 3.99% increase demanded by Surrey County Council, the 3.84% demanded by the Surrey Police and the much higher average percentages, albeit on smaller bases, demanded by the Towns & Parishes. Car parking charges had not increased for 3 years and, as virtually our only other significant form of revenue, had to play their part in balancing the budget although a blanket increase was not a reasonable proposition. The charges would therefore be scaled so that long-term parking was encouraged towards the further out and under-used areas, whilst the more central ones were biased towards shorter term parking to aid our hard-pressed retailers by increasing turn-over.

 

60.18  Officers had been asked to look very carefully at their departmental expenditures and seek out savings to reduce the burden on our ratepayers. They had managed to achieve savings of almost £700,000. The outcome of the recent budget consultation had been noted and the Executive had listened to residents who preferred to see strategic savings and a rise in car parking charges to a larger rise in Council Tax. The Leader commended this well constructed and fair Budget to Council.

 

 

 

60.19  In accordance with the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, a recorded vote was taken on each of the five recommendations, which were agreed as follows:

 

Council RESOLVED to:

 

1.    Agree a 1.9% increase in Waverley’s element of the Council Tax charge for 2020/21, equivalent to around 7p a week on a Band D property.

 

For 33

Cllrs Christine Baker, David Beaman, Roger Blishen, Peter Clark, Richard Cole, Martin D’Arcy, Sally Dickson, Brian Edmonds, Paul Follows, Maxine Gale, Michaela Gray, Joan Heagin, George Hesse, Daniel Hunt, Jerry Hyman, Jacquie Keen, Andy MacLeod, Peter Marriott, Michaela Martin, Mark Merryweather, Kika Mirylees, John Neale, Peter Nicholson, Nick Palmer, Ruth Reed, Paul Rivers, Penny Rivers, John Robini, Anne-Marie Rosoman, Liz Townsend, John Ward, Steve Williams, George Wilson

 

Abstentions 3

Cllrs Mary Foryszewski, Val Henry, Penny Marriott

 

Against 15

Cllrs Brian Adams, Steve Cosser, Kevin Deanus, Patricia Ellis, David Else, Jenny Else, Jan Floyd-Douglass, Michael Goodridge, John Gray, Peter Isherwood, Robert Knowles, Anna James, Peter Martin, Julia Potts, Trevor Sadler

 

2.    Agree to make no change to the Council’s existing Council Tax Support Scheme.

 

For      49

Cllrs Brian Adams, Christine Baker, David Beaman, Roger Blishen, Peter Clark, Richard Cole, Steve Cosser, Martin D’Arcy, Kevin Deanus, Sally Dickson, Brian Edmonds, Patricia Ellis, David Else, Jenny Else, Jan Floyd-Douglass, Paul Follows, Maxine Gale, Michael Goodridge, John Gray, Michaela Gray, Joan Heagin, Val Henry, George Hesse, Daniel Hunt, Jerry Hyman, Peter Isherwood, Jacquie Keen, Robert Knowles, Anna James, Andy MacLeod, Peter Marriott, Michaela Martin, Peter Martin, Mark Merryweather, Kika Mirylees, John Neale, Peter Nicholson, Nick Palmer, Julia Potts, Ruth Reed, Paul Rivers, Penny Rivers, John Robini, Anne-Marie Rosoman, Trevor Sadler, Liz Townsend, John Ward, Steve Williams, George Wilson

 

Abstentions   2

Cllrs Mary Foryszewski, Penny Marriott

 

Against         0

 

3.    Agree the proposed Fees and charges as shown at Annexe 4 of the agenda report.

 

For      49

Cllrs Brian Adams, Christine Baker, David Beaman, Roger Blishen, Peter Clark, Richard Cole, Steve Cosser, Martin D’Arcy, Kevin Deanus, Sally Dickson, Brian Edmonds, Patricia Ellis, David Else, Jenny Else, Jan Floyd-Douglass, Paul Follows, Maxine Gale, Michael Goodridge, John Gray, Michaela Gray, Joan Heagin, Val Henry, George Hesse, Daniel Hunt, Jerry Hyman, Peter Isherwood, Jacquie Keen, Robert Knowles, Anna James, Andy MacLeod, Peter Marriott, Michaela Martin, Peter Martin, Mark Merryweather, Kika Mirylees, John Neale, Peter Nicholson, Nick Palmer, Julia Potts, Ruth Reed, Paul Rivers, Penny Rivers, John Robini, Anne-Marie Rosoman, Trevor Sadler, Liz Townsend, John Ward, Steve Williams, George Wilson

 

Abstentions             2

Cllrs Mary Foryszewski, Penny Marriott

 

Against         0

 

4.    Approve the General Fund Budget for 2020/2 as described in the agenda report and in Annexes 2 and 3 of the agenda report.

 

For      33

Cllrs Christine Baker, David Beaman, Roger Blishen, Peter Clark, Richard Cole, Martin D’Arcy, Sally Dickson, Brian Edmonds, Paul Follows, Maxine Gale, Michaela Gray, Joan Heagin, George Hesse, Daniel Hunt, Jerry Hyman, Jacquie Keen, Andy MacLeod, Peter Marriott, Michaela Martin, Mark Merryweather, Kika Mirylees, John Neale, Peter Nicholson, Nick Palmer, Ruth Reed, Paul Rivers, Penny Rivers, John Robini, Anne-Marie Rosoman, Liz Townsend, John Ward, Steve Williams, George Wilson

 

Abstentions             2

Cllrs Mary Foryszewski, Penny Marriott

 

Against         16

Cllrs Brian Adams, Steve Cosser, Kevin Deanus, Patricia Ellis, David Else, Jenny Else, Jan Floyd-Douglass, Michael Goodridge, John Gray, Val Henry, Peter Isherwood, Robert Knowles, Anna James, Peter Martin, Julia Potts, Trevor Sadler

 

5.    Approve the General Fund Capital Programme as shown at Annexe 6 of the agenda report.

 

For      37

Cllrs Christine Baker, David Beaman, Roger Blishen, Peter Clark, Richard Cole, Martin D’Arcy, Kevin Deanus, Sally Dickson, Brian Edmonds, Paul Follows, Maxine Gale, Michael Goodridge, Michaela Gray, Joan Heagin, George Hesse, Daniel Hunt, Jerry Hyman, Jacquie Keen, Andy MacLeod, Peter Marriott, Michaela Martin, Peter Martin, Mark Merryweather, Kika Mirylees, John Neale, Peter Nicholson, Nick Palmer, Julia Potts, Ruth Reed, Paul Rivers, Penny Rivers, John Robini, Anne-Marie Rosoman, Liz Townsend, John Ward, Steve Williams, George Wilson

 

Abstentions             7

Cllrs Patricia Ellis, Mary Foryszewski, John Gray, Peter Isherwood, Anna James, Robert Knowles, Penny Marriott

 

Against         7

Cllrs Brian Adams, Steve Cosser, Jan Floyd-Douglass, David Else, Jenny Else, Val Henry, Trevor Sadler