Agenda item

The Council is recommended to make the resolutions set out in the report at agenda item 6.

 

Portfolio Holder for Finance, Assets and Property.

 

The Leader of the Council introduced the General Fund Budget 2024/25 and thanked Cllr Mark Merryweather, Portfolio Holder for Finance, Assets and Property, on the preparation of his fifth budget for the Council.  The Leader expressed his concern with the government’s approach to the funding of local government which meant that Councils were having to be creative in finding options to balance their budgets due to continued uncertainty. Accordingly, the Leader proposed an alteration to the Motion, with the consent of Cllr Fairclough as seconder, to include an additional recommendation 9, in two parts:

 

That the Council notes:

 

(ix) (a) that Waverley Borough Council will explore the creation of a voluntary contribution scheme for Council Tax Band H residents of our Borough. 

 

(ix) (b) that a Temporary Executive Working Group (as per the protocol for Executive Working Groups) will be established to determine this scheme's scope, legal structure, governance, and communication and to bring back to Council for consideration.

 

The Leader stated that the alteration was modelled on a recent motion to Surrey County Council, and the proposed Executive Working Group would consider its detail together with successful schemes elsewhere. Nine rather than eight recommendations now formed the Motion recommended for approval and the Leader commended the Budget to Council, thanked Officers for their hard work in its preparation, and invited Cllr Merryweather to present the detailed Budget proposals. Cllr Merryweather, Portfolio Holder for Finance, Assets and Property introduced the General Fund Budget 2024/25 and his speech is appended to these minutes.

 

Councillor Martin, Leader of the Principal Opposition Group, addressed the meeting and proposed an amendment seconded by Councillor Goodridge. The amendment was tabled and read as follows:

Delete the words in iii) b) agree the increase to car parking charges as proposed in Annexe 4.2and add the words b) to exclude the proposed introduction of evening charges in selected car parks and to reduce the level of increase in parking charges as proposed in Annexe 4.2 to an average of 7% reducing the increased revenue from £447k to £295k in 2024/25.  

 

Together with adding the words:

 

ix. To reduce transfers to reserves as follows:

·       Reduce the one off growth in the property maintenance fund from £400k to £324k; and

·       Reduce the one off contribution to the Invest to Save Reserve from £450k to £374k

 

Councillor Martin introduced the amendment and referenced surpluses generated in the previous year and anticipated for the current year, together with a greater than expected government settlement. His view was that the proposed increase in parking charges could be lessened together with not introducing evening charges. A smaller increase instead could stimulate the local economy and lessen the financial strain on residents in light of the charges having been significantly increased three years ago. 

 

Councillor Goodridge spoke as seconder of the amendment and expressed his view that the increase in parking charges may deter visitors to town centres and was not aligned to the Council’s stated aim of investment in high streets. Further, there was insufficient transport alternatives for residents in rural areas to access towns.

 

Members’ statements against the amendment included:

 

·       Business owners in Godalming had identified business rates and rent increases as the reason why they were struggling, not car parking charges. Business rates were not set by the Council but rents in Council controlled properties were sustainable

·       The proposal to reduce contributions to the invest to save and property maintenance reserves demonstrated short-termism that would have to be rectified in future years 

·       Reducing car parking revenue would have a cumulative impact in future years, which would have to be rectified

·       Parking revenue was invested in priority services including green spaces, street cleaning and recycling, as well as maintenance of car parks, and no alternative means of funding had been proposed

·       The Council should be debating alternatives to car usage in response to the climate crisis, including recently improved local bus services

·       That no evidence had been provided that increased charges would deter visitors; rather the most recent consultation showed that the availability of spaces was of greater importance. Those that parked daily for work were able to apply for permits to reduce costs

·       Surrey County Council should improve its approach to on street parking enforcement, which would alleviate issues and encourage drivers to park in Council car parks; and 

·       There was no perception of a negative impact on the local economy from neighbouring Boroughs which had introduced evening and Sunday charging.

 

Councillor Austin spoke in favour of the amendment and stated that residents and businesses did not want increased car parking charges. The proposed amendment would keep high streets accessible and affordable to visit.

 

The Mayor called upon Councillor Martin to exercise his right of reply as mover of the amendment. Councillor Martin gave illustrative examples of how parking charges had increased greater than inflation since 2020. Moreover, the amendment to reduce the property maintenance fund would only represent a small percentage of the total fund.  

 

In accordance with Procedure Rule 17.4, the Mayor called for a recorded vote on the amendment.

 

Vote on the Amendment

 

For (9)

Councillors Atkins, Austin, Barker-Lomax, Deanus, Goodridge, Martin, Relleen, Staunton, and Sullivan.

 

 

Against (36)

Councillors Beaman, Busby, Clark, Crowe, Davidson, Duce, Fairclough, Follows, Gale, Hesse, Higgins, Keen, Kiehl, Laughton, Long, Macleod, Merryweather, Mirylees, Morrison, Munro, Murray, Nicholson, Palmer, K. Reed, R. Reed, Paul Rivers, Penny Rivers, Robini, Spence, Steiger, L. Townsend, P. Townsend, Ward, Weldon, White, and Williams. 

 

Abstentions (1)

Councillor Hyman

 

The amendment was NOT CARRIED.

 

Consequently, the Mayor invited Councillor Martin to speak as Leader of the Principal Opposition Group on the Original Motion, as altered. Councillor Martin stated that inflation was falling and was expected to continue to fall; and Waverley’s financial support from the Government had increased from a low in 2020 of £3.1m to £4.2m for the forthcoming year. With his amendment having been lost, Cllr Martin opposed the budget on the basis of car parking charges and the proposed voluntary contribution scheme.

 

Members’ statements in favour of the Original Motion, as altered included:

 

·       The government settlement did not cover the impact of inflation, and the Council had to compensate for that using its sources of income – car parking charges and council tax

·       Welcoming of the consideration of a voluntary council tax contribution scheme as the current arrangements were outdated

·       Welcoming the forthcoming review of the Council’s approach to using technology in the Council’s car parks; and

·       Expressing thanks to Councillor Merryweather and the Finance team for producing a balanced budget.

 

Councillor Hyman was concerned that the staff pay rise had not yet been agreed and had been based on assumption, which when agreed could affect the overall budget.

 

Councillor Goodridge spoke against the Original Motion, as altered and was concerned that the budget had not referenced the water and sewage issues upon which a State of the Borough Debate had been called in December. The constitution set out that those matters should inform the budget, and there was no evidence that those matters had.

 

The Leader countered with a point of personal explanation that there was no mechanism within the budget to facilitate the taking of action by Thames Water, and that the Constitution was silent on how a matter dealt with at a State of the Borough debate should be manifested in a future budget.

 

At the invitation of the Mayor, the Leader summed up as mover of the original motion, as altered. The Leader emphasised the context in which local authorities operated where a survey had shown that 1 in 5 Council Leaders had said that it was ‘fairly likely’ that a S114 notice would be issued this year. Waverley Borough Council was not one of those Councils and had prepared a prudent, pragmatic budget to continue to deliver its services to residents.

 

In accordance with Procedure Rule 17.4, the Mayor called for a recorded vote on the Original Motion, as altered, en bloc.

 

RESOLVED to approve:

 

1.     A 2.99% increase in Waverley’s Band D Council Tax Charge for 2024/25 with resultant increases to the other council tax bands; 

2.     To continue the Council’s existing Council Tax Support Scheme at the current levels; 

3.     (a) a general inflationary increase to Fees and Charges for 2024/25 except for car parking charges and some limited other exceptions as proposed in Annexe 4.1, (b) the increase to car parking charges as proposed in Annexe 4.2, and (c) the specific other increases to the fees and charges as proposed in Annexe 4.3; 

4.     A general inflationary increase of 4.5% to the weekly charge for all garages from 1 April 2024;?

5.     The General Fund Budget for 2024/25 as summarised in Annexe 2, incorporating the baseline net service cost variations detailed at Annexe 1 and Annexe 3; 

6.     The General Fund Capital Programme as detailed in Annexe 5;  

7.     The reserve movements as set out in Annexe 6 and a delegation to the S151 officer to draw down from the reserves if the use is in line with the approved purpose

8.     An increase in inflation provision proposed within the General Fund budget of £111,252 to be funded by the £159,459 increase in funding guarantee grant as confirmed by the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on 5 February 2024

9.     (a) that Waverley Borough Council will explore the creation of a voluntary contribution scheme for Council Tax Band H residents of our Borough. (b) that a Temporary Executive Working Group (as per the protocol for Executive Working Groups) will be established to determine this scheme's scope, legal structure, governance, and communication and to bring back to Council for consideration.

 

Vote on the Original Motion, as altered, en bloc.

 

For (37)

Councillors Beaman, Busby, Clark, Crowe, Davidson, Duce, Fairclough, Follows, Gale, Hesse, Higgins, Keen, Kiehl, Laughton, Long, Macleod, Merryweather, Mirylees, Morrison, Munro, Murray, Nicholson, Palmer, K. Reed, R. Reed, Paul Rivers, Penny Rivers, Robini, Spence, Steiger, L. Townsend, P. Townsend, Ward, Weldon, White, and Williams. 

 

Against (9)

Councillors Atkins, Austin, Barker-Lomax, Deanus, Goodridge, Martin, Relleen, Staunton, and Sullivan.

 

Abstentions (0)