Issue - decisions

The Council considered the recommendation of Cabinet on the detailed Revenue Budget for 2021-22 and the proposed Council Tax for 2021-22. The Mayor referred councillors to the Budget Book (green cover) reflecting the decisions and recommendations made by Cabinet on 24 February 2021, including the precepts being levied by Surrey County Council and the Surrey Police.

It was moved, seconded and 

Resolved to agree that in accordance with Standing Order 20.4, the respective Budget speeches of the Group Leaders may each exceed 10 minutes in length if necessary.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor J.R Boughtflower made a statement on the Budget and the Council Tax and moved the recommendations on the detailed Budget for 2021-22 as set out in the report circulated in the Budget Book. The Leader of the Liberal Democrats Group, Councillor S. Dunn, Leader of the United Spelthorne Group, Councillor I.T. Harvey and Leader of the Green Group, Councillor J. Doerfel then made statements.

A copy of Councillors Boughtflower, Dunn, Harvey and Doerfel’s speeches are attached to these minutes as Appendices A - D respectively.

During the debate on this item, it was moved, seconded and

Resolved to suspend Standing Order 5, Duration of Meeting, to allow the meeting to continue until the completion of this item of business.

At the conclusion of the debate on the Revenue Budget, the Mayor explained it was a legal requirement to record in the minutes of the proceedings the names of the persons who cast a vote for the decision or who abstained from voting.

Councillor Gething left the meeting before the vote was called.

The voting was as follows:

FOR (19)

Attewell, Barnard, Barratt C, Barratt R, Boughtflower, Brar, Buttar, Chandler, Harman, Harvey H, Harvey I, Islam, Leighton, Madams, McIlroy, Mitchell, Noble, Rybinski and Sider.

AGAINST (3)

Doerfel, Lagden and Sexton.

ABSTAIN (13)

Bateson, Beardsmore, Doran J, Doran S, Dunn R, Dunn S, Fidler, Grant, Nichols, Saliagopoulos, Smith-Ainsley, Spoor and Vinson.

Resolved to:

1.    Approve a 0.00% increase on Band D for the Spelthorne Borough Council element of the Council Tax for 2021/22. Moreover:

a)    The revenue estimates as set out in Appendix 1 be approved.

b)    No Money, as set out in this report is appropriated from General Reserves in support of Spelthorne’s local Council tax for 2021/22.

c)    To agree that the Council Tax base for the year 2021/22 is 39,016 band D equivalent dwellings calculated in accordance with regulation 3 of the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council tax base) Regulations 1992, as amended, made under Section 35(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

2.    Continue the Council’s Local Council Tax Support Scheme with the current rules and regulations.

3.    Continue the complete disregard of war pension / armed forces pension income from benefit calculations.

4.    Approve the growth and savings items as set out in the report’s appendices.

5.    Note the Chief Finance Officer’s commentary in section 4 of the report on the robustness of budget estimates and levels of reserves under sections 25 and 26 of the Local Government Act 2003

6.    Agree the Council Tax Base for the whole council area for 2021/22 [Item T in the formula in Section 31b (3) of the local government Finance Act 1992, as amended (the “act”)] should be 39,016 band D equivalent dwellings and calculate that the Council Tax requirement for the Council’s own purpose for 2021/22 is £205.05 Per Band D equivalent dwelling.

7.    That the following sums be now calculated by the Council for the year 2020/21 in accordance with Section 31 to 36 of the Local Government Act 1992.

8.    That the following amounts be calculated for the year 2021/22 in accordance with Sections 31 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 as amended by the Localism Act 2011. 

Being the amounts given by multiplying the amount at (F) above by the number which in the proportion set out in Section 5(1) of the Act, is applicable to dwellings listed in a particular valuation band divided by the sum which in that proportion is applicable to dwellings listed in valuation band ‘D’, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section36(1) of the Act, as the amounts to be taken into account for the year in respect of categories of dwellings listed in different band.

9.    That it be noted that for the year 2021/22 Surrey County Council and Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner have stated the following amounts (subject to ratification on 2 & 7 February) in precepts issued to Spelthorne Borough Council in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 for each of the categories of dwellings shown below:

Precepts issued to the Council

10.That, having calculated the aggregate in each case above the Council in accordance with Sections 30 and 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 as amended by the Localism Act 2011, hereby sets the amounts as the amounts of Council tax for the year 2021/22.

The Council has determined that its relevant basic amount of Council Tax for 2021/22 is not excessive in accordance with the principles approved under Section 52ZB Local Government Finance Act 1992.

As the billing authority, the council has not been notified by a major precepting authority that its relevant basic amount of Council Tax for 2021/22 is excessive and that the billing authority is not required to hold a referendum in accordance with Section 52ZK Local Government Finance Act 1992.

The Chief Accountant introduced the report and drew the Committees attention to the key aspects and explained that the details of how officers had arrived at the figures stated was set out in section three. The Chief Accountant informed members that the Chief Financial Officer is satisfied that the Council have complied with the CIPFA code and legislation as set stated in section eight.

The portfolio holder for Finance, Councillor Buttar, was invited to address the Committee. Councillor Buttar informed the Committee the Council had listened to members views and tried to incorporate them.

In response to members questions the Deputy Chief Executive informed the Committee that a detailed breakdown of the figures by portfolio holder would be going to Council along with appendices containing additional information including the comparison of Council Tax with Surrey County Council and the Police and Crime Commissioner and a year on year breakdown.

Members expressed the view that it was not clear what would be covered by the 1 million set aside for issues relating to COVID and expressed concern at the increase in domestic violence and financial hardship and sought assurance that there would be provision for supporting these areas.

The Deputy Chief Executive informed members that the family support team had expanded and it was anticipated that other frontline staff would encounter some issues but this was being addressed. Members were advised that the grants panel had considered the range of issues generated by COVID and that these issues would be addressed in a report to Cabinet that would be published on 16 February. The Deputy Chief Executive confirmed that the report did include the details of a grant towards the Citizens Advice Bureau and that the Council did make contributions to Surrey domestic violence support.

The Deputy Leader and portfolio holder for Community Wellbeing and Housing, Councillor Attewell, was invited to comment and confirmed that there were concerns that Housing Associations would take action against those in rent arrears when they were able to do so and that a COVID recovery report  was being worked on.

In response to further questions the Deputy Chief Executive explained that the residents may be eligible for Council Tax support if their income is negatively impacted which would result in additional financial and staffing pressures. He advised that the government had provided some funding but any additional costs would need to be covered by the COVID contingency fund.  

Members queried the funds set aside for litigation and if the risk had been legally assessed. The Deputy Chief Executive informed the Committee that the risk had not been legally assessed but that was a prudent precaution to ensure funds were available if the issue could not be resolved.

In response to members questions the Chief Accountant explained that it was generally accepted that unused contingencies could go back into the general fund and Councillors would be asked to agree any proposed spend.

Members asked the Deputy Chief Executive if he could explain the large increase in staffing levels and noted that the starting point for the increase in 2016 was at the end of a year on year slicing of staffing numbers and as a result the Council  were experiencing issues with service delivery.

Members expressed concern that by freezing the Council Tax base for one year the Council would not catch up in future years as increases would always be from a lower base. The Deputy Chief Executive explained that had the Council imposed the maximum increase it would have equated to approximately an additional £200k towards the budget in the short term.

Members expressed the view that the saving for individual residents would be minimal and could have been better spent.

Members discussed the Councils provision for Green projects and climate change and agreed that they felt there was inadequate provision and that the Council’s aspirations in this area were not sufficient.

The Committee resolved to recommend to Cabinet:

Recommendation 1: The Committee were concerned over the adequacy of the monies set aside for green issues and climate change which undermines climate change as a priority and ask Cabinet to review this.

Recommendation 2: The Committee expressed concern about the financial benefit to residents of freezing the Council Tax base against the benefit of using the additional income for projects that would benefit the wider community.

Recommendation 3: That next year the Service Committees will have sight of the budget earlier in the process to enable them to be fully involved in the shaping of the final budget before it is presented to Council for approval.