Report of Councillor Phil Cowen, Executive Member for Finance, Revenue & Benefits.

Councillor Cowen the Executive Member for Finance, Revenue & Benefits presented the report.

The papers set out before Members contained this Council’s proposals for the Budget, Medium Term Financial Plan and Capital Strategy for the financial year 2023-2024. This was the culmination of a process and had been reviewed in accordance with the standing orders of the Council.  Following that review, the final proposals had been tabled at the Cabinet meeting on 6 February 2023.

The proposals had been consulted upon, had been debated and discussed at both Cabinet and the Overview and Scrutiny Commission and during this rigorous and transparent process no amendments had been forthcoming.

As a result, the proposals had been unchanged from those that had been drafted at the end of 2022 with the exception of changes to Settlement and Business Rates income as previously reported.

Budgeting was an exercise in balancing known and assumed, or sometimes unknown or anticipated, variables against a set of choices that this Council made. It was the ‘choices’ element within the equation over which this Council had discretionary control and that, in turn, sets it on a course of action to establish the balanced budget.

Breckland Council had established key overriding priorities (choices) in addition to statutory services, against which its budget must provide funding. These were:

·         Inspiring communities

·         Thriving places

·         Breckland 2035

·         Working smarter

·         Breckland cares

 

Many authorities around the country had found themselves in challenging positions, and, in some cases, their finances had been compromised but as a result of the detailed work undertaken by Team Breckland, this Council, could propose a balanced budget that allowed it to support both the statutory services that it was tasked with and provide the discretionary services that it had determined as essential for the residents and businesses who lived and worked in Breckland . This budget was not only balanced for the year ahead but also for the following year and was an achievement of which all Members could be proud of.

 

The details of how this budget had been established were explained.

 

This was a positive budget statement and placed Breckland Council in an enviable position. The budget proposed that the band D tax level increased to £108.63 per year (just over £2 per week) but some 76% of Breckland homes were within bands A-C and thus the majority of Breckland households who paid the full amount of Council Tax would pay less than £1.86 per week for the statutory services and importantly, the discretionary services that this Council provided.

 

Councillor Cowen pointed out that when he addressed the Overview and Scrutiny Commission on 26 January to present the draft budget, he had advised that additional Business Rates funding to the value of 500k would be received in the coming year and £1m in the following year 2024-2025. This Council faced significant risks to its budget as a result of the likely business rates reset and the fair funding review but this additional funding had been confirmed after the statutory consultation period closed on January 22nd and therefore, it had been determined, that the most prudent course of action in relation to this announcement was to post this additional income to reserves thereby allowing time to determine how best to utilise such a windfall for the benefit of Breckland residents in the coming years.

 

Councillor Cowen was indebted to the hard work of Team Breckland who had worked together to drive this draft budget. The fact that a balanced budget could be delivered in these difficult times whilst providing all the core services to which residents and businesses were entitled and, at the same time, providing a wide range of discretionary services designed to help and support the most vulnerable in Breckland, was testament to the prudent fiscal policies that this Council followed.

 

Councillor Cowen then commended the budget to Members.

A series of budget amendments were then put forward by opposition councillors, and all were displayed on screen.

 

The first amendment was proposed by Councillor Jermy and seconded by Councillor Terry and was about investing in Breckland’s town centres.

 

All had seen the decline in the high streets, both locally and nationally and therefore it was important that all recognised the value of these spaces both economically, culturally, and recreationally. Breckland Council needed to invest in its town centres, making them places that people wanted to visit and spend money.

 

It was proposed to allocate £1m of anticipated capital receipts into a new fund to purchase small shop units in Breckland’s town centres that would be made available at fair rents for small traders and local entrepreneurs. These new units would help secure jobs but also provide a revenue return for the Council, estimated to be at least in line with the return from cash investments on interest rates (circa 4% currently).

 

The Town Centre fund could also be utilised to support improving amenities in town centres that were important to improve footfall and the visitor experience. An example was provided such as improvements to public toilet provision in Dereham and Swaffham. It was hoped that this new Town Centre fund would be supported by match funding contributions from Town Councils.

 

Councillor Jermy then explained the reason behind his Motion.

 

Councillor Wilkinson asked Councillor Jermy a question.

 

The Deputy Chief Executive & Monitoring Officer advised that in accordance with the Constitution, Councillor Jermy only had a right of reply at the end of the debate.

 

Councillor Borrett said that this seemed a good idea, but he was not sure if this stood up to scrutiny. This Council did have a plan for capital receipts, and a policy in respect of the allocation, therefore, for Full Council to make a decision without going through the proper processes and looking at what else the capital receipts could be used for would be irresponsible.

 

The Leader thanked Councillor Jermy for his proposed amendment but, as alluded to earlier, the UK Shared Prosperity Funding that this Council had was already doing this, by having £250k to tackle this very issue.  It was about working with landlords and businesses to enable much better opportunities, providing assistance to purchase such units and making them sustainable themselves.  Members were informed that the scheme started in October 2022 and currently 37 expressions of interest had been received and 4 had already received funding.  The budget should remain as presented and such activities should be reviewed moving forward, and if suitable to do so, continue to work with those businesses and if successful, to look at further ways to help to ensure that the market towns continue to thrive.

 

Councillor Cowen agreed with the aforementioned comments.  In the presentation that he, himself had provided earlier, he had specifically said that the most appropriate form to use this windfall was to post it to reserves. Then it would be for the Council going forward to review these reserves and look at the priorities that needed to be addressed to determine where the best value could be obtained.  Therefore, at this moment in time, he could not support Councillor Jermy’s amendment.  

 

Councillor Atterwill supported the amendment.  The reason he supported it was that he had asked Officers to provide him with details of the levelling up bids, where he had found a great deal of evidence from the consultants, as part of the Market Town Initiatives, that there was a high vacancy rate in the market towns that put off residents from visiting the town centres and moving to the district.  It was a question of priorities, and it had now got to the stage where residents wanted this Council to do something more tangible that was going to help the High Streets and felt that this funding could do just that.  He also felt that all of the Town Councils could help out as well by drawing down match funding.  He supported the Market Town initiative but felt that this would go further and if this Council purchased some retail units it would still own the asset, much the same as Barnham Broom, and could be actioned through the existing budget.

 

Councillor Clarke also supported the amendment and concurred with the remarks made by Councillor Atterwill.

 

Councillor Wilkinson, had noted that the amendment mentioned the improvement to public toilets and reminded Members that there had been a Public Toilet/Lavatory Bill put through Parliament by Elizabeth Truss MP, removing the business rates from such buildings owned by Town & Parish Councils, and this Council should put pressure on them to make sure the toilets in the towns were acceptable for the public to use.

 

Councillor Atterwill was looking to speak again but the Deputy Chief Executive & Monitoring Officer advised that a member was only allowed to speak once to an amendment or a Motion.  If there were no further questions, Councillor Terry was able to speak at this point as seconder of the amendment, then back to Councillor Jermy for the final right of reply. 

 

Councillor Terry stated that since the 2011 Portis review, much activity had been centred on facilities management but was unable to tackle underlying structural problems in town centres.  Chronic vacancies could still be seen, poor quality occupiers, tired environments, and overall poor customer experience. This made it impossible to attract the necessary investment for improvements. Some of the town centres were caught in a vicious cycle of boarded up shops, declining attractiveness and falling footfall.  Regeneration was a major challenge, but he believed there were innovative ways to tackle such problems with the right investment in town centres that could be simultaneously revigorated and made more resilient over the long term.

 

Councillor Jermy was then given the opportunity to respond.

 

He fully appreciated that he did not expect to come along to a Full Council budget meeting and table an amendment that would be accepted but he did like to propose ideas which could make other Members ponder and possibly come back at a future date having looked into it.  He then addressed some of the points previously raised.

 

As far as Councillor Cowen’s point was concerned, this was not a proposal to use the windfall of business rates or revenue money, this was the windfall of the asset sale using capital money, so it would be part of the Capital Programme, that had been checked by Officers of this Council.  In answer to Councillor Borrett’s point, it was entirely affordable with the current plans, and it was something that could be decided at this meeting although he did appreciate that others might want to take more time to consider it. As far as he knew, as a Council, it was paying the rents to trade, what it was not doing was securing those assets and pinning them to the local community by investing in them and buying the assets, this was the key difference to this programme. Why were these places empty and why were such corporations content to leave units empty for long periods of time.   He believed that Breckland Council knew its district and town centres best and knew what might be achievable in terms of a fair and reasonable rent.  It was already engaging with potential businesses as prospective occupiers were already applying for money for rent; therefore, this Council should be taking the next step and buy these assets for businesses to rent which he felt was a logical next step.    

 

A recorded vote was then taken.

 

MEMBER	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
CLLR ASHBY		x
CLLR ASKEW		x
CLLR ATTERWILL	x
CLLR BAMBRIDGE		x
CLLR BIRT	x
CLLR BORRETT		x
CLLR BOWES		x
CLLR BRAME	APOLOGIES
CLLR BRINDLE	x
CLLR BUSHELL		x
CLLR MARION CHAPMAN-ALLEN		x
CLLR SAM CHAPMAN-ALLEN		x
CLLR CLARKE	x
CLLR CLAUSSEN		x
CLLR COWEN		x
CLLR CRANE		x
CLLR DALE		x
CLLR DOWLING	x
CLLR DUFFIELD		x
CLLR DUIGAN		x
CLLR EAGLE
CLLR GILBERT	APOLOGIES
CLLR GREY
CLLR HAMBIDGE
CLLR HARVEY	APOLOGIES
CLLR HEWETT
CLLR JAMES		x
CLLR JERMY	x
CLLR KIDDELL		x
CLLR KIDDLE-MORRIS
CLLR KYBIRD		x
CLLR LAND	x
CLLR MARTIN		x
CLLR MONUMENT		x
CLLR MORTON	x
CLLR NAIRN		x
CLLR NUNN		x
CLLR OLIVER
CLLR PLUMMER		x
CLLR SHERWOOD		x
CLLR SUGGITT		x
CLLR TAYLOR		x
CLLR TERRY	x
CLLR TURNER		x
CLLR WEBB		x
CLLR WICKERSON	x
CLLR WILKIN		x
CLLR WILKINSON		x
TOTAL:	10	29	0

 

The amendment was lost by 10 votes in favour and 29 against, there were no abstentions.

 

Prior to going back to the substantive recommendations, a second amendment was put forward by Councillor Land, seconded by Councillor Wickerson.

 

The budget proposed for Disabled Facilities Grants was evidently not sufficient as a significant backlog remained. This proposal was to allocate a further £200,000 in 2023/24 to ensure that all applicants that had been assessed and costed were implemented in the next financial year.

 

This additional funding would be taken from the New Homes Bonus allocation for 2023-24 which would otherwise be contributed into the Inclusive Growth.

 

Councillor Bambridge explained how the disabled facilities grant worked. This Council like all other district councils administered the disabled facilities grant on behalf of the Government.  The money was Central Government money and allocations were made.  This Council, due to its efficiencies, had managed to spend it all and had spent it rather early.   He along with Officers of this Council and other Cabinet Members including the Leader, had been in contact, for several months now, with Ministers of the Crown in Westminster using MP’s and direct contacts to try and achieve greater funding for such matters from Central Government.  He looked to Members to put pressure on Ministers and on the local MP to attempt to get more money for this Council. 

 

Councillor Atterwill thanked Councillor Bambridge for his comments, but the fact was, that this Council had spent all the money, but it did not have enough to carry out the work that was required. Clearly, if the money had been spent, there was a need, and the need was outstripping the funds that the Council had in the pot to carry out the work.  Whilst every pressure was being put on Government, there was a situation that this £200k could make a very big difference very quickly to some very vulnerable residents who needed assistance. Looking at the budget he felt that £200k could easily be found and whole heartedly supported this amendment.  

 

The Leader confirmed that this budget, if voted for approval, would come into force on 1 April 2023 and as of the 1 April this year a new allocation would come from Central Government, and he was hopeful that it would be more than the previous year.  He acknowledged that £200k would go some way to deal with such matters.

 

Councillor Jermy disagreed with the comments made by Councillor Bambridge.  He agreed that it was the Government’s responsibility to provide such funding but this Council had an allocation for the next financial year of  £1.3m but the costed figure of implementing everyone who had been accessed and accepted was £1.5m so this meant that this Council was adopting a budget that would not meet the need that existed, and this Council was purely hoping that the Government would provide the rest at a future date. In addition to this £1.5m, it still had 300 people who had not even been assessed and had no chance in the next financial year of having their adaptations implemented.  Therefore, he was not prepared to vote for this budget.

 

From her past experience as the Housing Portfolio Holder, Councillor Webb totally understood the pressures that Councillor Bambridge and the Team were under.  The Team had been very efficient with the occupational health service, and she along with the Leader and Councillor Bambridge had been pushing the Government to get more money.  She was also aware that the Team had kept some monies back, nearly £200k for priority one cases that required urgent adaptions. The Handyman Scheme had provided great help in installing grab rails etc in peoples’ homes.  Councillor Webb also mentioned that she along with others, including the Leader, would be attending a meeting very soon to try and get this allowance increased, as they knew there was an issue, and all was being done to address this.

 

Councillor Borrett supported the effort being made by Councillor Webb and Councillor Bambridge as such matters should not be funded by Council Tax.  The Government had given this Council a direct grant for this piece of work and Breckland Council was an agent of the Government delivering this service.  He then provided some examples of other services out of the Council’s control that needed additional funding, such as the ambulance service, but was not this authority’s responsibility as it rested elsewhere.   He did believe however, that there was a compelling case for the Government to be more clearly appraised as to the need of this particular service which he felt was excellent as it was a vital part of the Council’s overall responsibilities to the Government generally and was being pursued.

 

As the seconder of this Motion, Councillor Wickerson was then given the opportunity to speak.

 

There was no guarantee that the Government would come to the Council’s rescue, he had seen the figures, and therefore the residents in his Ward would not be receiving the help they required. He referred to the Leader’s announcements where he had highlighted this Council’s commitment to those in need, this proposed amendment was a further opportunity to demonstrate that commitment.  The essential need for this service would not only assist the individual residents to return to their homes to live independently but the wider picture was the much-needed hospital beds.

 

The pressures on the Council’s Housing Team were ever increasing with 176 grants completed in 2021/22 and 214 already completed in the first three quarters of 2022/23.  Current enquiries were averaging 15 a week and the average the cost of each grant had risen from £7k to £9k, and with only £197k remaining in the budget for 2022/23, the Team was now only being able to consider priority one cases for those who had been waiting longest or those who had the highest need. There were also an additional 302 applicants waiting for occupational health assessments of which results were awaited on 60 of those assessments. It was therefore clear that the current figure of £1.3m in the 2023/24 budget was seriously underfunded.  Members were urged to agree to the proposed amendment and provide the Housing Team with the necessary resources required now.

 

Councillor Land as the proposer of this Motion was then given the opportunity to speak.

 

Firstly, in response to the point raised by Councillor Borrett, the Council was not asking for money to support the ambulance service, it was asking for additional help for a service that this Council already provided.  He supported Councillor Bambridge’s efforts in trying to get more funding from Government but if this did not come to fruition this Council should release the money that was already available.

 

A recorded vote was taken on this amendment.

 

MEMBER	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
CLLR ASHBY		x
CLLR ASKEW		x
CLLR ATTERWILL	x
CLLR BAMBRIDGE		x
CLLR BIRT	x
CLLR BORRETT		x
CLLR BOWES		x
CLLR BRAME	APOLOGIES
CLLR BRINDLE	x
CLLR BUSHELL		x
CLLR MARION CHAPMAN-ALLEN		x
CLLR SAM CHAPMAN-ALLEN		x
CLLR CLARKE	x
CLLR CLAUSSEN		x
CLLR COWEN		x
CLLR CRANE		x
CLLR DALE		x
CLLR DOWLING	x
CLLR DUFFIELD		x
CLLR DUIGAN		x
CLLR EAGLE
CLLR GILBERT	APOLOGIES
CLLR GREY
CLLR HAMBIDGE
CLLR HARVEY	APOLOGIES
CLLR HEWETT
CLLR JAMES		x
CLLR JERMY	x
CLLR KIDDELL		x
CLLR KIDDLE-MORRIS
CLLR KYBIRD		x
CLLR LAND	x
CLLR MARTIN		x
CLLR MONUMENT		x
CLLR MORTON	x
CLLR NAIRN		x
CLLR NUNN		x
CLLR OLIVER
CLLR PLUMMER		x
CLLR SHERWOOD		x
CLLR SUGGITT		x
CLLR TAYLOR		x
CLLR TERRY	x
CLLR TURNER		x
CLLR WEBB		x
CLLR WICKERSON	x
CLLR WILKIN		x
CLLR WILKINSON		x
TOTAL:	10	29	0

 

The amendment was lost by 10 votes in favour and 29 against, there were no abstentions.

 

Again prior to voting on the substantive recommendations, a third amendment was then proposed by Councillor Clarke and seconded by Councillor Brindle.

 

It was proposed to pause the Breckland Bridge small sites proposals for 2023/24 to allow for greater level of consultation with Ward Members, Parish Councils and local residents.

 

The current proposals were being rushed with inadequate levels of consultation. The Council risked forever losing much-valued pieces of community space and ‘green lungs’. Sites that improved biodiversity, supported physical and mental health and areas where there was shortage of green space. Once these sites were sold, they would be gone for good.

 

The financial impact of this pause would be negligible in the 23/24 financial year with the predicted income of £166,667 moved into future financial years.

 

Councillor Clarke then explained his reasons behind the amendment.

 

The Leader confirmed that what was being proposed as an amendment to the budget, was in relation to a decision that had been made in October 2022 of which all Members had voted in favour of, and nobody had abstained or voted against it. The Portfolio Holder had also shared with all members that every site for small disposals would be considered on a case-by-case basis, the £166k was a target, and every time a piece of land came forward for disposal a piece of work was then undertaken with the local Ward Member and Parish Councils to get a full understanding prior to any decision being formally made. This proposed amendment was not well timed because if any Councils had a concern about a piece of land in his Ward, a process was already in place that should be followed to get the best outcome, and therefore he would not be supporting the amendment as proposed.

 

The Deputy Chief Executive & Monitoring Officer stated that this was an amendment to the budget to pause expenditure and mitigate loss of income, and subsequent decisions to enable this could be necessary.

 

Councillor Wilkinson referred to the first paragraph of Councillor Clarke’s amendment – consultation with Ward Members and Town/Parish Councillors.  This was happening as had done on various pieces of land in his Ward one of which had gone through the Planning Committee process recently.

 

As a point of clarification, Councillor Cowen stated that not only was he the Portfolio Holder for Finance Revenues & Benefits, but he was also a Director of Breckland Bridge and asked for guidance on whether he was allowed to take part in the vote.

 

The Deputy Chief Executive & Monitoring Officer stated that the safest option was to abstain from voting on this amendment.

 

Whilst she appreciated Councillor Clarke’s concerns about the small green areas that had been added to this list, Councillor Monument was not actually convinced that the proposal that was being put forward was not an amendment to the budget and believed that this was a completely separate proposal to stop the actual process itself. 

 

The Deputy Chief Executive & Monitoring Officer understood the aforementioned points, but he believed that the amendment tabled did focus on the financial aspects, that would have an effect on the budget.

 

Councillor Webb totally understood the issues and the fact that people in Dereham felt that green spaces were needed but as mentioned before, there was a process that allowed for consultation and Ward Members should be putting forward any objections received from residents.

 

Councillor Jermy said that he would be supporting this amendment as he did not have the faith as Councillor Webb had in the process. As a County Councillor in Thetford, a Town Councillor and a neighbouring Ward Councillor, he had not been consulted on any pieces of land that had been sold.  He was aware that there were a significant number of residents in Glebe Close/Vicarage Road in Thetford who were vehemently against the Breckland Bridge proposal to build on a very small piece of green land. The Ward Members and the community were against it, but the process still continued and planning permission had been sought once more.  This Council was making a mistake and was rushing to sell off these pieces of land, and as Councillor Clarke had said, once these sites were sold, they would be gone for good, and including a budget allocation for this was wrong.

 

Councillor Plummer drew Members’ attention to page 78 of the agenda pack, the Planning Minutes and pointed out that Breckland Bridge had wanted to build 2 dwellings in Thompson which was refused by the Planning Committee against the Officers recommendation of approval. He mentioned the two pieces of land in his Ward which had been offered to the Parish Council to retain as green open space.

 

As a Ward Member for Thetford, Councillor Kybird mentioned the land at Glebe Close/Vicarage Road which had not been included on the list and the relevant Ward Members had not put that site forward under the Green Spaces consultation.

 

Councillor Atterwill was a Member of the Planning Committee and was of the view that this site should not have got to that point in the first place even though it had been refused as it had been very clear from the very strong local opposition that this piece of green space should be retained.  He did query the consultation that had been carried out with this particular Parish Council and whether the Ward Member had been consulted as clearly money had been spent on a planning application for what he felt was an appalling proposal that local residents did not support.

 

Councillor Borrett had listened to all points made but had found it interesting in what Councillor Jermy had said in terms of not wanting to stop the process but to pause it yet had said that he had no faith in the process.  This Motion therefore was not going to change anything. Councillor Borrett then pointed out that this process was not being rushed, it took a very long time to get to the final stage and had been going on for years and pushing it back to 2024 was not going to make any difference.  He would not be supporting this Motion.

 

Councillor Bambridge agreed that this process had been going on for a number of years, and there were 1000s of small pieces of Breckland-owned land all over the district and it was only right that this Council should sort out whether they could be developed or not or whether they should remain as green open space or even advantage a neighbour, and therefore would not be supporting this Motion.

 

Councillor Nunn believed that he was either the Portfolio Holder or possibly the Leader at the time this process was put in place.  The Council at that time owned 1000s of small pieces of land, some were community interest pieces, and some were definitely redundant pieces of land which had been built on over the years with no objections.  Each time the Ward Member and local communities had been engaged and sometimes the Council had deemed to gift the land to the community or had sold it to them to get best value for the Council.  Such land needed to be constantly reviewed and rationalised and therefore he would not be supporting this Motion.

 

Councillor Dowling stated that whilst she agreed that all pieces of land had to be looked at for its individual merits but something that was not around all those years ago was the importance of preserving these green spaces and felt that this had been lost in the argument. It was not just about what the land was worth it was about what the land meant to the community. 

 

Councillor Duffield pointed out that all Parish Councils were contacted and kept informed.

 

As the seconder of this Motion, Councillor Brindle was then given the opportunity to speak.

 

He felt that one or two wider issues had been raised to discredit this Motion, no-one was against reviewing the land, the question was whether to pause meant stop. What was being asked for in this amendment was for the most thorough consultation possible that gave people a chance to reflect on the long-term value of losing the land forever as opinions did change over time.  The layout of Glebe Close in Thetford was explained, the land in question was a great place for children to play and all that was being asked was to pause this process so that further consultation could take place and be incredibly cautious about giving up these green spaces.

 

Councillor Clarke thanked his colleagues for their contributions. He was a great believer in talking and listening to people but for the sites in his Ward he had gone door to door to get peoples’ opinions and the main opinion was that it should be retained as public open space.  He then responded to the many earlier points raised.       

 

A recorded vote was then taken.

 

MEMBER	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
CLLR ASHBY		x
CLLR ASKEW		x
CLLR ATTERWILL	x
CLLR BAMBRIDGE		x
CLLR BIRT	x
CLLR BORRETT		x
CLLR BOWES		x
CLLR BRAME	APOLOGIES
CLLR BRINDLE	x
CLLR BUSHELL		x
CLLR MARION CHAPMAN-ALLEN		x
CLLR SAM CHAPMAN-ALLEN		x
CLLR CLARKE	x
CLLR CLAUSSEN		x
CLLR COWEN			x
CLLR CRANE		x
CLLR DALE		x
CLLR DOWLING	x
CLLR DUFFIELD		x
CLLR DUIGAN		x
CLLR EAGLE
CLLR GILBERT	APOLOGIES
CLLR GREY
CLLR HAMBIDGE
CLLR HARVEY	APOLOGIES
CLLR HEWETT
CLLR JAMES		x
CLLR JERMY	x
CLLR KIDDELL		x
CLLR KIDDLE-MORRIS
CLLR KYBIRD		x
CLLR LAND	x
CLLR MARTIN		x
CLLR MONUMENT		x
CLLR MORTON	x
CLLR NAIRN		x
CLLR NUNN		x
CLLR OLIVER
CLLR PLUMMER		x
CLLR SHERWOOD		x
CLLR SUGGITT		x
CLLR TAYLOR		x
CLLR TERRY	x
CLLR TURNER		x
CLLR WEBB		x
CLLR WICKERSON	x
CLLR WILKIN		x
CLLR WILKINSON		x
TOTAL:	10	28	1

 

The amendment was lost by 10 votes in favour and 28 against, plus 1 abstention.

 

A fourth amendment was proposed by Councillor Morton and seconded by Councillor Atterwill.

 

The use of temporary and emergency accommodation represented a significant cost for the Council with no signs of demand decreasing. Some of the anticipated capital receipts for the Council in the next financial year should be put towards the purchase and operation of additional Council owned units to help decrease revenue costs in future years.

 

It was proposed that £1m of anticipated capital receipts was budgeted to facilitate this service. These new units would provide revenue funds in the future through rents leading to a nil overall cost position, and the reduction in revenue costs for temporary accommodation was likely to be around £16,000 per person per year (circa £80,000 to £100,000 per year).

 

Councillor Morton then put forward his reasons behind his amendment.

 

Councillor Birt had noted that this was a neutral overall cost position so he could not see how anyone could vote against it.  It was providing services and was not going to cost the council anything in the long term and therefore he would be supporting this amendment.

 

Councillor Jermy had tabled a very similar Motion many years ago and back then he could not understand why, as a district, it did not have a more active role in housing. It had been a huge cost for this Council over the last few years and was likely to increase even further. He felt that there was a great deal of sense in this proposal as it would help with the housing waiting lists and reduce the cost to the Council from a revenue point of view, whilst still owning the capital asset.  The capital was available in this next financial year so why not spend it on something that would provide a significant difference to many residents in the district by providing good quality homes.

 

Councillor Bambridge found it interesting in the fact that this had come up as an amendment to the budget as this was a policy that this Council already pursued such as Elm Road in Thetford and Quarry Court in Dereham so he would not be supporting this amendment.

 

As the seconder of this amendment, Councillor Atterwill referred to the recent levelling up bid and read aloud the disparaging comments made by the consultants who had submitted the bid. He had heard what Councillor Bambridge had said about Elm Road, and fully supported this project but would probably only help about 35 people. This district had a very significant problem and was grateful to offer his thanks who had provided him with the figures for this current financial year, which again he read aloud.  The problem was getting worse in comparison to previous years and there were funds available especially from the sale of a very significant asset, and he looked forward to the Executive Member coming to this chamber and confirming to him that this Council had maximised its money from that asset through that capital receipt and put that money into projects such as this.  There was already money in the budget for this project and it was affordable, and he applauded what this Council was already doing but it was simply not enough.

 

Councillor Morton felt that all agreed with the policy but differed on the urgency but as it was cost neutral all Members should be behind in adopting this Motion.

 

A recorded vote was then taken.

 

MEMBER	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
CLLR ASHBY (left the meeting before this vote was taken)
CLLR ASKEW		x
CLLR ATTERWILL	x
CLLR BAMBRIDGE		x
CLLR BIRT	x
CLLR BORRETT		x
CLLR BOWES		x
CLLR BRAME	APOLOGIES
CLLR BRINDLE	x
CLLR BUSHELL		x
CLLR MARION CHAPMAN-ALLEN		x
CLLR SAM CHAPMAN-ALLEN		x
CLLR CLARKE	x
CLLR CLAUSSEN		x
CLLR COWEN		x
CLLR CRANE		x
CLLR DALE		x
CLLR DOWLING	x
CLLR DUFFIELD		x
CLLR DUIGAN		x
CLLR EAGLE
CLLR GILBERT	APOLOGIES
CLLR GREY
CLLR HAMBIDGE
CLLR HARVEY	APOLOGIES
CLLR HEWETT
CLLR JAMES		x
CLLR JERMY	x
CLLR KIDDELL		x
CLLR KIDDLE-MORRIS
CLLR KYBIRD		x
CLLR LAND	x
CLLR MARTIN		x
CLLR MONUMENT		x
CLLR MORTON	x
CLLR NAIRN		x
CLLR NUNN		x
CLLR OLIVER
CLLR PLUMMER		x
CLLR SHERWOOD		x
CLLR SUGGITT		x
CLLR TAYLOR (left the meeting before this vote was taken)
CLLR TERRY	x
CLLR TURNER		x
CLLR WEBB		x
CLLR WICKERSON	x
CLLR WILKIN		x
CLLR WILKINSON		x
TOTAL:	10	27	0

 

The amendment was lost by 10 votes in favour and 27 against, no abstentions.

 

A fifth amendment was proposed by Councillor Birt and seconded by Councillor Jermy.

With the cost-of-living crisis continuing to hit many Breckland residents it was proposed that some of the windfall income be used from a change in the amount of business rates passed to this Council in order to set a zero Council Tax rise for the coming year.

The cost of this would be just £227k, which was less than half of the windfall income that this Council was due to receive. The windfall income increases by around another £1m the following year so there was no risk to any Breckland plans or projects.

Councillor Birt was then afforded the opportunity to explain the reasoning behind his amendment.

Councillor Jermy, as the seconder of this amendment, stated that Breckland Council was in a relatively strong financial position, and he commended everyone who had helped to achieve this. This Council had received various monies deemed as windfalls, but he had seen over the course of this meeting, opportunities to address such serious issues in the district, being voted against. What this Council was now left with was a budget that puts significant sums of money into reserves rather than dealing with the challenges this district faced.   At this moment in time, there was no need for the Council Tax to be increased, just half of the windfall that this Council was expecting in the new financial year would enable a zero Council Tax increase.

The Leader was concerned that the figures shown on the screen were misleading.  If this Council was to go ahead with a Council Tax freeze this year, it would amount to a loss year on year and highlighted what it would mean to this Council if this amendment was approved.  He acknowledged all proposals made but felt that all were inappropriate and therefore could not support this amendment.

Councillor Atterwill was confused as the money was already in the budget from the sale of the said asset and therefore it was appropriate as Opposition Members to table amendments to spend some of the proceeds.

Alison Chubbock, the Assistant Director of Finance and S151 Officer explained that the capital receipt was in the programme, and everything approved to be spent against that had a mitigation should that receipt not be received. Therefore, it would not be wise to approve anything without that mitigation in place.

In the spirit of brevity, all Councillor Birt said was that this Council could afford it and it would help and commended his amendment to Members.    

A recorded vote was then taken.

MEMBER	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
CLLR ASHBY (left the meeting before this vote was taken)
CLLR ASKEW		x
CLLR ATTERWILL	x
CLLR BAMBRIDGE		x
CLLR BIRT	x
CLLR BORRETT		x
CLLR BOWES		x
CLLR BRAME	APOLOGIES
CLLR BRINDLE	x
CLLR BUSHELL		x
CLLR MARION CHAPMAN-ALLEN		x
CLLR SAM CHAPMAN-ALLEN		x
CLLR CLARKE	x
CLLR CLAUSSEN		x
CLLR COWEN		x
CLLR CRANE		x
CLLR DALE		x
CLLR DOWLING	x
CLLR DUFFIELD		x
CLLR DUIGAN		x
CLLR EAGLE
CLLR GILBERT	APOLOGIES
CLLR GREY
CLLR HAMBIDGE
CLLR HARVEY	APOLOGIES
CLLR HEWETT
CLLR JAMES		x
CLLR JERMY	x
CLLR KIDDELL		x
CLLR KIDDLE-MORRIS
CLLR KYBIRD		x
CLLR LAND	x
CLLR MARTIN		x
CLLR MONUMENT		x
CLLR MORTON	x
CLLR NAIRN		x
CLLR NUNN		x
CLLR OLIVER
CLLR PLUMMER		x
CLLR SHERWOOD		x
CLLR SUGGITT		x
CLLR TAYLOR (left the meeting before this vote was taken)
CLLR TERRY	x
CLLR TURNER		x
CLLR WEBB		x
CLLR WICKERSON	x
CLLR WILKIN		x
CLLR WILKINSON		x
TOTAL:	10	27	0

 

This amendment was also lost by 10 votes in favour and 27 against, no abstentions.

 

A recorded enbloc vote was then taken on all the substantive recommendations.

 

MEMBER	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
CLLR ASHBY (left the meeting before the final vote was taken)
CLLR ASKEW	x
CLLR ATTERWILL		x
CLLR BAMBRIDGE	x
CLLR BIRT		x
CLLR BORRETT	x
CLLR BOWES	x
CLLR BRAME	APOLOGIES
CLLR BRINDLE		x
CLLR BUSHELL	X
CLLR MARION CHAPMAN-ALLEN	X
CLLR SAM CHAPMAN-ALLEN	X
CLLR CLARKE		X
CLLR CLAUSSEN	X
CLLR COWEN	X
CLLR CRANE	X
CLLR DALE	X
CLLR DOWLING		x
CLLR DUFFIELD	X
CLLR DUIGAN	X
CLLR EAGLE
CLLR GILBERT	APOLOGIES
CLLR GREY
CLLR HAMBIDGE
CLLR HARVEY	APOLOGIES
CLLR HEWETT
CLLR JAMES	X
CLLR JERMY		X
CLLR KIDDELL	X
CLLR KIDDLE-MORRIS
CLLR KYBIRD	X
CLLR LAND		X
CLLR MARTIN	X
CLLR MONUMENT	X
CLLR MORTON		X
CLLR NAIRN	X
CLLR NUNN	X
CLLR OLIVER
CLLR PLUMMER	X
CLLR SHERWOOD	X
CLLR SUGGITT	X
CLLR TAYLOR (left the meeting before the final vote was taken)
CLLR TERRY		X
CLLR TURNER	X
CLLR WEBB	X
CLLR WICKERSON		X
CLLR WILKIN	X
CLLR WILKINSON	X
TOTAL:	27	10	0

 

Subject to 27 votes in favour and 10 votes against all recommendations, it was:

 

Resolved that:

 

1.         the Breckland revenue estimates and parish special expenses for 2023 -24 and outlined position through to 2026-27 (as set out in Appendix B and E) be approved.

 

2.         the capital estimates and associated funding for 2023-24 and outline position through to 2032-33 (as set out in Appendix H) be approved.

 

3.         the fees and charges shown at Appendix D and D2, for adoption on 1 April 2023 be approved.

 

4.         the Council Tax be set at £108.63 for a Band D property in 2023-24 (a £4.95 per annum increase on 2022-23 levels).

 

5.         the Medium-Term Financial Plan at Appendix A of the report be approved.

 

6.         the Capital Strategy at Appendix G of the report be approved. 

 

7.         with effect from 1 April 2024 (subject to the necessary legislation receiving Royal Assent in time) the Long-Term empty property premium for Council Tax be applied after 1 year and the Second Homes Council Tax premium of 100% be applied

 

8.         the Retail Hospitality & Leisure (RHL) NNDR relief and the Supporting Small Business (SSB) NNDR relief be approved for 2023-24 in line with Government guidelines and criteria.

 

9.         that the following approach be adopted for the Council Tax Support Fund:

 

a.    To apply the required reductions of up to £25 to all current LCTS claimants to their 2023-24 Council Tax bills in line with scheme guidance

 

b.    To maximise the use of the fund by providing an additional top up payment of £12 to all current LCTS claimants to their 2023-24 Council Tax bills

 

c. To retain sufficient funding to provide additional S13A(1)(c) Exceptional Hardship Payment (EHP) funding and use this throughout 2023-24 to support new LCTS claimants with the same ONE-OFF reduction to their 2023-24 Council Tax bills.