Agenda item

To include:

Cllr Gerrish made the following statement:

This has been most challenging budget that this authority has ever faced. The situation will continue to be difficult in future years, as there is a move towards a new funding model for local government. Bath and North East Somerset has to find £49m of savings by 2020, of which £12m was identified in this year’s budget and is on course to be delivered. In next year’s budget a further £15m of savings has to be identified, the largest amount of savings that has ever had to be found in a single year. A comprehensive review of all Council spending was undertaken over the past year or so, with the aim of maximising efficiency and income generation and finding innovative ways to deliver services. I wish to thank my Cabinet Assistant, Cllr Paul May, for his invaluable help with this review. Those of you who know Paul will realise that his background enabled him to dig and explore what we might call “the drains”, to identify every possible area we look for further savings.

As a result of the review a budget has been drawn up that protects front-line services to a greater degree than any other council, and keeps Council Tax well below that of neighbouring councils and comparators. Despite the challenges the Council faces, the budget continues to invest in the future, supporting job creation and economic growth, delivering new homes for young people, improving transport infrastructure and generating additional income in the years ahead.

The vast majority of the savings we need to make are to be achieved either through increased efficiency or new income. In total the figures breakdown as follows. Firstly, £6.6m from increased efficiency and refinancing. This includes improving ways of improving the delivery of services, taking advantage of lower interest rates, and rationalising back-office services such as Harptree depot. Secondly, £1.3m from avoiding growth in the Adult Care sector. This means working with our partners to reduce long-term dependency. My colleague, Vic Pritchard, will speak more about the impact of the budget on Adult Care. Thirdly, £5.3m of new income. This includes our new housing company, which is not only providing more homes for residents, but is also generating greater income than budgeted. There is £2.5m from the business rate retention pilot, which was part of the devolution deal. This has given us £2.5m towards our revenue budget in the current year. Expanding our commercial portfolio budget has given us an additional £1.5m. On a smaller scale, we are generating additional income from the Film Office, weddings and the sale of spring water. This means that of the £15m required, only £1.3m will need to be delivered by changes to the way we provide local services.

I don’t pretend these changes are easy, but I would rather we sought to reform services, rather than make arbitrary cuts or to cease providing some services altogether. For instance, I am aware of the concern expressed by some residents about changes to Bath libraries, but I believe that the proposals for the library service as a whole are a good example of how we continue to deliver valued and vital services, but in a more integrated ways, as well as delivering the savings the Council needs to make. Similarly, with Children’s Services’ buildings, we are looking to work with partners to use these assets in a way that not only delivers savings for the Council but also benefits the wider community, and we are well-advanced in our discussions with those partners on that principle. In response to feedback from Scrutiny Panels, I can confirm that we have reinstated funding for Dog Wardens and Park Services this year, recognising the importance of these services to our residents and allowing more time for the services to produce future models of delivery. This change is funded by the small amount of headroom within the final calculations of Council Tax income.

I would like to comment about children and Adult Care. As you aware it is in these areas that the inflationary costs of demographic changes are putting the greatest pressure on our resources, and it is something that we recognise and try to address in the budget. Both Adult Care and Children’s Services’ budgets are rising this year, by £1.6m and £700,000 respectively. These increases are in part funded by the proposed 2% increase in the Social Care Precept. Consideration was given to taking advantage of the new 3% limit set by Government, however it was felt more prudent not to front load the increase, but to retain greater flexibility for future years, so that we can address any future pressures that may arise in that time.

We must of course also be mindful that any additional tax rise will have an impact on our residents at a time when inflation is showing signs of creeping upwards. In addition to the precept, the Government has also awarded the Council a one-off grant to help meet immediate pressures on social care. This amounts to an extra £730,000, which will be held as a social care reserve and used both to smooth the integration of health and care services as well as to meet any in-year pressures that may arise.

As far as the capital programme and investment priorities are concerned, the budget has a major focus on improving transport, growing the economy, generating income and building capacity in the communities to help produce savings in the years to come. We are proposing to invest a total of £7m in transport and highways, a sum that has been bolstered by an additional Government grant through the devolution deal and an additional amount through the National Productivity Fund. This will help us repair potholes, deal with social routes to schools, new bus shelters, cycle schemes and road improvements. There will be road improvements in Freshford, a drainage scheme in Bishops Sutton, more work on the Wells Road in Corston, a feasibility study for Salisbury Road in Paulton, pedestrian schemes in Keynsham South, Midford and Writhlington. We are also committed to investing in the future, with improved school buildings, affordable homes and good jobs. A list of schools has been provided where funding is being delivered to accommodate growing numbers of children and to upgrade facilities. £3.5m is being made available for an affordable homes project and further funding set aside for when appropriate schemes may come forward. To support job creation we are are investing £30m in the Bath Enterprise Zone and working with partners to support the Somer Valley Enterprise Zone as well as earmarking a further £10m for the pioneer buildings in central Bath (part of the North Quay Project), which will provide much-needed office space for small and medium-sized enterprises in Bath while at the same time generating income for the Council. As part of our strategy to build capacity in the communities we are working with Midsomer Norton Town Council on a Community Asset Transfer that will see the transformation of their historic Town Hall to make it more accessible to the community and enhance on its offer to organisations across the Somer Valley. Part of the capital programme also seeks to invest, so that we earn and save money in the future. In this regard you will note that there is a provisional item for new commercial acquisitions. Just to clarify, I believe that it is absolutely right to diversify our investment portfolio to generate income that can be re-invested back into local services. Bath City Council left a great legacy to the community by passing on its commercial estate portfolio, which currently generates around £15m towards providing Council services, and that is why we are seeking to acquire further properties giving us further income to help close the funding gap in providing services. We do recognize, though, that there are some concerns being aired about the Council using its advantageous borrowing position to crowd out the private sector, especially in Bath. This is not the intention. So, going forward, the Council will spread its investment portfolio beyond the Bath and North East Somerset boundary, in particular across the West of England more widely. While we do not rule out further investment in B&NES, we also need to diversify the portfolio so that we become less reliant on retail as a proportion of our portfolio. As one-off expenditure, arising from a surplus in the Council Tax collection fund, we have allocated money in the City to manage the gull problems, provide £50,000 to develop shovel-ready transport schemes – that will be new schemes – to enable us to bid for Government funding as and when it is announced. A further £15,000 for a detailed study of how home-to-school transport currently operates, what the needs for it are and what solutions are possible in the future. We are also creating the new Community Empowerment Fund, about which my colleague Cllr Paul Myers will provide more detail.

As far as Council Tax is concerned, we aim to deliver a balanced budget, to continue to protect the majority of front-line services, and in so doing we propose a general rise in Council Tax of 1.5%, i.e. in total (including the 2% Social Precept) 3.5%. We believe it is right not to put undue pressure on the finances of residents, and it should be noted that this rise is one of the lowest in the region and amongst the lowest in the country. You will have read that places like South Gloucestershire and Bristol are increasing Council Tax by 4.99%. That sets the scene, and I know there are a number of questions and I’ll address them up front.

I know there are concerns from parishes about the small amount we have included within the budget for parish council by-elections. I have to tell you that this idea was put forward by a parish. It does happen elsewhere in the country. It recognises that in a certain number of parishes there are too many by-elections taking place, because people have been talked into being candidates for parish councils when they did not really know what they were taking on. What I would say is that I think that it is justified in an attempt to get people who really want to serve their parishes taking on the role of parish councillor rather than just being talked into it to serve as a party hack. So that is the rationale for that proposed reduction. It will not apply in special circumstances, for example where there is a death of a sitting member, that is not the intention, but it is to encourage parish councils to get people who truly want to do the mob.

Dog Wardens, I mentioned earlier.

Adult Services, Cllr Pritchard will cover in more detail, and Cllr Myers will cover the Community Empowerment Fund.

I am happy to take questions.

Parish Elections

Cllr Dawn Drury (Chair, Compton Dando PC) made the following statement about the cost of parish elections.

B&NES 2016/17 budget proposals include the following:

Resources - Income generating opportunities: “One such opportunity is for Parish Councils to contribute to by-elections - Parish Councils will be asked to contribute to the cost of running their by-elections - 50% for the first and 100% for future ones...”

Parish and Town Councils would feel obliged to raise their precepts to ensure that there was enough money in reserves to meet these potential costs. There is no saving whatsoever to the Council Tax payer as the Parish (and Town) precept is collected with the Council tax.

There would be a pressure on a Parish or Town Council NOT to widely publicise any vacancy and hope that an election would not be called by 10 local electors. The vacancy would then by filled by co-option at no cost to the Parish Council. Equally, it might deter voters from calling for an election or indeed standing as a candidate if they knew that the costs would fall on their local Parish council.  In a small community, the pressures not to call for or stand in a by-election could be considerable.

The proposal seems detrimental to local democracy".

She added that that some Parish and Town Councils had set their budgets without accounting for the possibility of these additional costs, and wondered what would happen if they could not afford the fee.

Cllr Gerrish replied that B&NES was not the first Council to introduce restrictions on the funding of parish elections. He said that the aim was to improve local democracy by getting people who really wanted to the job to stand for election. He thought that if this there were fewer political nominees and more genuinely interested independent people standing for election, it would result in parishes being better served. However, every by-election would be considered as an individual case.

In reply to a question from a delegate, Maria Lucas said that the typical cost of a parish by-election was £2,000-3,000. Costs could vary depending on whether there was a charge for the parish hall or not.

Cllr Kathy Thomas (Peasedown St John PC) asked for clarification on whether the restoration of the Dog Warden Scheme was for one year only. Cllr Gerrish replied that the £50,000 for the Scheme had been put back into the budget, and so would remain for next year as well. Kathy said that all parishes appreciated this service. She noted the various responsibilities that Dog Wardens have, such as collecting stray dogs, making dog owners aware of their responsibilities and educating the public about the law relating to dogs. If the Council reduced provision, what level of service would it provide to comply with its statutory duties? Cllr Gerrish replied that the Dog Warden Service was covered by two lines in the draft budget. A saving of £50,000 was proposed for 2017/2018 and a further saving proposed for 2018/2019. The £50,000 for 2017/18 has been put back in the budget. This enables the Council to have a thoroughgoing review of the service and to consider how it might be provided in a different way. If there is another way of providing the service for less, the saving may be reinstated, but we will not know until the review has been completed. Kathy said that the parishes hoped that the Council would consult with the parishes about any change to the service. Cllr Gerrish said that he and his Cabinet colleagues would give a commitment that there would be consultation before any decisions were made. He would liaise with Martin Shields, Divisional Director of Environmental Services, about this.

Cllr Judith Chubb-Whittle (Co-Chair Stanton Drew PC and Vice-Chairman of B&NES ALCA) asked whether it was elderly or young adults who were going to feel the most impact from pressure on the Adult Social budget. Cllr Vic Pritchard replied that the contraction in Adult Social Care would impact equally on all clients. There was tremendous demographic pressure. There were growth pressures of £4m this year. The Council could not just continue to do what it had been doing hitherto. It had to change the way in which it operated. The focus was going to move significantly towards prevention, so that residential care could be avoided wherever possible. £2.4m savings had been identified by changing the way things were done and there was going to be a 2% increase in the Social Care precept. Together these cover the £4m. The Council also now has £730,000 in a Social Care reserve fund to cope with in-year pressures. Judith asked what percentage of the budget would be targeted on younger adults. Cllr Pritchard said that he was unable to provide this information. Children needing social care tend to become adults needing social care, so it was possible to have an idea of the numbers transitioning from one category to the other, and an estimate of this had informed the budget. Ashley Ayre said that there was an older persons’ budget, but there were no specific budgets for other age groups. All other budgets related to some form of disability or condition. As Councillor Pritchard had said children needing social care became adults needing social care, which meant that on average the Adult Social Care budget of about £58m had on average to rise by about £600k per year. Cllr Gerish said that the £58m for Adult Social Care should be seen in the context of just over £30m for Children and Families.

Cllr Paul Myers said that a major part of the Council’s plans for the coming year was to look for ways of working more closely with towns, parishes and community groups. There is considerable scope for more co-operative working to get the solutions right for each area. He had progressed to being a B&NES councillor from work with a community group and being a town councillor. He had participated in the setting up of a new town council, and he had at first found it strange looking from a council out towards the community after having done it the other way round. He thought there could be better communication between the Council and towns and parishes. The Parish Charter review was looking hard at how relationships could be improved. His Cabinet post was a new one, and he felt he should actually be offering something to towns and parishes. The Council had approved a Community Empowerment Fund as a one-year scheme to start with. It is an allocation across towns, parishes and the city of Bath of 50p per head of population based on the 2011 census. There is a minimum grant of £250 and the idea is that based on the population in a town or parish area there is an amount of money on the table about which there can be talks. Match funding will be required. Volunteer time can be offered as a match. The funding could be provided for anything, but broadly focussed on public realm. The whole idea was to come up with a simple process, which will be based on talks. It was possible for parishes to pool the match funding they were offering. There will be an application form. He and the Partnership Team would visit parishes who had expressed an interest either individually or as a group. He hoped that, as the scheme progressed, projects could be showcased in various fora to share ideas and approaches. If parishes had any ideas now, he would be delighted to hear from them over the coming weeks. In reply to a delegate, Cllr Myers said that it was not necessary for parishes to submit a business plan; they should just come and talk about their idea. This discussion could inform the formal proposal and business plan they subsequently prepared. The key thing was for a dialogue to be opened.

A delegate asked about the tourist tax that had been proposed. Cllr Gerrish said that this had been investigated and it was found that it was not lawful for the Council to charge a tourist tax at present. When he stayed France, the hotel charged tourists 1 Euro per night, which went to the local parish council. He thought this was a benchmark for an appropriate level of charge. If councils were empowered to levy such a charge, the Council would consult fully with the community before imposing it. He was attracted by the idea of a charge that contributed towards local services that was paid by people from outside. It had been calculated that a charge at the French level on the number of visitors staying in Bath could generate £700,000 a year equivalent to about 1p on Council Tax. Hoteliers had been opposed to the tax, but many residents had been in favour.

A delegate asked about the Ward Councillors Initiative Programme. Cllr Gerrish replied that this was not disappearing altogether. It had to be renewed with every change of administration; it was not a permanent fund. A number of Councillors had not used it. On the other hand there had been attempts to encourage Councillors to spend money whether they thought the project was right or not just because the money was there. Councillors had been emailed by organisations saying that they knew this money was available. Sometimes the schemes for which money was sought were not local. He felt that the Programme was in certain respects beginning to pass its sell-by date. Funding was still available for local schemes for Councillors to bid for.