Agenda item

To consider and approve the recommendation from Cabinet – Budget and Council Tax 2025-26.

Further to Minute 121 of the Cabinet meeting held on 10 February 2025, the proposed Budget and Council Tax for 2025/26 was presented to Council for approval. This was based on the Council’s Final Local Government Finance Settlement for 2025/26, budget consultation and the consideration of Directorate budget proposals. A review of the financial planning assumptions within the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) had also been undertaken.

 

In moving the Budget, the Leader gave thanks to the excellent Finance team, Cabinet colleagues, the Chief Executive and especially to Councillor Alam.

 

The Leader explained that the long shadow of 14 years of Conservative austerity continued to hang over local government with thirty local authorities in receipt of bailouts this year because they could not balance their books. Six English Council were increasing bills by up to 10%. However, since the General Election in July 2024, the new Labour government had delivered a funding settlement for Rotherham that included an extra £14 million of central funding.

 

The Leader stated that this was not a solution to all problems, but it was the twelfth biggest uplift in funding for a Council anywhere in England. It showed that, instead of having a Prime Minister who redirected money from places like Rotherham to places like Tonbridge Wells, there was now a government that at long last had begun to distribute funding based on need. It was a government that wanted communities to succeed. The additional funding allowed for:

 

-       £450,000 more to support people facing homelessness.

-       £2 million more to support Early Intervention Work with families and children.

-       £4 million more for the Schools High Needs Block.

 

When the Leader had first delivered a budget speech in 2015, £68 million was spent on Adult Social Care. Next year that figure would be more than £120 million. The Budget therefore proposed an increase in the Adult’s budget of £17 million, with just 3.5% of that expected to come from higher fees and charges.

 

The baby packs programme would continue to be rolled out as a basic right for every newborn. The Leader stated that over half of the net revenue budget would be spent on Children’s and Adult Social Care to ensure that no one was left behind.

 

Difficult choices had been made throughout the austerity period but because those difficult choices had been made, the Council were now in a position to do more.

 

Through the Budget consultation and the consultation on the Council’s new Council Plan, residents had expressed their views. The top thing residents wanted to see improved was community safety and tackling anti-social behaviour. As such, it was proposed that employing ten new staff as part of the Street Safe Team would mark a visible change on the principal town high streets. They would have powers to enforce Public Space Protection Orders, tackle dog fouling and illegal parking.

 

The Budget contained proposals for one hour’s free parking in off-street car parks throughout the week. This would support developments such as Forge Island and the new market and library complex. £300,000 was being brought forward from the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) to support new businesses to open units in the town centre, Swinton, Wath, Maltby and Dinnington.

 

Residents had also expressed that they wanted the regeneration of the town centre to continue. In the 2024/25 budget, £360,000 was committed to increase cleaning in busy areas. It was proposed that a further £300,000 be committed in 2025/26 to allow for a dedicated team.

 

This work, alongside the work already done to halve the number of potholes showed the commitment to improve the local environment in every neighbourhood. The budget for replacing road markings would also be doubled.

 

In regard to supporting residents to be economically secure, proposals were put forward to double the support for low income families when buying school uniforms. Age UK and Citizens Advice would continue to be funded to support older residents access support. Work would commence with Food Works to bring their innovative approach to food security into the Food Partnership.

 

In setting the proposed 2025/26 budget, Cabinet had recommended to Council a 3% increase in Council Tax, made up of an increase of 1% in the Council’s basic Council Tax plus an increase of 2% for the Adult Social Care precept. The Council Tax Support Top-Up would be extended for a further year which would help 4,000 working age households on low incomes and lift 10,000 of them out of Council Tax altogether.

 

The Leader next raised the Employment Solutions Team proposals. The Budget would make permanent the funding available for this service which had helped more than 1200 people back into work or training. The Leader was surprised that both amendments had proposed removing the funding for this service, especially since 90% of residents consulted in Summer 2024 had said they would rather fund it than cut it. The Leader provided details of a resident, Ann, who had been helped back into work by this service.

 

The Leader stated that it was not acceptable to let people like Ann fall through the cracks, to make residents who wanted to feel safe on the streets wait longer; to tell residents they could wait longer for Council phones to be answered or to tell employees that they did not deserve to take a share in owning their own companies. It was not acceptable to say that efforts to tackle hate crime should be stepped back, especially after the worst far right riots in the country for many years, including in Rotherham. It was not acceptable to cut support from babies.

 

In concluding his remarks, the Leader stated that he was proud to propose a budget that stood behind families, supported the high streets and improved communities. He was proud to propose a balanced budget with one of the lowest Council Tax increases anywhere in the country.

 

In seconding the report, Councillor Sheppard also placed on record his thanks to the finance team and all those involved in the budget setting process. He explained that positive choices had been made in this budget and this was only possible because of the prudent financial choices that had been made by the Labour administration over the past 14 years.

 

Councillor Sheppard highlighted a number of proposals relating to his portfolio. It was proposed to invest £6 million in the Catcliffe Village (River Rother) Flood Alleviation Scheme; to invest £63,000 to improve drainage at Waleswood Caravan Park and to invest £33,000 in improving the Clifton Park Overflow Car Park and Event Space. There would be investment in the Green Spaces Capital Repairs Programme and in community facilities. It was proposed that the additional temporary resource that supported residents to complete the application process for Pension Credit be extended.

Two notices of amendment had been received in relation to the Budget and Council Tax 2025-26 proposals. 

 

The first was moved by Councillor Zach Collingham and seconded by Councillor Baum-Dixon on behalf of the Conservative group:

 

That the Budget and Council Tax 2025/26 report be accepted as proposed, with the exception of the following amendments:

 

COUNCIL TAX PROPOSALS

 

Reduce the proposed Council Tax increase from 3% to 2.5%, with the proposed 2.5% increase being made up of a basic Council Tax increase of 0.5% and a 2% increase through the Adult Social Care precept (ringfenced for adult social care).

 

The reduction in the proposed Council Tax will create a funding shortfall of £0.668m in 2025/26, £0.695m in 2026/27, £0.723m in 2027/28 and £0.752m in 2028/29.

 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROPOSALS

 

1.    Increase the Roads, Footways and Highway Drainage Repairs to 2028 programme by £1m to provide further investment in the Boroughs Roads and Footways for 2025/26. This increased financial investment will be funded by borrowing requiring £75k per annum of revenue to cover the financing costs.

 

2.    Increase the capital funding for locally defined road safety improvements by £250k in 2025/26 and £250k in 2026/27, to supplement other sources of funding and provide greater capacity for the delivery of interventions requested by members, MPs and the public.

 

3.    Reduce the Strategic Acquisitions Fund capital investment by £500k and amend this so the remaining £1.5m is available to make key strategic acquisitions for regeneration across the Borough, rather than just being targeted at strategic sites in the town centre and around the proposed mainline station site.

 

4.    Earmark £2m of the Council’s Budget and Financial Strategy Reserve to create a new Strategic Acquisitions Fund Reserve. This will provide greater capacity to make key strategic acquisitions for regeneration across the Borough as required.

 

5.    Provide £50k of capital funding in both 2025/26 and 2026/27 for a Community CCTV Fund to finance community bids for the installation of CCTV in villages, towns and urban districts to meet demand from communities, alone or on a match-funded basis. This increased financial investment will be funded by borrowing requiring £15k per annum of revenue to cover financing costs.

 

6.    Reprofile the proposed Replacement of Refuse Collection Vehicles to £1m per year from 2025/26 to 2028/29, to enable the creation of a rolling replacement programme. This proposal will create revenue savings from the re-profiling of borrowing, but these will be required to offset the increased maintenance and hire costs as a result of the reprofiled vehicle purchases. It is likely that completion of the move to a rolling replacement programme will reduce the impact of maintenance and hire costs from 2029/30.

 

PROPOSED REVENUE BUDGET INVESTMENTS

 

1.    Increase the revenue investment proposal for Street Cleansing and Fly Tipping Improvements team by £201,646 from 2025/26 onwards to provide a further 4 members of staff including associated equipment and vehicles to expand the level of impact. 

 

2.    Earmark £75k per year to cover the financing costs of the proposed increase to the Roads, Footways and Highway Drainage Repairs to 2028 programme for 2025/26 (as referenced above Capital section 1).

 

3.    Earmark £15k per year to cover the financing costs of the proposed Community CCTV Fund for 2025/26 and 2026/27 (as referenced above Capital section 5).

 

4.    Reduce the revenue investment proposal for the Street Safe Team by £201k from 2025/26 onwards and amend the proposal to trial the effectiveness of a team that deploys to hotspots across the Borough for maximum impact.

 

5.    Reduce the revenue investment proposal for the Employment Solutions Team by £359k from 2025/26 onwards and trial the effectiveness of funding part of this team through base budget.

 

6.    Reduce revenue expenditure on subscriptions across the Council by 15%; £36,158 from 2025/26 onwards.

 

7.    Reduce the revenue investment proposal for Cost of Living Support by removing the £30k for developing the Food Works offer in Rotherham from 2025/26 onwards.  

 

8.    Remove the Restorative Hate Crime revenue budget investment agreed as part of the 2024/25 Budget and Council Tax Report. This will release savings of £26,538 in 2025/26, rising to £30,000 from 2026/27 onwards due to impact of removing the service once the current contract ends in May 2025. 

 

9.    Remove the Community Wealth Building revenue budget investment agreed as part of the 2024/25 Budget and Council Tax Report. This will release savings of £120k from 2025/26 onwards.

 

10.Reduce the Baby Packs revenue budget investment agreed as part of the 2024/25 Budget and Council Tax Report by £187,310 from £360,000 to £172,690 for 2025/26 onwards.

 

In proposing the amendment, Councillor Zach Collingham thanked Judith Badger, Rob Mahon and the finance team for their support. He stated that the Conservative Group did not disagree with everything in the Budget and there were some sensible suggestions. However, it was felt that there were some proposals that were not sensible, some that had been taken too far and some opportunities that had been missed.

 

Regarding Council Tax, Councillor Collingham stated that the Labour Prime Minster had stated that this would not be going up at all. To increase Council Tax was therefore a betrayal of the people of Rotherham and people across the country who had voted for the Labour Party. It was a lie, and the promise had not been honoured. The government had not provided enough money and therefore the Labour administration had had to increase Council Tax. Councillor Collingham acknowledged that some rise was inevitable but that the rise should be as low as possible.

 

The Conservative Group felt the 3% increase was too high and they felt that it was not being spent in the right way. It was acknowledged that the Chancellor had provided some additional money for Rotherham, but Councillor Collingham stated that this had been stolen from employers through the National Insurance rise that was crippling the economy. 

 

Councillor Collingham explained that the money that had been provided was not what was promised and not what was needed. However, the Conservative Group had different proposals on what they would like to spend that money on, and this was not on up-cycled food cafes and lessons on how not to hate. He proposed that the money be spent on basic services and put back in the pockets of Rotherham residents. Councillor Collingham though the Labour Group would be supportive of this given the purported struggles inflicted by the Conservative Government over the past 14 years. Councillor Collingham therefore stated it was realistic to only raise Council Tax by 2.5%. This would send a message to every tax payer that they were valued equally, and Rotherham would be out of step for the right reasons. The Council would not be seizing whatever it could like other Labour Council’s in the vicinity. By not funding socialist projects, residents could be taxed less and have more money in their pockets.

 

The proposals in the Conservative amendment dealt with improvements to basic services. This included a further £1 million to provide further investment in the boroughs roads and footways and an increase for locally defined road safety improvements by £250k in 2025/26 and £250k in 2026/27. This could address longstanding issues on the A57, at Treeton Crossroads and in Ulley.

 

Implementing commercial principles would allow services to be delivered more efficiently and make savings for the tax payer. That was why the amendment proposed a rolling replacement programme for the bin lorries. It would drive down maintenance costs. Further, there was no reason to move the Employment Solutions Team from a grant funded position onto the Council’s base budget with no review.

 

Councillor Collingham stated that the towns and villages throughout the borough were just as important as Rotherham town centre and should be treated equally. It was important to go big and facilitate regeneration across the borough in places such as Maltby, Thurcroft and Dinnington. The amendment therefore proposed an extra £1.5 million to ensure opportunities were not missed.

 

In relation to the Street Safe Team, Councillor Collingham stated that a targeted team with a specific mission was a better solution than spending £500,000 on an untried, untested model.  It was also vital to recognise the demand for CCTV, especially in rural areas. A Community CCTV Fund would be open to bids from community groups and would allow residents to have the CCTV that they wanted. The proposal of £50,000 would fund several small schemes across the borough.

 

Councillor Collingham welcomed the investment in street cleansing and ground maintenance but stated that this was only included because of the campaign brought by the Conservative Group in 2024 over the neglect in the borough. The Conservative amendment went further than the proposed investment with investment proposals for street cleansing and fly tipping improvements of £201,646 from 2025/26 onwards to provide a further four members of staff including associated equipment and vehicles to expand the level of impact. 

 

The Conservative Group had made choices to have better roads, low tax and a cleaner, safer borough. This would enable the Council to be smart and efficient which was what the public wanted. The Council did not need to be a parent or police officer. Councillor Collingham urged Members to support the amendment.

 

In seconding the amendment, Councillor Baum-Dixon thanked the finance team for their support. He stated that the amendment was a sensible, Conservative proposal. It kept taxes low, ensured value for money, maintained vital services and increased investment across the borough.

 

Families were struggling with rising costs, and this was made worse by Labour’s tax rising budget. It was a Conservative belief that tax payers were best placed on how to spend their own money, not the Council. As such, they were proposing a reduction in the Council Tax increase from 3% to 2.5%.

 

This sensible approach allowed for investment in services that mattered most to residents such as an extra £1m for road and footway repairs and an extra £500,000 for road safety over two years. Residents also wanted action on crime and anti-social behaviour and therefore £100,000 was suggested for the Community CCTV fund. Expanding the street cleansing team with four extra staff and the investment in CCTV would help prevent fly-tipping, which was a major concerns, particularly in rural areas.

 

Councillor Baum-Dixon reiterated that investment should be for the whole borough, not just Rotherham town centre. It was therefore proposed that the Strategic Acquisition Fund Reserve be created to support regeneration and development opportunities across the borough with a fund of £3.5 million made available.

 

The Conservative proposal of a rolling replacement of bin lorries was a smart, commercial and long-term approach that would reduce repair and hire costs. Further, it was felt that it was not wise to spend money on baby packs for families that did not need them. It was therefore proposed to reduce the funding available so that every child born into poverty got the support plus an additional 500 children. This would protect the scheme for those that most needed it whilst ensuring tax payers money was used efficiently in other areas.

 

Councillor Baum-Dixon stated that the private sector was best placed to deliver jobs, opportunity and prosperity, not government. This was not helped by the increase in employer National Insurance contributions. However, it was important to recognise the importance of helping people into work. Therefore the amendment did not propose cutting the Employment Solutions Team but instead proposed trialling an in-house model with fewer roles whilst keeping the remaining staff covered by grant funding.

 

Proposals also included reducing Council subscriptions, refocusing the Safer Street Teams to better target high crime areas and removing funding for community wealth building and restorative hate crime programmes.

 

In concluding, Councillor Baum-Dixon stated this was a sensible, prudent, proportional amendment based on sound Conservative values. It would keep money in residents pockets, cut waste and invest in things that matter across the whole borough.

 

Members were invited to speak on the Conservative amendment.

 

Councillor Bacon stated that he fully supported the amendment as it started to address the huge waste in Council services. He stated the 3% Council Tax rise was unnecessary and instead 2.5% was sufficient. Councillor Bacon stated that members voting against the amendment needed to be careful because they were voting against much needed road safety improvements. He stated that investment was needed throughout the borough, not just in the town centre.

 

Councillor Tarmey said that the amendment included very little. It proposed a higher Council Tax increase than the Liberal Democrat amendment and included spend on things that did not really matter. There were some things that could be supported, such as the CCTV proposal but there were also proposals that were sad. This included the removal of funding for work to reduce hate crimes and the cutting of baby packs.

 

Councillor Currie believed that the 3% increase proposed by the Labour Group was reasonable and that the Conservative amendment would leave a shortfall. He thought that the Council had done a good job in managing the £200 million cuts from central government over the past 14 years. He thanked officers for their fiscal knowledge in dealing with the cuts.

 

Councillor Taylor stated that the amendment was predictable and quite boring. It proposed a Council Tax increase of 2.5% just to undercut the Labour proposal, then proposed cuts to fund the shortfall and then proposed random investments with random sums to support those. Councillor Taylor explained that the difference between the Labour Council Tax proposals and the Conservative Council Tax proposals would not even cover a low budget bar of chocolate for a family per week. He acknowledged that some of the proposals could have underlying merit but that the benefits and impacts had not been properly thought through. He thought the bin lorry replacement proposal was ludicrous, would cost more money and would not help with the Council’s net zero aspirations. Councillor Taylor also stated that the money proposed by the Conservatives for road safety improvements was not nearly enough for some of the schemes they wanted to deliver. He thought the proposals sought to appease some by sacrificing beneficial measures.

 

Councillor Cusworth would not be supporting the amendment. She was very proud of the work done with the baby packs and firmly believed it was one of the best things ever done in Rotherham. Councillor Cusworth felt the amendment focused on the south of the borough. She also explained that, whilst the Conservative Group were proud to have put forward a Conservative Budget, the people of Rotherham had not voted for the Conservatives. They had voted for a Labour run Council and the socialist projects that came with that. 

 

Councillor A Carter stated that the Conservative amendment chose to penalise babies and stop projects aimed at reducing hate crimes. This was not the right or conscientious things to do. Councillor Carter also criticised the Conservative Group for not being ambitious enough when it came to Council Tax. The Liberal Democrat proposal did not increase the basic rate of Council Tax, but the Conservative proposal did.

 

Councillor Marshall equated the removal of baby packs to the child catcher.

 

Councillor Bennett-Sylvester did not support the Conservative proposal regarding the Employment Solutions Team as he had seen the real difference it could make, especially for people with disabilities. He supported the universal nature of the baby pack scheme which he said overcame power structures within families and gender inequalities. He thought that the Conservative Group did not understand this. Councillor Bennett-Sylvester referenced the proposed removal of funding for restorative hate crime work. 2025 marked the tenth anniversary of the racially motivated murder of Mr Mushin Ahmed and Councillor Bennett-Sylvester thought the removal of the funding by the Conservative Group was disgraceful.

 

Councillor Thorp responded to Councillor Taylor’s comments on the replacement of bin lorries. He stated that a commercial company would never run in the way proposed in the Labour budget. Councillor Thorp acknowledged that a rolling fleet would not produce an immediate saving, but it would be more logical in the long run.

 

Councillor Steele stated that after all of the cuts from the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition, there was nothing left for the Council to waste. The Labour Budget would look after the most vulnerable. The Conservative amendment focussed on matters in Conservative areas only. Councillor Steele highlighted spend by the Conservative government on things such as the Rwanda scheme. The amount of money wasted by the Conservative government had left the Labour government no choice but to increase National Insurance contributions in order to pay for essential services.

 

Councillor Hughes would not be supporting the amendment. She stated that it would be great to sort out all of the roads, but successive cuts meant the money was not available to do this. In relation to baby packs, Councillor Hughes said it would cost more to means test. Further, if the parents felt that they did not need one, they did not have to claim one. Councillor Hughes was against the removal of funds for restorative hate crime work having worked previously in that area. Hate was taught and a prison sentence would not rectify that. Confronting offenders with what they had done and teaching them not to hate was a much better approach. In light of this and in light of the events in Manvers in 2024, it was shameful to suggest cutting this.

 

Councillor Sheppard stated that the amendment was an attack on the vulnerable. It disadvantaged people looking for employment. It disadvantaged people looking for help with food and budgeting. It disadvantaged victims of hate crime. It took away from babies. In response to Councillor Bacon’s statement about being careful when deciding what to vote for, Councillor Sheppard stated that Members voting for this amendment were voting to take help away from vulnerable people.

 

Councillor Baker-Rogers described the amendment as tragic and if passed, it would be a tragedy for residents. Community cohesion was one of the most important things the Council could do, and the Conservatives were proposing removing support for this. Removing baby packs was penalising babies and was not compassionate. 

 

As the proposer of the amendment, Councillor Zach Collingham was invited to reply to the debate. He thanked his members for their support. In response to Councillor Tarmey he stated that the Rotherham Conservatives had no interest in cutting things for the sake of cutting things. They had put forward sensible, costed proposals. He was also surprised to hear that Councillor Tarmey did not think road safety, street cleansing, regeneration etc mattered. In response to Councillor Currie he explained that there was no shortfall. In response to Councillor Taylor, Councillor Collingham criticised his decision to use the word boring. He also expressed concern that Councillor Taylor could not follow their proposals for the rolling replacement of bin lorries.  In response to Councillor Cusworth it was noted that baby packs for all was a laudable aim, but sentiment had been put before sense. He did not agree that it was a good use of public money to store any number of packs in a room because they had not been claimed. In response to Councillor A Carter, Councillor Collingham explained that having a 0% rise in Council Tax was not sound financial management. In response to various other comments on baby packs, Councillor Collingham stated that not everyone had had a baby pack growing up and there were numerous other ways of supporting families. In response to Councillor Bennett-Sylvester it was noted that not everything could be provided with a finite budget. In response to Councillor Steele, Councillor Collingham confirmed that a Council Tax rise was inevitable which is why they had proposed a 2.5% rise. Councillor Collingham refuted Councillor Sheppard’s claim that it was an attack on the vulnerable. The Employment Solutions Team would still be there, and the baby packs would still be provided to those that needed them.

 

The second amendment was then moved by Councillor Adam Carter and seconded by Councillor Tarmey on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Group:

 

That the Budget and Council Tax 2025/26 report be accepted as proposed, with the exception of the following amendments:

Reduce the proposed Council Tax increase from 3% to 1.9%, with the proposed 1.9% increase being made up 1.9% increase through the Adult Social Care precept (ringfenced for adult social care).

The reduction in the proposed Council Tax will release additional funding across 2025/26 to 2027/28, it is proposed this surplus funding will be added to the Council’s Budget and Financial Strategy Reserve. £74,607 in 2025/26, £90,791 in 2026/27 and £29,623 in 2027/28.  

 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROPOSALS

1.    Remove the capital investment proposal for the Strategic Acquisitions Fund, this will reduce the Capital Budget by £2m in total, £1m in 2025/26 and £1m in 2026/27.  

PROPOSED REVENUE BUDGET INVESTMENTS

1.    Remove the revenue investment proposal for the Street Safe Team, this will reduce the Council Budget from 2025/26 onwards by £570k.  

 

2.    Remove the revenue investment proposal for the Employment Solutions Team, this will reduce the Council Budget from 2025/26 onwards by £718k.  

 

3.    Remove the revenue investment proposal for the Customer Services – Call Handlers, this will reduce the Council Budget from 2025/26 onwards by £62k.  

 

4.    Remove the Community Wealth Building revenue budget investment agreed as part of the 2024/25 Budget and Council Tax Report. This will release savings of £120k from 2025/26 onwards.

 

5.    The removal of the proposed capital investment for the Strategic Acquisitions Fund of £2m in total, £1m in 2025/26 and £1m in 2026/27, will release revenue Budget savings of £75k in 2025/26 and £150k in 2026/27.  

In proposing the amendment, Councillor Adam Carter thanked Council officers for helping the Liberal Democrat Group bring forward a budget proposal that was prudent and stable. The Liberal Democrats believed that the Council should listen to its residents and deliver what they wanted: Council Tax to be as low as possible. As such, the proposal put forward  meant that the basic rate of Council Tax would be cut for the first time in a long time. This was the right approach given that Rotherham was getting £14m extra from the government. More money should be returned to residents and put into reserves.

 

The Liberal Democrat Budget rolled back wasteful spending on projects that would not make a real difference for residents. This included cutting Labour’s “cheapo cops” who would not have the powers required to make the borough better and safer.

 

Councillor Carter addressed the actions of the Prime Minster, stating that he had cut universal, non-means tested winter fuel payments, had kept the two child benefit cap which kept children in poverty and had increased the National Insurance contributions from employers. This meant there would be fewer jobs and a negative impact on social care, medical care and dentistry. Councillor Carter found it hypocritical of Labour councillors to say that they had resident’s back.

 

With regard to the Employment Solutions Team, Councillor Carter explained that the funding for this had been cut by the Labour government, presumably because they did not believe that it made enough difference. The Liberal Democrats did not believe now was the time to waste money, energy, time and priority on vanity projects that residents did not want. Instead it was time to focus on getting the absolute basics right to support vulnerable residents and improve the quality of life across the borough.

 

In seconding the amendment, Councillor Tarmey explained that the Liberal Democrat Group supported the core budget, and he thanked Judith Badger and Rob Mahon for their hard work. The additional £14 million from central government was most welcome following years of underfunding. However, Councillor Tarmey felt that the Labour Group had chosen to spend money on vanity projects.

 

Councillor Tarmey stated that employing ten people to wonder around a largely empty town centre, asking people to stop taking drugs without any enforcement powers was not the way forward. In relation to the one-hour free parking proposal, Councillor Tarmey stated that it would have only cost £400,000 to make parking completely free in the town centre which could have saved the hospitality industry and attract new businesses. Councillor Tarmey expressed concern about the type of establishments that would occupy the units at Forge Island.

 

He reiterated that the Liberal Democrat proposal was the only one to cut Council Tax which was needed when people were struggling. Proposals also included a reduction in debt.

 

In concluding, Councillor Tarmey stated that the Liberal Democrat proposal was sensible and fully costed. It put more money into reserves. It did not cut services but maintained them. Councillor Tarmey noted that his residents had never asked for more call handlers. Further, there were many national initiatives to get people into work and this did not have to fall solely at the feet of the Council.

 

Members were invited to speak on the Liberal Democrat amendment.

 

Councillor Taylor clarified his previous comments on the bin lorry replacement proposals from the Conservatives. He stated that all options had been considered and the most appropriate put forward. In relation to the Liberal Democrat amendment, Councillor Taylor stated that he would not be supporting this.

 

Councillor Currie was concerned about the cuts to revenue spending, especially to the Employment Solutions Team. He felt that Rotherham was leading the way in the aspect, particularly in helping people with autism into employment. Councillor Currie did not think the private sector would offer the same service. The Council run service was working well and he could not support cutting this. He did however think some of the other ideas were well thought out.

 

Councillor Zach Collingham failed to see the point of the Liberal Democrat amendment. He stated that the Conservative Group were always open to working with the Liberal Democrat Group but that there was nothing in the amendment to work with. It was not a serious amendment. Councillor Collingham refuted the statements from Councillor Carter and Councillor Tarmey that they were not proposing a rise in Council Tax. They were proposing a rise for the people of Rotherham, but it was a rise that would not keep pace with costs. The Liberal Democrat proposal seemed to cut anything necessary to meet their Council Tax target, without any thought for the wider implications. Councillor Collingham thought the refusal to spend any money improving the town centre contradicted their position on saving Rotherham Post Office. He criticised the lack of positive proposals. He therefore had to presume the Liberal Democrat Group were happy with the way the borough was being run by the Labour Group.

 

Councillor Reynolds was concerned at the lack of proposals relating to solar panels.

 

Councillor Baum-Dixon also noted the lack of content and substance in the Liberal Democrat amendment. There was nothing positive in it. He questioned whether the Liberal Democrats would actually not spend any money if strategic development sites became available. He asked if they believed that the streets were safe and if they believed that residents should wait longer for the phones answering. Councillor Baum-Dixon did not believe this was sound, prudent finance.

 

Councillor Sheppard stated that the brief amendment offered no positive solutions and no creativity. He did not understand why the Liberal Democrats wanted to get rid of the tried and tested Employment Solutions Team in favour of untried alternatives.

 

Councillor Baker-Rogers criticised the lack of imagination, particularly in relation to what money could be spent on in order to improve services. She also stated that the comments in relation to the town centre were flippant.

 

Councillor Pitchley stated that the number one complaint received by the Council was in relation to customer service phone waiting times. The Council needed to listen to these complaints and act on them for the benefit of residents. Councillor Pitchley also stated that a key ask from Rotherham’s Youth Cabinet was to feel safe in the town centre. The investment in the Street Safe Team was therefore essential.

 

Councillor Read took exception to the claim by the Liberal Democrats that they were proposing a Council Tax cut. It was in fact a 1.9% Council Tax rise.

 

Councillor Steele stated that residents were frustrated with the length of time it took to get through to the Council on the phone and this could be fixed but the Liberal Democrats did not want to do this.

 

As the proposer of the second amendment, Councillor Adam Carter was invited to reply to the debate. In response to Councillor Currie, Councillor Carter stated that whilst the Employment Solutions Team did good work, it was not right for regressive Council Tax to fund it. In response to Councillor Z Collingham’s claim that he wanted to work collaboratively, Councillor A Carter stated that he had not received an email or phone call about this. Further, the Liberal Democrats were not just simply swapping Labour’s pet projects for their own, like the Conservatives had tried to do. The focus instead was on getting essential basic services right. Councillor A Carter stated that Councillor Reynolds comments did not relate to their amendment. In response to Councillor Baum-Dixon he stated that the Liberal Democrat proposals put more money into reserves. In response to Councillor Sheppard, Councillor A Carter stated that the Liberal Democrats had made the decision to keep Council Tax low. They also felt that the cost of £7000 per new employment through the Employment Solutions Team was too much. In response to Councillor Pitchley, Councillor Carter stated that he was at the Youth Cabinet’s takeover meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board, but she was not.

 

As per the Council’s Constitution the votes took place in reverse order of receipt.

 

The first vote was on the Liberal Democrat amendment. On being put to the vote, it was lost.

 

The Conservative amendment was then put to the vote and was lost.

 

As no amendment had been carried, the substantive motion submitted by the Labour Group was opened for debate.

 

Members were invited to speak on the Labour budget proposals.

 

Councillor Thorp stated that the £17 million going to adult care was needed due to the Labour government increasing costs in relation to employer National Insurance contributions. He also noted that there were around 266,000 people in the Rotherham borough but only a few hundred had responded to the consultation. Councillor Thorp asked how call handling and street safety could both be number one complaints. He again criticised the replacement plan for the bin lorries, stating that it was not how commercial businesses operated. 

 

Councillor Yasseen explained that she supported many aspects of the proposal as it demonstrated strong investment in essential services, particularly around community wellbeing, social care and household support. She was supportive of the 3% Council Tax rise. Not only did Council Yasseen support the restorative hate crime agenda, but she also wished there was more money available for it. Councillor Yasseen fully supported the universal nature of the baby packs. However there were some aspects of the Budget that Councillor Yasseen did not like. These included taking up green spaces for development and the using an enforcement approach for Anti-Social behaviour.

 

Councillor Bower expressed concerns regarding the Street Safe Team proposals. Due to his personal experience of doing the role in a neighbouring authority, Councillor Bower thought the £1 million spend over two years was a waste of money as it would not work. One problem was that a team of ten would not be big enough. A second issue was that there was no provision for a support team who could do the background work for applications for injunctions and Criminal Behaviour Order’s. It was not realistic to expect the Street Safe Team to do this as well as patrol the town centres. Councillor Bower’s third issue with this proposal was that fines and tickets would not stop anti-social behaviour. These types of proposals were often seen as instant solutions by the public but that was not the case.

 

Councillor Bennett-Sylvester stated that he would be supporting the budget proposals. He particularly approved of the retention of support to enable residents to claim pension credit. Councillor Bennett-Sylvester stated that independent members could support the budget whilst still disliking certain parts of it and they could continue dialogue outside of the chamber to shape future proposals (such as a reduction in garden waste fees.) He had some concerns relating to the length of time taken to deliver capital projects and the lack of advertising of Rothercard discounts. Councillor Bennett-Sylvester was happy at the lack of ring-fencing on the funds provided by government. He expressed his wish that in future budgets, HRA funding be used to employ more Area Housing Officers to allow Neighbourhood Officers to focus on neighbourhood issues, not housing issues. More needed to be done to narrow the gap between those neighbourhoods with and those without.

 

Councillor Z Collingham stated there were some aspects of the budget he could happily support, especially in relation to adult social care and children and young people’s services. However, he felt that this could be done whilst investing more in basic services and by taxing less. It was not the only role of local government to make sure no one was left behind. It also needed to provide basic services. Councillor Collingham was also sceptical of the Street Safe Team. He did not think the proposed resource was enough to adequately address the issue of safety in town centres. In relation to the Employment Solutions Team, Councillor Collingham stated that this was not the only service available to those seeking employment help. He believed that the service was only helping around two people a month into work, and this was not good value for money. In relation to the baby packs, Councillor Collingham stated this was a political policy and not the only way of helping families. It was appropriate and necessary to means test this and the Council should be more than able to put those processes in place.

 

Councillor Ball stated that the Council had earned £5 million in interest. It had earned £1.67 million from lending money since March 2024. However it also continued to borrow heavily, including £45 million from SYMCA in 2023. The Council was still paying that back at a cost of £4.6 million over three years to the taxpayer. £10 million was paid to SYMCA from the Council for the Supertram that, in Councillor Ball’s opinion, barely served Rotherham. He asked if this was moral and if scrutiny or anyone else would take look into the matter. Councillor Ball asked how the Labour Group could justify a 3% increase in Council Tax when Sir Keir Starmer had promised that Council Tax would be frozen. The Rother Valley MP had said in 2023 that Council Tax would be frozen in that year.

 

Councillor Taylor stated that he would be supporting the Budget. He thanked all those that had worked hard to ensure that the Council was in a strong financial position. The proposed Council Tax increase was one of the lowest in the country but whilst it was important to balance the budget, more needed to be done which was why the proposed budget went further and invested in the borough. For example, there would be investment in business centre upgrades, investment in road markings and investment in the Employment Solutions team. Councillor Taylor was very supportive of the one hour free parking proposal as this had been requested by local businesses.

 

Councillor Cusworth was in favour of the Budget and spoke from her perspective as Cabinet Member for Children and Young People. She was surprised that the baby packs had sparked so much controversy as they had been so well received by families and the front line services involved. Councillor Cusworth highlighted that children’s social services had improved greatly over the past year despite the increasing demand. The numbers of Children in Care and children subject to Child Protection Plans had safely reduced. The work done through Early Help and through various strategies had been paramount to this. The Department for Education had extended the Family Hubs and Start for Life funding for another year. Councillor Cusworth explained that the residential care home programme would continue. There would be investment in in-house residential complex needs facilities and in a new education system. The new system would bring together data from various services such as home to school transport, education attainment and children’s social care. The budget also contained a proposal to double the value of the Council’s existing school uniform voucher scheme from £35 to £70 for eligible children.

 

Councillor C Carter stated that there was plenty in the Budget to agree with. However, she could not support it due to the 3% Council Tax increase during a cost of living crisis, especially when the Council had received an additional £14 million from the government. The Liberal Democrat Group had voted to lower the basic rate of Council Tax whereas Labour were spending on vanity projects that would result in future debt. Councillor Carter stated that the budget was about choices and Labour had chosen to hike Council Tax and spend money on schemes that were not in the Council’s remit.

 

Councillor Baum-Dixon stated that the Council needed to be more commercial and look at things in a different way. In relation to baby packs, Councillor Baum-Dixon reiterated that he was not against helping children in poverty but there were better ways of delivering the schemes, such as removing some of the items that were not needed such as teething rings and soft edge bumpers. He also highlighted some of the hidden costs involved in storing the boxes, in running the website and in procurement. Councillor Baum-Dixon stated that the Employment Solutions Team was not good value for money, and it would be better for it to be provided by the private sector. In relation to previous comments that the Conservative amendment only helped those in the south of the borough, Councillor Baum-Dixon explained that the Conservative Group had predominately been elected in the south of the borough, presumably because they felt let down by the Labour Council. An example of this was restricting the Strategic Investment Fund to the town centre, rather than extending it out to places such as Dinnington and Maltby. Councillor Baum-Dixon stated that there was nothing in the budget for rural areas, despite the majority of the borough being rural. He also expressed concerns about the Street Safe Team.

 

Councillor Bacon stated that residents across the borough were getting a bad deal with these budget proposals. He criticised Labour’s interpretation of the consultation responses as being too selective, stating that residents did not want to see pet projects in the town centre or cycle lanes. They wanted road safety which was not just repainted road markings. Councillor Bacon thought that raising Council Tax should have been a last resort, but he said this was not echoed by the Labour Group or some of the independent members. He thought the Budget was wasteful, a betrayal of communities and was overreaching. Councillor Bacon would be voting against the Budget. 

 

Councillor Currie stated that he would like to see a return of the Finance Scrutiny Panel so that matters discussed during the debate on the budget, such as baby packs, employment solutions etc, could be scrutinised in more detail outside of the budget setting process. Councillor Currie believed that there had not been enough scrutiny of the budget proposals. If there had been a Finance Scrutiny Panel, experts could have been brought in to discuss the Street Safe proposals for example. 

 

Councillor Baker-Rogers expressed her support for the Budget and for the universal approach to the baby packs. Everyone she had spoken to, including residents, professionals, health visitors, midwives had said that it was a brilliant idea. 

 

Councillor Steele, in response to Councillor Currie, confirmed that the budget proposals had been to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board. He thanked scrutiny and finance officers and the cabinet members for facilitating the scrutiny process. It was confirmed that the Street Safe Team proposal would be reviewed by scrutiny after 12 months. Councillor Steele was in full support of the baby packs and the inclusion of teething rings. There was also nothing wrong with trying to keep children safe in their own homes. Councillor Steele stated that the budget created by the Labour Group protected the most vulnerable.

 

In his right of reply the Leader addressed the comments made. In response to Councillor Z Collingham, the Leader stated that it was a compliment to be accused of making socialist proposals, especially as they only cost 12p more a week that the Conservative proposals. In response to Councillor C Carter, the Leader explained that the Liberal Democrats were not reducing the basic rate of Council Tax because there was no such thing as the basic rate of Council Tax. He stated that the Liberal Democrat proposal would not have lowered Council Tax bills. In response to Councillor Yasseen, the Leader confirmed that the Council Tax rise was the third lowest in the country to date. In response to comments from members of the Conservative Group on the public consultation, the Leader stated that there had been a budget consultation and a consultation on the new Council Plan and the Council were responding to the challenges set out in those consultations. In relation to Councillor Thorpe and Employment Solutions, the Leader stated that residents had responded nine to one in support of helping people into work rather than cutting the service.

 

Regarding the comments on the Street Safe Team, the Leader stated that some comments suggested it was too big whilst others suggested it was too small. He explained that the Team would not stand in isolation and would be working with a range of other Council and partner services. The Leader agreed that it would not fix all problems, especially not drug abuse. However, the aim was to provide some reassurances to residents and to provide intelligence back to services. The Leader thanked Councillor Bennett-Sylvester for his comments on the Garden Waste Collection discount for Rothercard users. In response to Councillor Ball, the Leader explained that a tweet from 2023 stating that Council Tax would be frozen in that year did not apply to 2025. That was a commitment made when Labour were in opposition and had not been made aware of the full extent of the financial situation.

 

Regarding Employment Solutions, the Leader explained that 450 people per year were helped into work or training. This worked out at around £1700 per person and the Leader believed that no national scheme would be able to deliver that value. In concluding, the Leader stated that this was a good set of budget proposals that would help those with less the most. 

 

In accordance with the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, and the Council’s Constitution, a recorded vote was taken for this item as follows:

 

For: The Mayor (Councillor Cowen), Councillors Adair, Ahmed, Allen, Baggaley, Baker-Rogers, Beck, Bennett-Sylvester, Beresford, Brent, Clarke, Currie, Cusworth, Duncan, Foster, Garnett, Harper, Havard, Hughes, Hussain, Ismail, Jackson, Jones, Keenan, Knight, Lelliott, Marshall, Mault, McKiernan, Monk, Pitchley, Rashid, Read, Sheppard, Steele, Sutton, Taylor, Williams and Yasseen.

 

Against: Councillors Bacon, Ball, Baum-Dixon, Blackham, A. Carter, C. Carter, Castledine-Dack, T. Collingham, Z. Collingham, Reynolds, Tarmey,  Thorpe and Tinsley.

 

Abstain: Councillor Bower.

 

Councillor Monk declared a personal interest in this item on the grounds of a close family member who was a business operator in the borough. As this was a non-pecuniary interest Councillor Monk remained in the chamber and voted on the item.