Agenda item



To agree the Budget and Council Tax level for the 2018-19 financial year.


Further to Minute No. 111 of the meeting of the Cabinet/Commissioners’ Decision Making Meeting held on 19th February, 2018, consideration was given to the report which proposed the Council’s Budget and Council Tax for 2018/19.  It was based on the outcome of the Council’s Final Local Government Financial Settlement, budget consultation and the consideration of Directorate budget proposals through the Council’s formal Budget and Scrutiny process (Overview and Scrutiny Management Board) alongside a review of the financial planning assumptions within the Medium Term Financial Strategy.


In setting the proposed 2018/19 Budget, Cabinet had recommended to Council an increase of 2.99% in the Council’s basic Council Tax and a further 3% increase for the Adult Social Care precept; a combined increase of 5.99% for 2018/19.


The Leader of the Council addressed Members and thanked all those who had dedicated hours and hours over the last few months for these proposals to be brought forward.  In particular he wanted to thank his Cabinet colleagues, and in particular Councillor Alam, for their selflessness in their approach and Councillor Steele and his Scrutiny colleagues who have been tireless in their efforts to ensure that nothing was missed.


The Leader wished to particularly speak about:-


·                The issuing of a Section 114 notice to Northampton County Council, who had declared it could not make ends meet.

·                The survey undertaken by the Local Government Information Unit and the MJ suggesting two-thirds of Councils intended to use their reserves to balance their budgets in the coming year.

·                95% of councils increasing Council Tax.

·                This budget marked £162 million of cuts to the Council’s budget, with a further £30 million expected over the following two years.

·                Across the country 800,000 fewer people now worked in Local Government since 2010.


Whilst there were undoubtedly reductions in services in this budget today this was about priorities, which was why:-


·                Agency staff had been brought down by nearly a quarter over the last year.

·                Councillor allowances had been cut again this year, including the cost of the Town HJall and the mayoral car, saving £48,000, resulting in £30,000 being invested into neighbourhoods.

·                60% of the savings required in this revenue budget were made without impacting on services to residents.

·                This budget put Social Care first.


Social Care accounted for 60% of the budget and was the reason for the crisis in Social Care.  Councillor Watson and Ian Thomas and the team were credited for the way they had transformed Rotherham’s Children’s Services. Their work was already turning around the lives of thousands of children and families across the Borough.  This was a top priority and it had been delivered upon.


This budget continued to make significant investment in Children’s Services.  Care leavers have been exempted from Council Tax and the suggestion of the Looked After Children’s Council in banning black bin liners had been taken on board.


At a time when there were more children in the Council’s care than ever before, the pace of change in transforming Early Help Services must continue.  For this reason proposals were being brought forward to reduce the amount of money spent on buildings that housed youth clubs and children’s centres and instead invested in the kinds of activities that at-risk families needed the most.  This would save on building costs, but would enable further work on the Family Group Conferencing and Edge of Care services.


There were no additional cash reductions this year in the Adult Social Care budget.   The Government’s Adult Social Care levy would be used to raise £2.9 million and meet the costs of young people who were reaching adulthood with complex needs, meet the rising costs of contracts, including the commitment to the lowest paid staff and to invest in social work practice.


The Council spent more than £11 million a year on collecting bins.  In the current climate changes were required to make savings and to boost recycling.  Every household was consulted on proposals to take this forward and for this reason an additional 1% was being raised in Council Tax and would be ring-fenced to facilitate the introduction of kerbside plastics collection, as thousands of residents asked for this provision.


This would mean a rise of 2.99% in Council Tax and 3% on the Government’s Adult Social Care levy for Rotherham households. For the average household in Rotherham, this amounted to just over £1 extra per week.


The choice was to strengthen Rotherham’s economy and build the homes that Rotherham families needed, protect £1.8 million worth of services in the coming year through higher business rate growth and income from new housing developments.  By securing commercial development in the new caravan park at Rother Valley and business premises at Beighton Link the Council was expecting to protect an extra £650,000 of services from 2019/20.


Rotherham was the fastest growing economy in the region, bringing jobs and investment and the money to fund public services.


More than £800,000 was being committed to secure local school places for 125 children with special educational needs and disabilities where it was in their interest to study nearer to home.


A Living Wage uplift, paid for in this budget, would put an extra £10 a week in the pockets of the lowest paid staff.


A commitment to housing that would see an additional 167 council houses built across the Borough in the next two years.


Local Welfare Provision that would feed as many as 5,000 people next year who would otherwise literally go hungry.


The Council Tax Support Scheme benefitted the poorest residents by at least £110 a year which made them much better off than they would be in half the councils in the country.


Over the coming year, investments in the Town Centre would see work starting on the bus station in a matter of weeks.


The 2020 Road Programme would see more investment in road resurfacing this coming year than at any time in the last decade with repairs to an additional 100 roads and an additional £1 million to resurface more pavements.


Street cleansing equipment and bins to trial improvements would be invested in. Grass cutting would need to be reduced in agreement with trade union colleagues to find further savings.


There would be difficult decisions ahead, but better ways of supporting people would need to be found with closer working with partners and new ways of delivering services. Rotherham was building a future that was worth fighting for and it was time to rise to the next challenge.


Councillor Alam was happy to second the proposals for the Budget and Council Tax for 2018/19 and considered this a responsible and holistic budget committing £216 million of public money that went beyond the services for grass cutting and collecting bins.  These were services that had an impact on the lives of Rotherham residents.  This was a step change for the Council where it was committed to putting residents first.  This budget created jobs, looked after the most vulnerable and put the failure of the past right.


Despite the cuts and underfunding this budget was fit for purpose.  These priorities would work for all Rotherham.  This Council had to save £15 million this year and this budget balanced.  Thanks were offered to Cabinet Members, Members of the Budget Working Group, Overview and Scrutiny Management Board and the finance team who had worked tirelessly.


The national picture was grim.  Austerity had failed.  This Government promised to reduce the national debt, but this had actually increased. Rotherham had been made to face £177 million of cuts.


The cuts discriminated Councils in high demand deprived areas who were left with few options and difficult decisions on savings.  The Council were protecting front line services and it would continue to look how it could become more efficient as a Council and carry on with the changes. 


Clearly these savings gave real challenge and where there was a challenge there was always an opportunity.  The Council had to be become more accessible, work in partnership and be more creative.


The Council had no choice but to increase Council Tax and to protect vulnerable citizens from the cruellest cuts.  Adult Social Care had not been invested in enough over the years by Government and Councils such as Rotherham were now appealing to its own community spirit and stand as a town shoulder to shoulder with vulnerable residents. 


Demographic changes needed to be taken account of as well as Adult Social Care and Children’s Services and investments needed to be made in the town to safeguard the improvements and work in partnership for the future. 


Councillor Cowles proposed an amendment to the budget and in doing so did not contest the budget and gave the opportunity to set and manage a sound budget effectively.  Scrutiny of the revenue element had been reasonably effective, but there were still overspend issues in Children’s Services and Adults Social Care, although this was a national problem.  However, the management of demand could be tighter and better forecast. 


The most worrying failure was the one to recognise the strong message emanating from this Government regarding the future direction to funding.  It was clear cuts would continue and self-reliance was necessary.  Even a change of Government and more funding would not last long.  Councils needed to develop their own revenue streams.  Reserves should have been used as investments rather than topping up unsound budgets and certain projects.  It was time to prepare for budgets on zero funding from Government while there was still time to do so.  Essential funding was then a bonus.


Councillor Cowles described a conversation he had had with Ian Thomas having read an article about the long term future for children which were predictable at the age of seven.  This was shocking and the predicaments some families found themselves in were through no fault of their own.  Members of UKIP had participated fully in the scrutiny of the revenue budget which had little room for manoeuvre.  Councillor Cowles had made his views known and where he did not agree he had voted against.


He described how he had started to look at the capital budget following the general election in June, 2017 and how a survey in the north of England on homelessness in its widest context revealed that 74% of respondents considered the Bedroom Tax was a factor along with the shortage of suitable available accommodation. 


In this context, consideration was given how to address the affordability solution and how such housing could be provided at lowest cost and utilised in the shortest time.  He focused his attention to modular housing solutions and discussed with relevant Council officers who provided excellent support.


In the delivery of such solutions consideration was also given to heating and other technology deployed in other projects and solutions such as ground pumps.  He had also moved on to lighting and cooking and the possibility of meeting requirements using solar panel and solar spray. 


Councillor Cowles was particularly interested in these technologies and believed Rotherham had the ability to showcase locally developed technology. He had researched various batteries being developed in Manchester University and solar spray at Sheffield University. 


The moving of the amendment to the budget would allow for the development of such dwellings which could aspire to eventually be self-sufficient and may not require connecting to the national grid.  Market test capability would be required on a small number of units, which in turn could be used on other social housing and offered to public in energy shop in Rotherham. 


The proposed dwellings would also need to be deployed on local authority land and close to the Town Centre.  If demand shifted to a surrounding Ward the aim would be for them to be transportable.  This was ambitious, but remained an option.  The outcome would be for available housing for those defined as homeless that would demonstrate Rotherham was a good place to live and work as technology improved and housing developed.


From discussions with officers it was clear they were having some similar thoughts, but these tended to focus around containers which were not suitable as long term accommodation. 


Councillor Cowles was, therefore, asking for the Budget and Council Tax to be accepted as proposed with the exception of an amendment to the HRA Capital Programme to ring-fence £4m of the Capital Programme specifically for a project to develop modular one and two bedroomed homes with the project meeting the following criteria:-


·                That each home to be provided at a lower cost than traditional on site constructed homes.

·                That the fund provides as many homes as practicable on Council-owned sites.

·                That the homes have an expected asset life span of 25 years or more.

·                That careful consideration is given to payback periods for the investment, aiming for the project to be revenue generating as soon as practicable

·                That the project should promote and utilise micro renewable and eco technologies so each home has very low running costs for the occupier and have the potential not to be connected to the grid.

·                That local innovation be utilised where possible (e.g. graphene battery technology to support solar panels and solar spray if available).

·                That the homes have the ability to be picked up and moved to another site if necessary.

·                That the properties be designed specifically to meet the needs of homeless people, young and or older persons to assist them make a start on the housing ladder or down size to a more affordable home.


In seconding the amendment Councillor Short described modular homes which were similar to the prefabricated homes of the past.  There was a clear need in the town for affordable homes given the barriers of high deposits and low savings for young people in the town.


The demand for Council housing remained high and the amendment proposed was about people’s lives and not politics.  This was a start to help young people in this town if it was possible.


In speaking on the amendment Councillor Beck respected its spirit and many of the issues were important in meeting the demand of additional homes and affordable housing.  He highlighted a number of projects that the Council was already involved in including the £55 million from the HRA over the next five years delivering new homes, which was the biggest plan in decades.  He described the action already taken through initiatives like the ongoing acquisition programme and the site clusters programme to build over 200 new properties on Braithwell Road in Maltby.


Rotherham was being held up as best practice and was being consulted on how it was achieving and moving forward.  There was some value in discussing this proposal through Scrutiny, but not an option that could be considered and accepted today.  An additional £4 million of capital expenditure needed to be considered in greater detail.  The increase in Right to Buy requests had already resulted in 163 sales this year and as much as possible was being done to counteract this through the HRA reserves.  He appreciated this being raised as an issue and thanked the Opposition for its submission.


Councillor Walsh believed the British house building industry needed a big push as for decades they had been using obsolete building techniques for thermal warmth and energy efficiency when there was evidence of achievable technologies.  The amendment outlined a number of technologies which could be applicable in some cases, but not all. 


The amendment was pointing in the right direction and would make for a good discussion paper for Scrutiny and this was something the Council should be looking into should it get the opportunity to access initiatives to build more advanced housing.  However, the amendment did come late to the table so was unable to be supported for inclusion at this point.


Councillor B. Cutts was aware electricity power authorities had sought permission to locate a battery storage system in Rotherham, but he could not understand why this request had been refused.


Councillor Read thanked Councillor Cowles and Councillor Short for the amendment and their role in Scrutiny and appreciated the thought that lay behind the amendment.  This was an area that Scrutiny would welcome.  The Council was working on some modular builds at the moment, but was unable to accept a £4 million amendment at this stage.


Councillor Atkin pointed out the Council had been working on affordable eco-friendly houses for many years, but they still remained expensive.  He was supportive of moving forward with new technology.


Councillor Cowles in his right to reply responded to Councillor Beck highlighting there had been no mention of a proposal being put forward for a specific purpose, which in this case was for homeless people below the age of thirty-five whose predicament was as a result of the Bedroom Tax and the lack of suitable accommodation. 


Councillor Cowles had simply looked to address the issue quickly and from Councillor Atkin’s point of view at low cost.  He had spoken to officers to look for available funds and was referred to unallocated funds within the HRA account.  He was aware that the £55 million within the budget was not yet allocated. 


He described Councillor Walsh’s technologies being somewhat speculative and pointed out the heat pump solution was already deployed successfully in Manchester and in a number of locations solar panels were being installed with a battery capability. 


The amendment was not proposing a housing solution more expensive than other housing, but simply a modular build that was low cost.  It would be ridiculous to propose a solution which would be more expensive than those previously deployed.


The amendment to the budget was put to the vote and LOST.


Returning to the recommendations proposed and seconded on the original report Councillor B. Cutts referred back to the documentation received and the financial accounts where he believed he had insufficient time to read and understand the content.  He described the value of real money and the could not understand how the Council could purchase goods and services without it.  If the Council was short of money Councillor Cutts asked for consideration to be given to cutting the number of Councillors by a third.


Councillor Hoddinott as the Cabinet Member for Waste, Roads and Community Safety, was conscious that these cuts to Council services affected all.  The pressures on social care in Adults and Children were all in the context of less money from Central Government.  She did not accept the cuts were necessary, but believed they were a result of political choices.  The corporation tax in the U.K. was lower than many other countries and residents were having to pick up the tab for the cuts.


It was appreciated that residents wanted to see their bins emptied and potholes fixed.  More had to be done with less money and new and cheaper ways had to be developed as part of this budget. 


In terms of the bins, savings had been identified and changes were required to make the Service more efficient.  Consultation feedback had been considered and kerbside recycling of plastics had been secured.  80% of respondents wanted more materials collecting.  Over last few years Rotherham had gone from a higher number of missed bin collections to a lower than average number of missed collections, which was a better service to residents and would continue.


On the roads the Council was having to plug the gap to repair roads and use capital locally.   Members had the opportunity to feed into this and already 43 miles of road had been serviced under this programme. 


Cleansing and grass cutting were areas where residents would see the changes and work from Unison was welcomed to mitigate job losses and to assist with the redesign of the service. 


Residents were thanked for working with the Council and, despite the challenges, sought to make Rotherham a better place to live and work.  Rotherham had 436 Love Where You Live volunteers who had collected over 8,386 bags of rubbish last year and along with other community projects and charities were working together against the cuts.


Councillor Roche entered politics to make a positive difference.  He was pleased the Council was protecting the most vulnerable, but appreciated there would need to be cuts in Adult Social Care in the future.  This was not something he wanted and the cuts affected him personally.  The current Government was trying to decimate local councils as much as they could.  He hoped that Members would support the budget recommendation.


Councillor Brookes welcomed the second recommendation of the budget which earmarked £965,000 of additional Council Tax income generated from 1% of the increase for kerbside collection of plastic.  The environmental impact of plastics was now receiving the attention it deserved and she welcomed the long sighted approach to removing obstacles for members of the public to take care of the environment, alongside the increased revenue this would create. 


Rother Vale, Councillor Brookes’ own Ward, had recorded the highest response rates to the waste consultation and considered this an overwhelming victory for her residents and the Borough as a whole.  Rotherham had been criticised in the past for not recycling plastic and this was an excellent opportunity, a step in the right direction and may go some way to addressing the anomalies for high quality plastic being purchased from oversees. 


Councillor Yasseen confirmed this was the eighth year of austerity which was having a cumulative effect on people and communities.  This was not fairness and equality, but cruel as this affected the average person and communities in the north of the country.  Rotherham had little choice with the cuts, but the effects had been eased through cross party working through Scrutiny and the various forums to ensure how the budget was balanced.


The cuts produced inequality and services had to be prioritised.  Universal services such as parks, museums and heritage sites were victims of austerity.  For the future services would need to have ambition and creativity whilst maintaining and sustaining a reduced experience.  


Partnership working was essential and projects like the self-sustaining Rother Valley Country Park caravan site would safeguard current jobs and create more employment. 


Sustaining fourteen libraries had been difficult and future consideration would need to be given about new models of delivery.


Investment would continue in neighbourhoods and the current devolved budget and community leadership fund would continue for sustained community benefit.  The community sector would assist in delivering public services which would be further championed in the coming year. 


Thanks were also offered to frontline staff who continued to shoulder the burden of workloads and should continue to receive support.


Councillor Napper was in support of the budget recommendations as he had been involved in the scrutiny of the budget line by line.  He was sure the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board would have welcomed other Members sitting in meetings given the large amount of documentation for consideration.


Councillor Steele outlined the political choices made by the Government and the devastating effect the cuts were having on Local Government.  There may have to be some configuration of Council services in the future, but outsourcing was not always the answer.  Public services required investment in order to protect the most vulnerable.


There had been in-depth scrutiny of the budget and all individual proposals checked. A few concerns remained, but these had been put in writing to the Chief Executive especially around budget reliance on increases in prices.  He had asked that consideration of the budget commence earlier because decisions would be more difficult with more cuts from less money.


The consultation had been excellent, particularly around the waste proposals, but this did affect everyone and was key to any changes moving forward.


Councillor Steele pointed out that when budget proposals were put forward equality impact assessments were required.  There were overspends in Children and Adults due to the nature of demand and delivery.  The most vulnerable must be protected.  Scrutiny would continue to monitor and challenge Strategic Directors and Cabinet Members.  He was happy to accept this budget.


Councillor Carter welcomed many things in the budget and was pleased to see changes that the Liberal Democrats had fought hard for over the past year with a new library in Brinsworth, a bigger pedestrian crossing budget and the introduction of kerbside plastic recycling.


However, he had grave concerns about the budget and would be voting against.  Last year he had warned the Labour Party that they were taking a massive risk when they had assumed the current low borrowing rates would continue, but over the past year this had not been true.   Even by its own forecast interest rates would triple by next year.  The Labour Party had increased borrowing by almost 15% over the next three years and would blame austerity.  If this were true neighbouring councils would be increasing their Council Tax by the maximum amount.  Rotherham had a Town Centre that was dying and what was then described as the worse recycling scheme. 


The Labour Party may talk about the success of the Advanced Manufacturing Park, but it was Vince Cable, the Liberal Democratic Business Minster, that got this off the ground.  For the last eight years Labour were happy to sit comfortable on the opposition benches with no appetite to getting into power.


The Liberal Democrats wanted a better future for residents who deserved first class public services following years of neglect by Labour.  There was a need to listen, build more houses to tackle the council house waiting list, making community spaces better, creating a diverse and vibrant town centre, training young people, apprenticeships and supporting businesses and the cost of living whilst in education reduced.


Rotherham had the second biggest gap in life expectancy in England which was a difference of 9.5 years between the richest and poorest.  Members were too comfortable in this Chamber, were let off the hook by the opposition and were happy to be in opposition in Westminster.  It seemed they were happy to say one thing and do something else.  Saying they wanted to improve Adult Social Care yet were closing day centres, that they wanted to help the poorest in society, but increased fees and charges by the maximum allowed amount. Labour said it had no option, but to increase Council Tax by the maximum amount, but bought a lavish car for the Mayor and spent over £1 million on laptops and phones for Town Hall bosses. They say they wanted to tackle the social housing crisis yet overspent on the housing budget and failed to bring council homes back into use.  Residents deserved first class services and should not be accepting second best which was why this budget could not be supported.


Councillor Pitchley had not seen any alternative budget put forward by Councillor Carter.  He claimed the Labour Council did not care.  Decisions were not taken lightly and this Council was making the best of a bad situation.  With more money the Council could do more.


This budget affected all people that lived and worked in Rotherham and who had family and friends.  Every Councillor was passionate about the people of Rotherham and needed to look to what could be achieved instead of fighting and supporting the budget as this was the best of a bad situation.


Councillor Watson was in support of the budget and had spent a lot of time in its development.  Everyone was affected by austerity and this budget showed what it meant.  It was important not to give into austerity.  Every decision was political, but every pound spent had to be done so in the right place.  This budget was not just about wishes, but about hope, turning up and making a real difference.  Good news like the result of the Ofsted Inspection and the Looked After Children Council campaign on bin bags had made a difference nationally. 


Councillor Cusworth was heavily involved in the budget process and wanted to make a real difference not only through Improving Lives, but also through the Fostering Panel and Corporate Parenting Panel and to see on a weekly basis the decisions made in this Chamber and the investment in Children’s Services.


It was hard witnessing issues within a Ward, referring someone to a food bank and observing the homeless and street sleepers.  This budget made a difference to people’s lives and it was for this reason Councillor Cusworth was committed to being involved.


Councillor Walsh pointed out that this Council had balanced the budget in spite of the Conservatives being in office since 2010 with the Coalition.  Since then the Government had never balanced their budget and had, in fact, tripled the national debt. 


Austerity did not work, but this Council was making a pretty darn good job by protecting the vulnerable and they should be commended. 


The Liberal Democrats had offered little and criticised the many.  This budget set out to be balanced, lawful and to accomplish best social ends within those limitations. Lots of effort had been put into this budget by Members and Officers to minimise the harm of austerity.  It was not perfect, but the best that could be done under difficult circumstances.


Councillor Read, in his right to reply, confirmed the Council had tried to make the process as open and engaging as possible and the budget proposals published.  He acknowledged the work of Councillor Brookes with collecting and recycling of plastics and her campaigning and consistent view throughout.  He was pleased to report to Councillor Steele that work had already started on next year’s proposals. 


In responding to Councillor Carter’s comments about debt and borrowing, the Leader explained the Council was maximising its capacity in order to protect the services people relied on and their delivery. 


The Leader also commented on the building of more houses, the Mayor’s car, which had been purchased when the lease agreement ended, thus saving the tax payer £9,000 a year.  Difficult decisions were taken in line with the priorities, based on values and these were the best set of proposals that would make a difference to people’s lives in Rotherham.  The proposals were recommended.


Resolved:-  (1)  That the Budget and Financial Strategy for 2018/19 as set out in the report and appendices, including the need to deliver £15.1m of budget savings and a basic Council Tax increase of 2.99% be approved.


(2)  That the £965k additional Council Tax income generated from 1% of this increase is earmarked for kerbside collection of plastic waste and that the final decision on the operational model for waste services be determined by Cabinet following analysis of the public responses to the consultation and related options be approved.


(3)  That the Government’s proposals for  an Adult Social Care precept set at the maximum of 3% on Council Tax for 2018/19 to fund additional costs in relation to Adult Social Care Services be approved.


(4)  That the Statutory Resolution of Council Tax for 2018/19, included as Appendix 5, incorporating precept figures from South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner, South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority and the various Parish Councils within the Borough be approved.


(5)  That an updated Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) is brought back to Cabinet in 2018/19 after the accounts for 2017/18 have been closed be approved.


(6)  That the proposed use of reserves as set out in Section 3.5, noting that the final determination will be approved as part of reporting the outturn for 2017/18 be approved.


(7)  That the changes resulting from the Final Local Government Finance Settlement have been reflected in this report in accordance with Cabinet approval on 19th February, 2018 be noted.


(8)  That the comments and advice of the Strategic Director of Finance and Customer Services (Section 151 Officer), provided in compliance with Section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003, as to the robustness of the estimates included in the Budget and the adequacy of reserves for which the Budget provides (Section 3.9) be noted and accepted.


(9)  That the consultation feedback from the public, partners and trade unions following publication of Directorate budget savings proposals on the Council’s website for public comment from 6th December 2017 to 4th January 2018 (Section 5) be noted.


(10)  That all Council Fees and Charges are increased for 2018/19 by the September CPI increase of 3% other than Fees and Charges which are determined by national statute and that lists of all proposed fees and charges for 2018/19 are submitted to Cabinet in March for approval be approved.


(11)  That the proposed increases in Adult Social Care Provider contracts as set out in Section 3 of the report be approved.


(12)  That the use of £200k of the Local Welfare Provision balance of grant funding to continue arrangements for Crisis Loan Support as set out in Section 3 of the report be approved.


(13)  That the carry forward into 2018/19 of any unspent balances of funding for the Community Leadership Fund and Delegated Ward Revenue Budgets be approved.


(14)  That the use of in-year Capital Receipts up to 2020/21 to maximise capitalisation opportunities arising from service reconfiguration to deliver efficiencies and improved outcomes for clients and residents, and thereby minimise the impact of costs on the revenue budget as included in the Flexible use of Capital Receipts Strategy 2018/19 (Appendix 4) be approved.


(15)  That the proposed Capital Strategy and Capital Programme as presented in Section 3.7 and Appendices 2A to 2E, to a value of £248m for the General Fund and £177m for the HRA.  This requires prudential borrowing of £65m to fund non-HRA schemes over the five year period, for which provision has been made in the revenue budget for the associated financing costs be approved.


(16)  That the Capital Strategy budget be managed in line with the following key principles:-


(i)        Any underspends on the existing approved Capital Programme in respect of 2017/18 be rolled forward into future years, subject to an individual review of each carry forward to be set out within the Financial Outturn 2017/18 report to Cabinet.


(ii)       In line with Financial Regulation 13.8, any successful grant applications in respect of capital projects will be added to the Council’s approved Capital Programme on an ongoing basis.     


(iii)      Capitalisation opportunities and capital receipts flexibilities will be maximised, with capital receipts earmarked to minimise revenue costs.


(iv)      Decisions on the financing of capital expenditure for individual capital projects are delegated to the Council’s Section 151 Officer. 


(17)  That the Treasury Management Matters for 2018/19 as set out in Appendix 3 of this report including the Prudential Indicators, the Minimum Revenue Provision Policy, the Treasury Management Strategy and the Investment Strategy be approved.


Mover:-  Councillor Read, Leader             Seconder:-  Councillor Alam


(Councillors Alam, Albiston, Allcock, Allen, Beaumont, Beck, Brookes, Clark, Cooksey, Cowles, Cusworth, D. Cutts, J. Elliot, M. Elliott, R. Elliott, Ellis, Fenwick-Green, Hoddinott, Ireland, Jarvis, Jones, Marles, Napper, Pitchley, Price, Read, Roche, Rushforth, Sansome, Senior, Sheppard, Short, Steele, Taylor, Julie Turner, Vjestica, Walsh, Watson, Williams, Wyatt and Yasseen voted in favour of the proposals)


(Councillor Simpson abstained from the vote)


(Councillors Carter, B. Cutts and Reeder voted against the proposals)

Supporting documents: