Agenda item


To consider and approve the Cabinet’s recommendations in respect of the Budget and Council Tax for the 2023-24 financial year.


Further to Minute No.118 of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 13 February 2023, consideration was given to the report that proposed the Council’s Budget and Council Tax for 2023/24.


In moving the budget report, the Leader thanked all members who had worked so hard to put together the proposals for this year. He thanked Judith Bader and the Finance team, Chief Executive and Senior Leadership team who commitment and professionalism served our borough so well. He looked back to when the last budget was set, which was three Prime Ministers, three Secretaries of State and five Housing Ministers ago in the wake of the Covid pandemic.


He noted the first Prime Minister declared social care to be fixed through a levy, which the second one cancelled. The second local government minister said there was fat to trim, with the third being forced to bail out councils in trouble. The second Prime Minister delivered what was called a ‘true Tory budget’ which the third one making us all pay for it. Councils across the country were facing the most challenging financial environment in the history of local government.


He commented that Thurrock issued a Section 114 notice three months ago and were now looking at a 10% council tax rise. Slough a 10% rise and Croydon as much as 15%. If the Council had gone with the council tax proposed by the opposition last year, then it would be imposing the highest council tax increase in the country. Instead, due to the choices made, the Council’s was the third lowest increase of any upper tier authority in Yorkshire and was below the government’s referendum cap saving the typical household £85 over the period.


He explained that additional funding was available for Adult Social Care to ensure services remained sustainable and for helping providers to increase basic rates of pay for staff who carried out such critical work.  Home care services were being prioritised with an above inflation increase in spending, at a time when hospital beds were under incredible pressure.


Last year investments were made in street cleaning with more Street pride staff working on the streets since the start of austerity. This investment meant that 160 more roads had been repaired and the number of potholes had reduced by 60% since 2015.


He said that extra money had been put into youth work, which was taking place regularly now, in Parkgate, Dinnington, Kimberworth, Maltby and Blackburn.


He felt this was a budget the protected the basic services that residents relied on, and this was the choice being made during the meeting.


He explained that investments were being made in the following areas:

·       Household Waste Recycling Centres,

·       New bin lorries for household waste collections,

·       Maintenance equipment for street scene services and green spaces,

·       Urban parks and woodlands,

·       Rother Valley Country Park, referring to the new café, events space, car parking and cycle hub,

·       Centenary way,

·       Minor road improvements

·       Traffic light improvements,

·       Support to South Yorkshire’s bus services.


The cost of rising inflation, energy costs and an unfunded national pay settlement hadn’t been met by the increases from central funding.  As such difficult decisions on cuts and savings needed to be made whilst trying to protect frontline services.  If those difficult decisions weren’t taken further difficulties would arise.


There was increased demand for support from food banks and Christmas hampers. It was proposed to extend the free school meal holiday voucher scheme for a further twelve months. Further investment would be made to the Council’s Energy Crisis grants, the Household Support Fund, the discretionary housing payments, and the Council Tax Support funds


He noted the Council’s Employment Solutions Team had helped more than a thousand local people into work or training. The amount of money the council spent in the local economy had nearly doubled in the last three years. The Towns and Villages Fund had been extended.


In seconding the budget report Councillor Alam, Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, Community Safety and Finance, passed on his thanks to those who’d worked tirelessly to get to this position.  The focus had been around putting the residents of the borough first and through prudently managed finances the Council had been able to propose a number of investments.


He noted that it was clear that the savings presented a challenge to the council including requiring new ways of working however there was a determination of ensure no one was left behind and the most vulnerable did not suffer.


At this point it was moved by Councillor A Carter and seconded by Councillor Tarmey:  That the Budget and Council Tax 2023/24 report be accepted as proposed, except for the following amendments to:

1.    Appendix 2 Proposed Revenue Investments 2023/24, for a total reduction of the base budget of £89,000 in 2023/24. The total reduction in base budget in subsequent years from 2024/25 onwards of £26,000:


1.1.            23/24 R&E1 – Rotherham Markets Redevelopment – Trader Incentives. Remove this £167,000 investment proposal.

1.2.            23/24 R&E2 – Narrow Access Vehicle Resource Requirements. Defer this £63,000 investment proposal to the 2024/25 budget.

1.3.            23/24 FCS2 – Customer & Digital Programme. Reduce this budget proposal from £118,000 to £80,000 per year.

1.4.            Add a new permanent revenue investment proposal for 2023/24 – Delegated Tree Maintenance Fund to the value of £59,000. This investment is to be delegated as a specific ward budget (£3,000 for 3-member wards, and £2,000 for 2-member wards) used for the purpose of maintaining existing trees or planting new trees.

1.5.            Add a new revenue permanent investment proposal 2023/24 – Universal Youth Work to the value of £70,000. The additional investment is to be used for the purpose of expanding Voluntary & Community Sector commissioning.

1.6.            Add a new permanent revenue investment proposal 2023/24 – Staffing Costs of Brinsworth Community Library to the value of £50,000. The additional investment is to be used for the purpose of reimbursing Brinsworth Parish Council of the staffing costs for Brinsworth Community Library.


2.    Appendix 3A to 3D Capital Programme 2022/23 to 2025/26:


2.1.            Change budgets for the following investments, for a total reduction in 2023/24 of £21,835,761 and a total reduction in 2024/25 of £8,937,825:


2.1.1.   Capital Investment RVCP Car Parking Payment Stations. Remove this £75,000 investment proposal. This is split by £50,000 reduction to £0 in 2023/24, and £25,000 reduction to £0 in 2024/25.

2.1.2.   Capital Investment Traffic Management Act 2004 Part 6 - Moving Traffic Enforcement – Set up costs. Reduce the 2023/24 budget to £120,000 (from £150,000) and reduce the 2024/25 budget to £200,000 (from £250,000). Funding removed for the proposed Wood Lane, Brinsworth bus gate scheme. The other schemes in the proposal are to be continued.

2.1.3.   Capital Investment Traffic Signal Improvements. Reduce the 2023/24 budget to £100,000 (from £200,000). Reduce the 2024/25 budget investment to £200,000 (from £400,000).

2.1.4.   Capital Investment Bus Route Improvements. Reduce the 2023/24 budget to £50,000 (from £100,000). No change to the 2024/25 budget investment of £231,000.

2.1.5.   Capital Investment Markets Redevelopment. Remove this investment proposal, with a reduction of £21,345,761 for 2023/24 and £8,902,825 for 2024/25.

2.1.6.   Capital Investment Bereavement Services Investment. Reduce the 2023/24 budget to £128,000 (from £148,000). Funding removed from the Independent Report – Mohammed Omer (£20,000).

2.1.7.   Capital Investment Narrow Access Vehicle Resource Requirements. Reduce the 2023/24 budget to £0. Defer this £240,000 investment proposal to the 2024/25 budget.


2.2.            Add or increase budgets for the following investments, for a total increase of £4,498,960 in 2023/24 and a reduction in 2025/26 of £1,700,000 that is re-profiled for delivery in 2023/24.


2.2.1.   Capital Investment Boroughwide Tree Planting & Maintenance Programme. Increase the 2023/24 budget to £59,000 (from £0). This investment is to be delegated as a specific ward budget (£3,000 for 3-member wards, and £2,000 for 2-member wards) used for the purpose of maintaining existing trees or planting new trees.

2.2.2.   Capital Investment Ward Budgets. Increase 2023/24 budget from £7120 to £100,000 for each of the two member wards, at an additional total cost of £1,486,080.

2.2.3.   Capital Investment Ward Budgets. Increase 2023/24 budget from £10,680 to £150,000 for each of the three member wards, at an additional total cost of £1,253,880.

2.2.4.   Capital Investment – Building Decarbonisation. Accelerate the planned programme by bringing forward to 2023/24 £1.7m of investment currently allocated in 2025/26 (reducing the 2025/26 spend to £0). This will result in a total investment in 2023/24 of £4,371,811 in this scheme.


3.    Excluding the removal of the Markets Redevelopment project, the financing impact of the remaining reductions and proposed investments is a £0.3m increase in the annual borrowing costs for the Council from 2024/25 onwards. There are currently £918,000 of sunk costs associated with the proposed removal of the Markets Redevelopment scheme (2.1.5 above). These costs would be charged to revenue and funded from the Budget and Financial Strategy Reserve. The revenue saving of £0.7m per year from 2024/25 as a result of the reduced financing costs of this scheme will be used to cover the additional £0.3m per year financing costs associated with the investment proposals at 2.2 above. The remaining £0.4m per year will be used to replenish the Budget and Financial Strategy Reserve and ultimately support the Council’s Budget and Medium-Term Financial Strategy.


In moving the amendment Councillor, A Carter stated that this had been put forward in the context of years of overspending on budgets. He acknowledged there had been unexpected pressures however it was part of the problem. Big changes were needed with a view to keeping the Council Tax as low as possible.  The decision making should be brought closer to the residents enabling them to have a say what happens in their local area. He felt the Council was far too reactionary in tackling anti-social behaviour. It was felt that increased funding for youth work would enable partners to work with the Council as needed rather than when things were out of control.


It was felt that adding pay stations to a country park that people had to drive to was wrong. He agreed with the premises of improving bus routes however this should be the responsibility of South Yorkshire’s Mayor.


In seconding, the amendment Councillor Tarmey indicated he felt the proposed budget meant borrowing to achieve what residents wanted. There was a need to accept that online shopping had replaced the need for some of the shops and markets in the town centre. Residents had indicated they did not travel to the town centre but wanted to see investment in their local towns and villages.


He believed there was a demand for a cleaner and greener borough with residents unhappy with the state of trees in the more rural parts of the borough. Regarding bereavement services, residents were being told what was needed for cemeteries, however it was felt that more attention should be paid to the views of residents and implementing the proposals already agreed.


In response to the proposed amendment Councillor Lelliott explained the budget proposed investments in children, schools, services, and economic development. The proposals for investment in the town centre had drawn in investments. Lots of consultation had been carried out on the town centre proposals.  Local businesses depended upon the investment being made.


Councillor Roche noted that Brinsworth Parish Council were increasing their precept but with the proposed amendment also seeking additional funding for Brinsworth. He clarified that all members were able to submit a number of proposals for road schemes each year.


Councillor Wyatt indicated he was against the amendment. He noted that nationally markets were experiencing hard times but there was a need to look at the sustainability of the trader base.  Traders needed to be support through the period of change and the current building needed renovation. Markets were a historic tradition and if support wasn’t provided a signification investment would need to be passed back.


The Leader explained that all parts of the borough were treated equally. He understood the principle of the proposed amendment around transferring funding from central decisions into decisions made within the wards however it contained two problems. The first was the expectation that all members would underspend by £66,000 in terms of capital expenditure for this financial year in each ward.  The second was to say that the benefits of making changes to improve the bus services and improve road layouts would be felt by all residents. If it was down to the individual wards to help, these things would not benefit everyone in the borough. Returning the funding from the bid for the market and central library development could lead to those proposals not being fulfilled.


Councillor Allen indicated that residents would be appalled if the funding for the markets and central library development was returned to the Government.


Councillor Cusworth indicated the proposed amendment did not indicate what their proposals for the town centre were. Rotherham had been a market town for a long time, and it brought a diversity of people and goods to the town, whilst creating access to goods at a reasonable rate during the cost of living crisis.


Councillor Ball indicated that the redevelopment of the markets had been a long-established plan therefore now was not the time to change plans where significant investment had been made. He was unable to support a uniformed approach to funding.


Councillor Sheppard explained the number of visitors to Rother Valley County Park was increasing therefore there was a need for the car parks to be ready to accommodate the additional visitors.


Councillor Z Collingham noted that the amendment cleed for more trees and more revenue investment for Brinsworth Parish Council but did not mention anything about council tax.


Councillor Reynold believed that the town was not thriving however no towns were. There was a need to move with the time, the style of markets had changed. The town centre needed to be rebuilt.


Councillor Wilson said she had used the market in the town centre for years and it had been her saviour. She still used it now because she wanted to support local businesses. She accepted that it was not where it should be however businesses were working hard in the town and the markets itself to address this. She believed that markets elsewhere were thriving due to regeneration.


Councillor Beck believed that the Council involved everyone in decisions. All Members were asked what roads they would like improved in consultation with residents. There were many different examples of how the Council sought direct involvement from its members.


Councillor Atkin said the markets were there for people who needed things and the traders would suffer whilst the work was undertaken so needed support.


Councillor Miro explained he was not against the investment in the town centre however it had found little to make him want to visit it. He felt he would be able to accomplish more within his ward if more funding was available for ward budgets.


In response to the points raised in the debate on the amendment, Councillor A Carter indicated that many of the big businesses had left the town centre. He believed that markets were a failing industry and only a minority of residents used the town centre. There was a need to move with the times. He was pleased that visitor numbers were increasing in Rother Valley Country Park but queried if that was the right thing to prioritise.


On being put the vote the amendment was lost.


At this point it was proposed by Councillor Ball and seconded by Councillor Mills:


Budget and Council Tax for the 2023/24 Financial Year


That the Budget and Council Tax 2023/24 report be accepted as proposed, with the exception of the following amendments:


1.    Reduce the proposed Council Tax increase from 4% to 2%, with the proposed 2% increase being made up of a 2% increase through the Adult Social Care precept (ringfenced for adult social care).


The reduction in the proposed level of Council Tax increase from 4% to 2% will create a budget shortfall of £2.4m for 2023/24, £2.5m for 2024/25 and £2.6m for 2025/26. For 2023/24, 2024/25 and 2025/26 this will be funded by £7.5m from the Budget and Financial Strategy Reserve.


2.    Remove the Local Council Tax Support Top Up Scheme from the Budget proposals for 2023/24 and 2024/25. In 2023/24 this will reduce the call on the Household Support Fund by £1.2m and it is proposed that this funding is now used to provide grants to households to enable the acquisition and installation of solar panels on their properties to reduce the impact of energy bills.


The grant scheme for solar panels will be accessed via an application process, with a potential grant award of up to £3,000 towards the acquisition and installation of solar panels. It is anticipated that around 400 households can be supported through this fund. Applicants applying must demonstrate that they are suffering financial difficulty due to the impact of rising energy costs or be referred into the scheme through the Council’s debt advice provision through the Advocacy and Appeals service.


For 2024/25 the removal of the Local Council Tax Support Top Up Scheme will reduce the Council’s proposed call on reserves by £1.9m (£1.2m Local Council Tax Support Grant reserve and £0.7m Collection Fund Income Guarantee Grant Reserve).


3.    Increase the budget in 2023/24 by £0.5m for street cleaning and by £0.7m for road repairs and maintenance. These additional areas of expenditure total £1.2m for 2023/24 and will be funded by the £1.2m Local Council Tax Support Grant Reserve that was planned for use in 2024/25 leaving the £0.7m Collection Fund Income in reserve for future use.


4.    Allocate £460k of the £8.799m Fleet Replacement Programme within the capital programme 2023/24 specifically for the purchase of 20 small electric vehicles to accelerate and support the climate emergency motion that Council passed.


In moving the amendment Councillor Ball thanked the Strategic Director of Finance and Customer Services and her team. He felt this amendment was fairer for all and provided further funding for those services such a littler and potholes. There was a need to be fair to everyone in the borough who was going through difficult times. The amendment provided solar energy for homes and increased the number of electric vehicles. It also opened up opportunities for apprenticeships.


In seconding, the amendment Councillor Mills noted the need to support and remove financial pressures for residents.


Councillor Wilson queried who the amendment was support by not increasing council tax. The spirit in which the solar energy proposal was presented was understood however it was queried how some residents, who could need the scheme, would be able to afford or qualify for the grants.


Councillor Pitchley felt that by removing the local council tax support scheme, not all residents would be able to afford the proposal. More facts were needed for it to be fully considered.


Councillor Sheppard queried why the proposal was being offered to those who had the least to be able to fund it for the benefit of others.


Councillor Tarmey felt the amendment was not fiscally responsible, that it put more pressure on debt and raided the reserves. Renewable energy was support but removing funding from a vital council tax support fund, which supported lots of people, could not be supported. The planning system should be looked at to mandate developers to install solar panels.


Councillor Hoddinott said she was proud that Rotherham had a good scheme that supported people of working age and it was vital that support was provided to them and other residents who needed it most.


Councillor Beck could not support the amendment due to the removal of the local council tax support scheme. The amendment would make poor people poorer. The amendment was not fair for all.


Councillor Baker-Rogers would not support the amendment. The proposal regarding solar panels could put residents in debt and stop others from moving home for 10 years.


Councillor A Carter opposed the amendment indicating a better proposal would be to install solar panels on homes the Council already owned. The reserves should not be used to freeze council tax.


Councillor Roche felt the amendment was unfair and took away subsidies from those who needed them. Reducing council tax would not help the poorer families and would build up future problems.


Councillor Bennett-Sylvester said there was a need to find other ways to fund their proposals as people in his ward had gone without food and heat for days and there was in increase in the number of people who sleep rough.


The Leader believed this would create a £2.5m deficit each year. If the aim was to provide a lower council tax rise the proposals should indicate how this would be met. 


Councillor Z Collingham said the amendment proposed a smaller council tax rise. The national situation was unprecedented, and this was one mechanism the council had that had the ability to affect everyone lives. Every household did matter. The amendment was financially sound and putting funding into road repair and road cleaning mattered to people.


Councillor Lelliott felt the amendment was taking support away from those who needed it most.


In response to the points raised in the debate on the amendment, Councillor Ball asked that all Councillors who had supported the proposed council tax increase should be prepared to go back to their residents to explain why they are being asked to contribute more when they’re struggling to get by.  The national government had supported the most vulnerable households in recent years through cost-of-living payments, benefit uplifts and energy support. Funding was also provided to the Council via the Household Support Fund to further help those in need the most. People in the borough needed to feel that they could contribute, that they could hold the Council to account for the services it provided. Many of those households were already in receipt of significant council tax support. There was a need to remain fair and mindful of the many households who were not eligible for council tax support. The approach in the borough had brough long term hard with too much short termism and a lack of strategic vision. Continued parking charges had led to the collapse of the town centre. The PFI contract costing nearly £5 million per year, with an on average 31% occupancy rate was sighted as a failure. The amendment showed that the people of Rotherham believed in fairness and should be included in the budget.


On being put to the vote the amendment was lost.


The meeting now discussed the original substantive motion that had been moved by the Leader and seconded by Councillor Alam.


Councillor Bennett-Sylvester indicated he felt the scrutiny process of the budget had gone backward and asked that consideration be given to holding full member seminars with the relevant directors to consider the budget proposals. He noted that most of the pressures on the budget were external and queried if there were any inefficiencies. He asked how inefficiencies were addressed. There was an immediate need to address those inefficiencies across the borough and provide support now.


Councillor Roche welcomed the proposals, indicating there was a clear need for the additional funding in Adult Social Care. The number of people requiring care was growing year on year along with the existing pressures of staff retention. The Government asked local councils how much was needed to support adult social care and a £7 billion shortage was identified across the country.


Councillor Sheppard noted that through investment the borough would see continual improvement on a proactive and reactive basis, for example the investment would continue to ensure historic landmarks such as Waterloo Kiln were restored.


Councillor Beck explained that investment was being made in the Household Waste Recycling Centres across the borough. This was part of a wider project to bring services in house including ensuring those staff working on the sites were directly employed by the Council. Equipment was being modernised including purchasing two narrow access bin lorries to create improved accessibility within the more rural areas.


Councillor Cusworth supported the budget noting the increase demand on children’s services. The cost-of-living crisis was putting pressures on families with there being a national increase in instances of domestic and substance abuse. More children were being admitted to the care system however through creative ways of managing budgets a cohort of children in care were brough back into the borough. The Council was able to intervene in situations earlier through investment into family conferencing. The free school meal vouchers had been a lifesaver for many, and that support was needed now.


Councillor Allen noted that one of the priorities in the Council was ensuring every neighbourhood was a great place to live and there was a need to continue to improve neighbourhoods.  The Council was not proposing to implement the maximum 5% council tax increase. She offered praise and thanks to both the corporate and directorate finance team. She also thanked her Cabinet colleagues, in particular Councillor Allam for the intensive work undertaken to create the proposals.


Councillor Lelliott said the Council was supporting the most vulnerable whilst also freezing car parking fees, continuing with free parking and freezing taxi licencing costs. Investment was being made in the outlying towns across the borough through the Towns and Villages fund.


Councillor Wilson indicated she felt the budget covered aspects such as building for the future and creating opportunities through investment proposals.


Councillor Tarmey expressed his concerns around the lack of cost control and felt the budget could be overspent.


Councillor Baum-Dixon opposed the budget. He felt the budget had been written by officers, for officers, with no drive to do things differently and believed the taxpayer of Rotherham would pay for it. The Council needed to have the courage to look for savings all of the time rather than when it was in a crisis. He explained that he had not supported the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner percept rise. He felt the Council needed the ambition to innovate and try something different.


In response to the issues raised in the debate the Leader acknowledged that the engagement from the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board on the budget proposals had been less than in previous years. This was due to additional funding being provided by Government late in the budget setting process. In response to the points made on interim savings, the Council was able to defer some spending for some time, on vacancies for instance, however when those savings were made permanent, that could then have an effect on service delivery. The Leader concluded his remarks in commending the proposed budget to members.


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: Councillors Alam, Allen, Andrews, Atkin, Aveyard, Baker-Rodgers, Beck, Bennett-Sylvester, Bird, Brookes, Browne, Clark, Cooksey, Cowen, Cusworth, Elliott, Ellis, Foster, Griffin, Haleem, Havard, Hoddinott, Hughes, Jones, Keenan, Khan, Lelliott, McNeely, Monk, Pitchley, Read, Roche, Sheppard, Taylor, Wilson, and Wyatt.


Against: Councillors Bacon, Ball, Barley, Baum-Dixon, Burnett, A. Carter, C. Carter, Castledine-Dack, T. Collingham, Z. Collingham, Fisher, Hunter, Miro, Reynolds, Tarmey, Thompson, and Tinsley.


Abstentions: None




That Council

1.    Approves the Budget and Financial Strategy for 2023/24 as set out in the report and appendices, including a basic Council Tax increase of 2% and an Adult Social Care precept of 2%.


2.    Approves the proposed extension to the Local Council Tax Support Top Up scheme, that will provide up to £117.60 of additional support to low-income households most vulnerable to rising household costs, through reduced Council Tax bills as described in section 2.5.11-14.


3.    Approves the updated Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) to 2025/26, as described within section 2.6.


4.    Approves the Reserves Strategy as set out in Section 2.9 noting that the final determination of Reserves will be approved as part of reporting the financial outturn for 2022/23.


5.    Notes and accepts 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 2.14).


6.    Notes the feedback from the public and partners following the public consultation on the Council’s budget for 2023/24 which took place from 19 December 2022 to 22 January 2023, attached as Appendix 10.


7.    Approves the proposed increases in Adult Social Care provider contracts and for Personal Assistants as set out in Section 2.4.


8.    Approves the revenue investment proposals set out in Section 2.7 and Appendix 2.


9.    Approves the Council Fees and Charges for 2023/24 attached as Appendix 7.


10.Approves the revenue savings proposals set out in Section 2.8 and Appendix 4.


11.Approves the application of the Business Rates Reliefs as set out in Section 2.10, in line with Government guidance.


12.Approves the proposed Capital Strategy and Capital Programme as presented in Section 2.12 and Appendices 3A to 3F.


13.Approves the Treasury Management matters for 2023/24 as set out in Appendix 9 of this report including the Prudential Indicators, the Minimum Revenue Provision Policy, the Treasury Management Strategy and the Investment Strategy.


14.Approves the Flexible use of Capital Receipts Strategy 2023/24 (Appendix 5).


15.Approves that the projected 2022/23 revenue outturn overspend will be funded from the Council’s corporate reserves as indicated within section 2.9.


16.Approves that any variation in the assumed Public Health Grant will be reflected in the Budget once notified.


17.Approves the recommendation to continue with the principles and measures adopted since April 2020 to make faster payments to suppliers on receipt of goods, works and services following a fully reconciled invoice as described in section 2.11.


18. Approves that the Capital Programme Budget continues to be managed in line with the following key principles:

                  i.     Any underspends on the existing approved Capital Programme in respect of 2022/23 be rolled forward into future years, subject to an individual review of each carry forward to be set out within the Financial Outturn 2022/23 report to Cabinet.

                 ii.     In line with Financial and Procurement Procedure Rules 7.7 to 7.11 and 8.12, 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.


19.Approves the Statutory Resolution of Council Tax for 2023/24 as set out in Appendix 6, incorporating precept figures as advised by South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner, South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority and the Town and Parish Councils within the Borough.

Supporting documents: