Agenda item

Report to follow.

Consideration was given to a report of the Borough Treasurer detailing The Council is required to set a "Balanced Budget" and to maintain adequate levels of Reserves.  The primary purpose of this report is to set the Council's overall Budget for the forthcoming year 2024/25 (both Revenue & Capital) and the associated level of Council Tax necessary to help fund the Budget.

 

The report also considers the overall financial position for 2024/25 and the forecasts for future years considering the outlook for both spending and funding, and the likely consequences for Council services moving forward. 

 

In line with Standing Order 4.11( C) 5 members of the Council requested that speeches be extended to up to 7 minutes.

 

The Leader of the Council introduced the budget and advised that it was a pleasure to do so. The budget was good for Gosport with a less than inflation rate increase in Council Tax, over £1million in service improvements with no cuts to services. The increase was minor in comparison to Hampshire County Council, who had doubled their share of Council Tax and still had to cut £125 million from their budget, including Street lighting.

 

The budget provided more support for voluntary events and cultural events, it was supporting the High Street and helping to improve play areas. The increase for the Gosport element of the Council Tax would only increase by 11 pence a week one of the lowest in the County. With inflation still at 6% the increase to Gosport was less than half of that at 2.99%.

 

Over £1m had been invested into published and the budget was the best since 1995 it was sound financial management following the inheriting of £1.7m deficit from the previous administration and that this had to be factored in to make the budget workable for future years. The predictions for the budget on inflation had been based on 2% and that the budget had been worked to ensure the Council had dealt with the prediction being incorrect and the risk of bankruptcy that was being seen at other Councils it was in a good position, presenting a value for money budget where the Council did not need to borrow money ensure essential services continued.

 

The budget was robust and compared to the decisions being taken by Hampshire County Council it was positive. Hampshire County Council’s increase on Council Tax was nearly double Gosport’s and Gosport’s was half the rate of inflation. Gosport had also made no service cuts, but Hampshire were making £125m of them, including bus subsidies, street lighting, dial a ride. All essential services. In addition repairs to pot holes and roads were not going ahead. School crossing patrols were being cut and allow this was impacting on the most vulnerable members of society. Cutting tips would increase rubbish and fly tipping, cutting library services had ked to independent libraries having better opening hours and more stock, and in addition the Council were being asked to remove skips, when the removal of some tips was creating an issue.

 

The Government continued to make cuts to Local Authority funding putting Councils under pressure. In addition, national policies were failing and Councils were having to use their reserves. Thanks to sound management, the amount used from reserves at Gosport Borough Council was reducing, from £494k to £315k to £179k and this was thanks to good financial management but there was not a money tree, and more careful planning needed to be undertaken.

 

The budget was such that a balance had been set with adequate reserves and protecting services.

The Council was being impacted by a number of financial demands, the pay award was positive for staff, but had impacted on the Council’s finances by £174k in 2023-24 and would be another £50k in 2024-2025. The Council had also lost income on mixed recycling and from the Portchester Crematorium Committee.

 

There were ongoing pressures on housing and homelessness services, with constant demand on the Council’s duty to help. There were becoming less available properties and the concern was expressed this would increase when the IRC reopened.

 

Inflation had peaked at 10% and this had impacted on people’s ability to pay essential bills, there was a greater need for food banks and there were greater pressures on voluntary organisations such as CAB. The Council was supporting them with funding and had also introduced a Grants Sub-Board to try and help those that needed support.

 

The Council was supporting reinvestment into the Town Centre, using heritage grants to improve and invest and was also investing in and developing the Criterion, transforming it into a multipurpose arts centres. It was noted that recently in Parliament that Kettering Council, Conservative lead had been congratulated by the Prime Minster on their investment and development of an old building into an arts centre.

 

The Liberal Democrat Council were committed to invest in arts and culture, something that had been neglected previously. Rather than flats, the Criterion would be brought to life, as well as work with Historic England and market providers to deliver on promises to improve Gosport all done in a prudent manner.

 

There had been an improvement in the town since 2022 as well as a reduction in the deficit, but it was clear there was still work to do.

 

Funding had been cut by the Conservative government, equating to 40% in real terms, and Councils were having to find the funds to replace this. It was difficult to plan ahead with inflation soaring as a result of poor decisions. This needed constant reassessment as a result of additional cuts, such as those from Hampshire County Council and Portchester Crematorium.

 

Pressures on the budgets would continue with an increase demand to save money, the Borough Treasurer had forecast that more savings at a greater level would need to be made.

 

In response to questioning over the validity of the skips scheme. The public welcomed the locality of them, they welcomed that they did not have to make a booking for them and so far over 250 tonnes of waste had been collected which would otherwise be dumped.

 

The Council had provided free events across the High Street and had also held party in the park events and the sunset festival. These events were all free of charge so helping families in the Borough. The People’s Park would be developed using some of the £18million levelling up funding which had been received after the Conservative administration had failed to receive anything in previous rounds.

 

It was acknowledged that tough decisions would need to be made, but the administration would not shirk away from these. The CCTV had not been renewed because it was believed that 24/7 monitoring needed to be provided by the Police and Crime Commissioner, more cameras were in situe. Investment was being made into play areas, and sports facilities, and the capital programme was being reviewed constantly.

 

The budget needed to be balanced and this was difficult with cuts to funding, but the administration were committed to protecting and improving services without additional borrowing to try and reduce the deficit. Over £1m of improved services was being delivered and additional funds being allocated to the market and regenerating the High Street and Stoke Road as well as the waterfront redevelopment.

 

The Leader thanked the officers for their hard work in producing the budget, as well as the Councillors that were involved. It was recognised that it had not been an easy task. It was recognised that the skill of the Borough Treasurer had been complimented by the recent appointment of the Head of Finance and that this provided a sound financial team for the Council’s budgets and spending.

 

The budget presented delivered a low increase of 2.99%, over £1m investment in public services and low tax and high services was a commitment the Liberal Democrats were making.

 

A notice of amendment was given that at the end of the recommendations the following was added as 2.18a.

 

That mindful of the Council’s budget situation the Police and Crime Commissioner be asked to fund the reintroduction of 24/7 CCTV monitoring in Gosport.

 

The Council adjourned from 20:00 until 20:10.

 

A Member sought clarification that in line with point 2.19 of the report, the Section 151 Officer had a duty to report to Members on the robustness of reserves and must also include a written by the Section 151 officer on any amendments.

 

The Section 151 Officer confirmed that as the amendment did not propose a financial burden on the Council he was satisfied and that it was robust in line with 8.6 of the report and no written statement was required.

 

A Member advised that the budget should be robust and spent wisely, and that several times the Criterion had been mentioned and looking at the capital programme there was £1,025000 in the budget for the Criterion. This did not include the outlay of £600000 spent to purchase the building as well as £600k on essential maintenance so this already came to £1.2m, greater than what was stated in the Capital programme. It was important to know how much the criterion would cost and that the public knew where the money to pay for it was coming from.

 

 A Member advised that they considered the proposed amendment to be void without a statement from the Section 151 officer.

Concern was expressed that the Council had forfeited a government grant of £1.35million and the chance for affordable housing on the bus station site at the expense of a park and a burger van.

 

It was highlighted that the savings detailed in staff costs in 2022/23 and 2023/24 had not been delivered and therefore it was anticipated that the cost predictions for 2024/25 would also not be delivered.

 

Car parking charges had increased by up to 57.5% and permits had increased by 53.3%, sports fees to 46.4% with some increased by 62.3%. These are increases to fees and charges that real people were being faced with and having to pay and people would eventually vote with their feet as was being shown with half empty car parks and reduced income from them.

 

It was noted that the community safety priorities had been allocated £420 in the budget which was less than the increase for the Mayor and Deputy Mayor’s allowance for 2024/25.

 

A Member advised that they felt the amendment was a cheap shot and that and not within the budget process. They advised that they had worked with the Borough Treasurer who had been incredibly helpful but there were a number of projects listed that simply did not deliver the savings promised and missed opportunities. The bus station project had handed back money from the government to support additional housing, the levelling up fund had been very specific in its designation, work on the rum store and work on linking the walkway to Royal Clarence Yard.  The levelling up funds had also been applied for under the previous administration and the current administration had done nothing to achieve it.

 

There were no plans for the People’s Park, no idea of what was going to happen there no detail to any of the plans proposed and delivery on projects failed.

 

A Member clarified that with regard to the Crematorium, there was a need for a new cremator, the cost of which would be taken from the upcoming budgets for the Crematorium. Whilst the Committee had budgeted for this replacement work, it did mean that until it was paid for, there would not be a surplus to return to the owning Councils, Fareham, Gosport, Portsmouth and Havant. The proposed spend and budget had been agreed by those that were on the Portchester Crematorium Joint Committee.

 

A Member recognised the importance of the Borough Treasurer and his team recognising his guardianship over the budget and also felt that the amendment was void as it did not impact on the budget proposed.  They felt that the promotion of sport, the increased use in leisure facilities and that money to support this could be given from axing the community skips when there was already the option to visit the tip.

 

Proposals were being presented to Boards with no detail, including the criterion, there had been constant increases in costs including parking. Flood defences had not been delivered and it was requested that a specific update be given on the progress of the work for Anglesey and Alverstoke. It was confirmed that there was still an issue with the cable that had been found.

 

A Member advised that they were disappointed at the attitude shown towards council officers, the Borough Treasure was content with the proposed amendment and that should be accepted. They noted that it was interesting that with such criticism of the Community Skips, that Fareham Borough Council were considering doing the same.

 

A Member advised that they also supported the Borough Treasurer, that things were moving forward for Gosport and that this all need to be done whilst providing value for money. The budget situation was better than that inherited at the change of administration and the administration were making a good job of taking positive steps. There were challenges ahead, but the opposition had shown that they could not deliver. 

 

A Member advised that the budget had been introduced criticising decisions made by Hampshire County Council, when the budget being set was that of Gosport Borough Council, who had no influence on Hampshire County Council.

 

The fees set were the highest ever, claims that the administration had delivered were wrong, and choices were being taken that the residents did not want, this included the removal of live monitoring CCTV, the increase in sports pitch charges, car park charges that had increased 3 times in 18 months and an increase in the times charges were made.

 

The refurbishment of Brookers pavilion was not being undertaken, all of these were an attack on those that liked to exercise.

 

The CCTV report that had previously been taken to the Policy and Organisation was confidential to protect those that were vulnerable and 24/7 live coverages could be reinstated to ensure residents safety.

 

It was reiterated that the Levelling up funding had not been secured by the Liberal Democrat Council, the application had been made under the Conservative administration and the government had decided to award funding to those projects that had previously missed out. This money was for the development of the rum store and to connect the areas. Money had been returned because a development had not been undertaken on the brownfield bus station site providing much need housing.

 

Splash parks were not being refurbished, but skips were being contracted. The grants sub-board had been established but it was paying out sums to football clubs for sports jackets. Investment was said to have been made in the market but to date there had only been one present and the perceived saving of £125k on staff was meant to be 37 staff leading to low pay rates or hours.

 

Despite all of the cuts funding was being made available for the criterion, but with no indication of where the funds would come from. If the opposition were in power they advised that they would withdraw the People’s park, reinstate CCTV monitoring, and invest in sports fields.

 

A Member advised that there was very little room to reduce the Council Tax Increase without services being cut, and that as a result, difficult decisions needed to be made.

 

It was currently difficult times in which there was an increase need for help and support for people, particularly with housing.

 

It was felt more police were needed and that skips provision supported those unable to travel to the tip. It was hoped that initiatives like community clean ups could also be introduced. 

 

The Easter market was welcomed and the inclusion of stakeholders was welcome as was the schemes that promoted restoration of heritage assets and promoted conservation and welcoming visitors to the Borough.

 

The finding of free events was encourages and welcomed as was the support for Stoke Road as it was good to be working for the residents. Support for the voluntary sector was welcome, the Willow Garden had been a great success and was supporting people and establishing communities.

 

It was important to protect both the heritage and the waterfront and it was good to see progress with the bus station. It was important that the views were protected. When the transport hub was finished it would be an asset.

 

Thanks to Council staff was reiterated as was the welcome opportunity to increase services for the residents.

 

The Leader thanked Members for their support and reiterated commitment on skips and the Criterion and that the Grants Sub Board was specifically helping more of the Borough that needed it.

 

For the first time in25 years things were moving forwards in the Borough and the change was what people wanted whilst continuing to protect services. The criterion would provide the Borough with an arts venue and the commitment to do this was reflected in Hampshire Cultural Trust’s willingness to support projects such as the museum, when in Fareham funding was being withdrawn from the Ashcroft and Westbury Manor.

 

A named vote was taken on the amendment as follows.

 

Proposed Amendment

 

That at the end of the recommendations the following was added as 2.18a.

 

That mindful of the Council’s budget situation the Police and Crime Commissioner be asked to fund the reintroduction of 24/7 CCTV monitoring in Gosport.

 

 

FOR: Councillors Ballard, M Bradley, K Bradley, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Durrant, Earle, Hammond, Herridge, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Marshall, Maynard, Westerby. (16)

 

ABSTAIN: Councillor Beavis, Burgess, Casey, Gledhill, Huggins, Jessop, Morgan, Raffaelli, Scard, The Mayor. (10)

 

Councillor Philpott advised that he would not vote on an amendment that he did not believe to be valid in line with the Council’s constitution.

 

The motion was carried and became the substantive motion.

 

A named vote was taken on the recommendation as follows:

 

2.1         A Revised General Fund Budget for 2023/24 of £11,582,410 as set out in Appendix A;

 

2.2         A General Fund Budget for 2024/25 of £12,434,500 as set out in Appendix A and broken down in Appendix C;

 

2.3         Any variation arising from the final Local Government Finance Settlement be accommodated by a transfer to / from the Revenue Financing Reserve;

 

2.4         That the level of Council Tax be increased by 2.99% for 2024/25;

 

2.5         It be noted that the Borough Treasurer has determined that the Council Tax Base for the financial year 2024/25 will be 26,980.9 [item T in the formula in Section 31 B(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended (the “Act”)];

 

2.6         That the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the financial year 2024/25 in accordance with Section 31 and Sections 34 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992:

 

(a)	£44,587,889	Being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(2) of the Act.
(b)	£37,697,777	Being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(3) of the Act.
(c)	£6,890,112	Being the amount by which the aggregate at 2.6 (a) above exceeds the aggregate at 2.6(b) above, calculated by the Council in accordance with Section 31A(4) of the Act as its Council Tax requirement for the year. (Item R in the formula in Section 31B(1) of the Act.
(d)	£255.37	Being the amount at 2.6 (c) above (Item R), all divided by Item 2.5 above (Item T), calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 31B(1) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year.

 

 

           

(e)        Valuation Bands (Gosport Borough Council)

 

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£
170.25	198.62	227.00	255.37	312.12	368.87	425.62	510.74

 

Being the amounts given by multiplying the amount at 2.6 (d) above by the number which, in the proportion set out in Section 5(1) of the Act, is applicable to dwellings listed in a particular valuation band divided by the number which in that proportion is applicable to dwellings listed in Valuation Band D, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 36(1) of the Act, as the amounts to be taken into account for the year in respect of categories of dwellings in different valuation bands.

 

2.7         That it be noted that for the financial year 2024/25 Hampshire County Council will propose the following amounts for the precept to be issued to the Council in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each of categories of the dwellings shown below:

    Valuation Bands (Hampshire County Council)

 

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£
1,022.16	1,192.52	1,362.88	1,533.24	1,873.96	2,214.68	2,555.40	3,066.48

           

2.8         That it be noted that for the financial year 2024/25, the Hampshire Police & Crime Commissioner has proposed the following amounts for the precept to be issued to the Council in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each of the categories of the dwellings shown below:

            Valuation Bands (Hampshire Police & Crime Commissioner)   

 

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£
174.31	203.36	232.41	261.46	319.56	377.66	435.77	522.92

2.9         That it be noted that for the financial year 2024/25, that Hampshire & Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Authority will be recommended to consider the following amounts for the precept issued to the Council in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each of the categories of the dwellings shown below:

Valuation Bands (Hampshire & Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Authority)

 

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£
55.23	64.43	73.64	82.84	101.25	119.66	138.07	165.68

 

2.10       That having calculated the aggregate in each case of the amounts at 2.6(e), 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9 above, the Council, in accordance with Sections 31A, 31B and 34 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 as amended, hereby sets the following amounts as the amounts of Council Tax for the financial year 2024/25 for each of the categories of dwellings shown on the next page:

Valuation Bands (Total Council Tax)

 

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£
1,421.95	1,658.93	1,895.93	2,132.91	2,606.89	3,080.87	3,554.86	4,265.82

 

2.11       The Borough Treasurer be given delegated authority to implement any variation to the overall level of Council Tax arising from the final notification of the Hampshire County Council, Hampshire Police & Crime Commissioner and Hampshire & Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Authority precepts.

 

2.12       The Council determines in accordance with Section 52ZB of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that the Council’s basic amount of Council Tax for 2024/25, which represents a 2.99% increase, is not excessive in accordance with the principles approved by the Secretary of State under Section 52ZC of the Act.

 

2.13       As the billing authority, the Council has not been notified by a major precepting authority (Hampshire County Council, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire or the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Authority) that its relevant basic amount of Council Tax for 2024/25 is excessive and that the billing authority is not required to hold a referendum in accordance with Section 52ZK of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

 

2.14       That the Council approves the Savings Strategy for 2025/26 onwards set out in this report, requiring that £0.401m of Budget Savings are made in 2025/26 as a minimum and that indicative savings of a further £0.401m will be required in both 2026/27 and 2027/28, these indicative savings being subject to an annual review.

 

2.15       Members have had regard for the Statement of the Section 151 Officer in accordance with the Local Government Act 2003 as set out in the report.

 

2.16       The Capital Programme 2023/24 to 2026/27 as set out in Appendix D is approved.

 

2.17       That the Prudential Indicators as set out in Appendix E are approved.

 

2.18       That the Pay Policy Statement 2024/25 as set out in Appendix F is approved.

 

2.19       That mindful of the Council’s budget situation the Police and Crime Commissioner be asked to fund the reintroduction of 24/7 CCTV monitoring in Gosport.

 

FOR: Councillors Ballard, M Bradley, K Bradley, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Durrant, Earle, Hammond, Herridge, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Marshall, Maynard, Westerby. (16)

 

AGAINST: Councillor Beavis, Burgess, Casey, Gledhill, Huggins, Jessop, Morgan, Philpott, Raffaelli, Scard. (10)

 

ABSTAIN: The Mayor (1)