Basingstoke & Dean Borough Council
Councillors:
54
Wards:
18
Committees:
22
Meetings (2025):
67
Meetings (2024):
72
Meeting
Council - Basingstoke & Dean
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Thursday, 27th February 2025
6:30 PM
Thursday, 27th February 2025
6:30 PM
End:
Thursday, 27th February 2025
9:30 PM
Thursday, 27th February 2025
9:30 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
27 Feb 2025
27 Feb 2025
Location:
Council Chamber - Deanes
Council Chamber - Deanes
Webcast:
Available
Available
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Committee Member
Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee
Committee Member
Chair of the Human Resources Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Major Projects and Regeneration
Committee Member
Vice-Chair of Human Resources Committee
Committee Member
Leader
Committee Member
Chair of the Investigating and Disciplinary and Standards Appeals Committee
Committee Member
Leader of the Labour Group
Committee Member
Chair of the Resources Committee
Committee Member
Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Residents’ Services and Housing
Committee Member
Committee Member
Chair of the Licensing Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Committee Member
Committee Member
Chair of the Development Control Committee
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Communities, Partnerships and Inclusion
Committee Member
Leader of the Conservative Group
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
Committee Member
Vice-Chair
Mayor
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Climate and Ecological Emergency
Committee Member
Deputy Mayor and Chair of the Resident Services Committee
Committee Member
Committee Member
Deputy Leader of the Labour Group and Chair of the Environment and Infrastructure Committee
Agenda
1
Apologies for absence
Minutes
Apologies were received from Councillors Basham, Court, Eachus (Maternity Leave), Ganesh, Golding, Howard-Sorrell, Hussey, T Jones and McIntyre
Councillor Konieczko arrived late to the meeting at 7.00 pm.
Councillor Konieczko arrived late to the meeting at 7.00 pm.
2
Declarations of interest
Minutes
Councillor L James declared an interest in relation to agenda item 14 as a member of Unison.
Councillors, Tustain, Dillow, Perry and Mummalaneni declared an interest as owners of electric vehicles.
Councillors were advised there was no requirement to declare an interest if union membership had been declared on a councillors register of interest. Furthermore if there was no impact on a councillors financial situation or a disclosure of pecuniary interest a councillor could take part and vote in relation to agenda item 8.
Councillors, Tustain, Dillow, Perry and Mummalaneni declared an interest as owners of electric vehicles.
Councillors were advised there was no requirement to declare an interest if union membership had been declared on a councillors register of interest. Furthermore if there was no impact on a councillors financial situation or a disclosure of pecuniary interest a councillor could take part and vote in relation to agenda item 8.
3
Minutes of the meeting held on 19 December 2024
The Chair will move that the minutes of the meeting be signed as a correct record. The only part of the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy.
Attachments:
- Document Printed minutes 19122024 1830 Council 19 Feb 2025
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 19 December 2024 were confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Mayor.
4
Announcements
Minutes
The Mayor announced that his Spring Concert to mark the 250th anniversary of Jane Austen’s birth and 80th anniversary of VE day would be held on 1st March 2025 at the Anvil in support of his charities.
5
Questions from members of the public
To receive and answer any questions from the public.
(Questions must be received in writing by Democratic Services no later than noon on Tuesday 25 February 2025)
(Questions must be received in writing by Democratic Services no later than noon on Tuesday 25 February 2025)
Minutes
From: David Graham
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
CAMROSE FOOTBALL GROUND
In the context that there are only two parties involved with the Camrose ground. (BDBC and Developer (Basron now SNG).
Basingstoke had two enclosed football grounds in 2016 Camrose (FA Grade B) and HFA Winklebury (FA Grade E). Previously Camrose had a capacity of 5,000 and HFA Winklebury 1,000. Now the town has just one football stadium at HFA Winklebury which has been upgraded to FA Grade C. capacity 1,950.
Can the Council advise when the town will have its FA Grade B Stadium restored or replaced? Clearly after 8 years surely some action is required.
Answer
Yes, and thank you Mr Mayor. Thank you, Mr Graham, for presenting your question at Full Council. Your commitment and resolve in fighting for the Camrose ground is unwavering. At this time, there are no concrete plans in place for a step two, that’s the ground grading level now. Grade B is the old way of doing it, same, pretty much same criterias. So, we have no concrete plans in place for a step two stadium in Basingstoke. The actions that we have taken since taking charge of this Council in 2023 are that we have met with Basingstoke Town Community Football Club to look at their business plan and the potential of a new stadium on borough land at the Leisure Park. We also made soft enquiries to the majority landowner at the Camrose site previously, but it was clear that there were no negotiations to be had. Both of the other options would require significant investment and would put a financial burden on Basingstoke Town Community Football Club and potentially put a risk to the sustainability of the club. Moving forward we support Basingstoke Town Community Football Club’s aspirations of their own home and a stadium that meets their need. We encourage the sustainable growth of the club, and we will support the club when opportunities arise. A great example of this is the opening of the new clubhouse that is nearing completion. The clubhouse will give the club a much-needed social hub and importantly increase the club’s income to help with their financial stability. I will take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work and commitment put in by the club, its supporters and volunteers and thank Basingstoke Town Community Football Club for the respect that the club has shown to this administration. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
Yes, okay, got a few, got a diagram and a couple of pictures which you may find of interest. Now, the first one is a sketch, now here we got Winchester Road. The bit nearest Winchester Road originally belonged to, well in more recent times it was Basron and now it’s SNG. So that’s that bit around there. The bit at the back is what we’re talking about at the present time from what I’ve been watching with your Council meetings. This bit in blue, this long strip, is referred to as a sort of insignificant bit of strip but I don’t think it is to be perfectly honest. And what I’ve got is an actual picture of the ground as it was when Rafi Razzak took over. Now what you had was a very very tidy ground as you can see. Now, this stand here was the Victor Meldrew Stand, it had all these old codgers like me, moaning like hell about what was going on in the football pitch. Victor Meldrew Stand, that was built by Basingstoke Council in 1957, 1957, would you believe that. Now, going back along, soon after Razzak took over, that was diagnosed as being asbestos, okay, asbestos. And fans, to their credit thought, done research, and it came up and he said the best way we can protect ourselves is to paint it, and they painted it in the town’s colours, blue and yellow. You look at that, a nice tidy ground. You get another one, same stand, it’s not just an insignificant bit of ground, it’s actually quite a sizable bit of ground isn’t it. I’ll come to my question but its not an insignificant bit of ground. So, I’ll move onto my question but before that, just before that, there was another document that I would like to show you, and that document is given by the right honourable William Count Viscount Camrose and the right honourable Mary Angus Camrose. There’s the signatures from the council. Basingstoke Council. We had the Mayor and we had the Town Clerk. And that makes that bit of ground significant, you may not think it is, but it is. And that is my opinion and is opinion I can assure you. So, my question is, please show patience, here’s my follow-up question. Over the last 8 years, there has been little in the way of debate in this Council Chamber in respect to the Camrose football ground. We understand all discussions have been behind closed doors in attempts to resolve the saga. With very few exceptions, no representation has been afforded to the residents of the town in respect to coming up with a plan to restore or replace the Camrose football ground. It is constantly stated that there is nothing the council can do, and the developers must somehow be allowed to build on the stadium. Obviously, there are many legal issues in respect to the Camrose Covenant and the leases on the Covenant. We understand that the council has had all legal advice. So, my question is, in respect to the legal people giving advice. Do we know who they are? Secondly, are they capable of giving the quality and thoroughness of the legal advice that would be derived if the Camrose ground issues were forwarded to the High Court?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor, and we do have deep empathy with what was lost and what your experiences at the Camrose, I have a memory of watching it on the TV, the FA Cup game. I’m afraid your question to me was a lot of statement, I don’t quite understand the question, what you’re looking for. You’re talking about something before I was at the council, I could pass it over to Councillor James, who was there, he may be able to answer who the legal people were, but it doesn’t sound like the question that is anything to do with the future I’m afraid.
To: Cabinet Member for Sports, Leisure and Culture
CAMROSE FOOTBALL GROUND
In the context that there are only two parties involved with the Camrose ground. (BDBC and Developer (Basron now SNG).
Basingstoke had two enclosed football grounds in 2016 Camrose (FA Grade B) and HFA Winklebury (FA Grade E). Previously Camrose had a capacity of 5,000 and HFA Winklebury 1,000. Now the town has just one football stadium at HFA Winklebury which has been upgraded to FA Grade C. capacity 1,950.
Can the Council advise when the town will have its FA Grade B Stadium restored or replaced? Clearly after 8 years surely some action is required.
Answer
Yes, and thank you Mr Mayor. Thank you, Mr Graham, for presenting your question at Full Council. Your commitment and resolve in fighting for the Camrose ground is unwavering. At this time, there are no concrete plans in place for a step two, that’s the ground grading level now. Grade B is the old way of doing it, same, pretty much same criterias. So, we have no concrete plans in place for a step two stadium in Basingstoke. The actions that we have taken since taking charge of this Council in 2023 are that we have met with Basingstoke Town Community Football Club to look at their business plan and the potential of a new stadium on borough land at the Leisure Park. We also made soft enquiries to the majority landowner at the Camrose site previously, but it was clear that there were no negotiations to be had. Both of the other options would require significant investment and would put a financial burden on Basingstoke Town Community Football Club and potentially put a risk to the sustainability of the club. Moving forward we support Basingstoke Town Community Football Club’s aspirations of their own home and a stadium that meets their need. We encourage the sustainable growth of the club, and we will support the club when opportunities arise. A great example of this is the opening of the new clubhouse that is nearing completion. The clubhouse will give the club a much-needed social hub and importantly increase the club’s income to help with their financial stability. I will take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work and commitment put in by the club, its supporters and volunteers and thank Basingstoke Town Community Football Club for the respect that the club has shown to this administration. Thank you.
Supplementary Question
Yes, okay, got a few, got a diagram and a couple of pictures which you may find of interest. Now, the first one is a sketch, now here we got Winchester Road. The bit nearest Winchester Road originally belonged to, well in more recent times it was Basron and now it’s SNG. So that’s that bit around there. The bit at the back is what we’re talking about at the present time from what I’ve been watching with your Council meetings. This bit in blue, this long strip, is referred to as a sort of insignificant bit of strip but I don’t think it is to be perfectly honest. And what I’ve got is an actual picture of the ground as it was when Rafi Razzak took over. Now what you had was a very very tidy ground as you can see. Now, this stand here was the Victor Meldrew Stand, it had all these old codgers like me, moaning like hell about what was going on in the football pitch. Victor Meldrew Stand, that was built by Basingstoke Council in 1957, 1957, would you believe that. Now, going back along, soon after Razzak took over, that was diagnosed as being asbestos, okay, asbestos. And fans, to their credit thought, done research, and it came up and he said the best way we can protect ourselves is to paint it, and they painted it in the town’s colours, blue and yellow. You look at that, a nice tidy ground. You get another one, same stand, it’s not just an insignificant bit of ground, it’s actually quite a sizable bit of ground isn’t it. I’ll come to my question but its not an insignificant bit of ground. So, I’ll move onto my question but before that, just before that, there was another document that I would like to show you, and that document is given by the right honourable William Count Viscount Camrose and the right honourable Mary Angus Camrose. There’s the signatures from the council. Basingstoke Council. We had the Mayor and we had the Town Clerk. And that makes that bit of ground significant, you may not think it is, but it is. And that is my opinion and is opinion I can assure you. So, my question is, please show patience, here’s my follow-up question. Over the last 8 years, there has been little in the way of debate in this Council Chamber in respect to the Camrose football ground. We understand all discussions have been behind closed doors in attempts to resolve the saga. With very few exceptions, no representation has been afforded to the residents of the town in respect to coming up with a plan to restore or replace the Camrose football ground. It is constantly stated that there is nothing the council can do, and the developers must somehow be allowed to build on the stadium. Obviously, there are many legal issues in respect to the Camrose Covenant and the leases on the Covenant. We understand that the council has had all legal advice. So, my question is, in respect to the legal people giving advice. Do we know who they are? Secondly, are they capable of giving the quality and thoroughness of the legal advice that would be derived if the Camrose ground issues were forwarded to the High Court?
Answer
Thank you, Mr Mayor, and we do have deep empathy with what was lost and what your experiences at the Camrose, I have a memory of watching it on the TV, the FA Cup game. I’m afraid your question to me was a lot of statement, I don’t quite understand the question, what you’re looking for. You’re talking about something before I was at the council, I could pass it over to Councillor James, who was there, he may be able to answer who the legal people were, but it doesn’t sound like the question that is anything to do with the future I’m afraid.
6
Petitions
To receive petitions.
(Notice of petitions must be received in writing by Democratic Services, no later than noon on Tuesday 25 February 2025)
(Notice of petitions must be received in writing by Democratic Services, no later than noon on Tuesday 25 February 2025)
Minutes
There were no petitions.
7
Resignations and appointments
a) to receive resignations from Committees and to make any necessary re-appointments
b) to receive resignations from Outside Bodies and to make any re-appointments and (ii) fill any existing vacancies.
b) to receive resignations from Outside Bodies and to make any re-appointments and (ii) fill any existing vacancies.
Attachments:
- Document Outside bodies 19 Feb 2025
Minutes
The following changes to committees were made:
1) Environment and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Councillor Carr to replace Councillor McIntyre
Councillor McIntyre to be appointed as a reserve member
2) Residents Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Councillor Izett to replace Councillor McIntyre
Councillor McIntyre to be appointed as a reserve member
3) Standards Committee
Councillor Mummalaneni to replace Councillor McIntyre
Councillor McIntyre to be appointed as a reserve member
1) Environment and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Councillor Carr to replace Councillor McIntyre
Councillor McIntyre to be appointed as a reserve member
2) Residents Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Councillor Izett to replace Councillor McIntyre
Councillor McIntyre to be appointed as a reserve member
3) Standards Committee
Councillor Mummalaneni to replace Councillor McIntyre
Councillor McIntyre to be appointed as a reserve member
8
Medium Term Financial Strategy and Budget Update Report 2025/26 to 2028/29
Report of the Chief Finance Officer (S151 Officer) and recommendation from the Cabinet meeting held on 11 February 2025.
Attachments:
- Document MTFS and Budget Update Report 2025-26 to 2028-29 19 Feb 2025
- Document MTFS Appendix 1 - Medium Term Financial Strategy 2025-26 to 2028-29 19 Feb 2025
- Document MTFS Appendix 2 - Parish Precepts 2025-26 19 Feb 2025
- Document MTFS Appendix 3 - Council Tax Resolution 2025-26 19 Feb 2025
- Document MTFS Appendix 4 - Financial Policies 19 Feb 2025
- Document MTFS Appendix 5 - Key Financial Risks 19 Feb 2025
- Document MTFS Appendix 6 - Budget Consultation Responses 2025 19 Feb 2025
- Document MTFS Appendix 7 - Contract Standing Orders 19 Feb 2025
- Document Revenue Budget Amendment - Capping Sports Fee Increases 19 Feb 2025
- Document Revenue Budget Amendment - Removal of Proposed EV Charger fee increases 19 Feb 2025
- Document Revenue Budget Amendment - Support Fund for Pension Aged Residents 19 Feb 2025
- Document Revenue Budget Amendment - Supporting Local Businesses Through Parking Incentives 19 Feb 2025
Minutes
The four Group Leaders delivered their annual budget speeches which covered a wide range of issues.
The Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property proposed the revenue budget proposals for 2025/26, seconded by the Leader of the Council. The proposals delivered a three year balanced revenue budget for 2025/26, 2026/27 and 2027/28. The proposals delivered a three year balanced revenue budget for 2025/26, 2026/27 and 2027/28.
Amendments to the proposals were moved:
Amendment 1 – Capping Sports Fee Increases at 3%
Proposer: Councillor Ibrahim
Seconder: Councillor Lee
It is proposed that sport fee increases will be capped at 3% for the MTFS period. This will ensure that the Council demonstrates its commitment to supporting sports and leisure and it will help maintain affordable sports facilities that encourage participation, health, and wellbeing across our community.
The cost of the proposed amendments totals £0.01M per year. It is proposed that the cost of these amendments would be met by reducing the draw from the MTFS risk reserve in 2028/29 to offset the cost in the first three years of the MTFS. This would increase the budget gap in 2028/29 by £0.04M to £2.90M.
Budget Proposal
2025/26
£M
2026/27
£M
2027/28
£M
2028/29
£M
Total
£M
Sports Fees and Charges
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
MTFS Risk Reserve
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
0.03
0.00
Budget Gap (Reduction)/Increase
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.04
The amendment was debated. The process for setting sports pitch fees was highlighted in relation to the cost to deliver the service, comparison with other local authority charges and the extent that the cost was subsidised by the taxpayer. It was suggested that the methodology of setting sports fees be reviewed by an overview and scrutiny committee. Comment was also made regarding supporting sports clubs with a fair fee cap to ensure sports facilities were inclusive and accessible to all residents and to promote healthy communities whilst keeping costs low. It was further commented that the cost of sports facilities such as football pitch fees were passed on to families. Supporting the amendment would recognise the cost of living crisis and the impact on families.
Upon a recorded vote there voted 32 votes in favour of the amendment, 10 votes against and 2 abstentions. The amendment was carried.
Amendment 2 – Removal of Proposed EV Charger Fee Increase
Proposer: Councillor McCormick
Seconder: Councillor Harper
The following amendment will ensure that the council demonstrates its commitment to the environment by promoting cleaner and more sustainable travel through the uptake of electric vehicles.
The cost of the proposed amendments totals £0.02M per year. It is proposed that the cost of these amendments would be met by reducing the draw from the MTFS risk reserve in 2028/29 to offset the cost in the first three years of the MTFS. This would increase the budget gap in 2028/29 by £0.08M to £2.94M.
Budget Proposal
2025/26
£M
2026/27
£M
2027/28
£M
2028/29
£M
Total
£M
EV chargers - fees and charges
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.08
MTFS Risk Reserve
(0.02)
(0.02)
(0.02)
0.06
0.00
Budget Gap (Reduction)/Increase
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.08
During debate of the amendment a mixed range of views were expressed which included:
It was unfair to expect residents to subsidise private EV car users. The fee increase was to reflect the increase in electricity costs and was based on cost recovery. At some point in the future it would become unsustainable to maintain a subsidy as the ownership of EV’s increase, which would impact a greater number of residents than charging the cost now. The issues facing residents regarding EV chargers was highlighted such as the installation cost of a charger, parking spaces not adjacent to a property, permitted development issues such as listed buildings, private and housing association tenants, availability of installers, lead in time for the equipment, lack of chargers available and properties without dedicated parking. It was further commented that EV users would only use on street chargers as a necessity. The biggest obstacle to switching to an EV was cost. Costs should be kept low now to encourage the transition from petrol vehicles to EV’s. In time there would be a strong green grid generating cheaper electricity. The newly adopted EV Strategy demonstrated the value and support the council placed on EV charging in the borough and a number of chargers had been installed on council land. Support for EV charging needed to be sustainable. The proposed fee increase for EV charging would not make a significant impact to residents transition to EV’s when considering the significant cost of purchasing a new EV. Offering EV charging at cost would enable investment to be made in other ways to tackle the climate and ecological emergency. Electric cars were still an expensive luxury item for many people. It was reasonable to charge at cost to EV users. The council applied subsidies to other charges, it was wrong to penalise people who have to use charging points.
Upon a recorded vote there voted 12 votes in favour of the amendment, 30 votes against and 2 abstentions. The amendment was rejected.
Amendment 3 – Support Fund for Pension Aged Residents
Proposer: Councillor McCormick
Seconder: Councillor West
It is proposed to introduce a support fund of up to £0.30M for 2025/26 only. This fund would be targeted at pension aged residents who are impacted by the loss of the Winter Fuel Allowance.
The fund would provide a one-off payment of £200 to residents who meet the following criteria;
· be a resident in the borough who is over the state pension age
· are not in receipt of pension credit; and
· have a household income of less than £17,000 for single households or £26,000 for couples.
The cost of the proposed fund would be by reducing the contribution to the MTFS risk reserve in 2025/26 and reducing the draw from the reserve in 2028/29. This would result in a £0.30M increase in the forecast deficit in 2028/29, from £2.86M to £3.16M.
Budget Proposal
2025/26
£M
2026/27
£M
2027/28
£M
2028/29
£M
Total
£M
Support fund for pension aged residents
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
MTFS risk reserve
(0.30)
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.00
Budget Gap (Reduction)/Increase
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.30
The amendment was debated. A mixed range of comments were made.
Those in support of the amendment commented that it was an opportunity to help the most vulnerable residents in the borough particularly considering a backlog of assessments for pension credit assistance and there were sufficient funds to implement it. It was commented that the fund was an interim targeted approach to help local residents who could be falling through the cracks of the benefits system. Furthermore it was an opportunity to work together and within the gift of the council to help local pensioners. It was clarified that it was not a vote against national government.
Comments made opposing the amendment referred to the action of government to withdraw the winter fuel allowance and that it was not the role of local government to subsidise something removed by national government. Concern was raised that the proposed scheme was for a limited period, poorly targeted and not a progressive scheme. Further concern was raised regarding other vulnerable residents in greater poverty than some pensioners who would not have access to the proposed scheme and how the scheme would prioritise claims. The administration of the scheme was also highlighted as an area for concern as it would drain resources from the officer team. It was also highlighted that the scheme could be open to abuse as it did not fall within benefit fraud legislation. Further comments were made regarding the council’s Anti-poverty Strategy, support for residents from the Green Team to advise on better fuel efficiency and advice being delivered by Citizens’ Advice to support residents to claim what they were entitled to.
Upon a recorded vote there voted 15 votes in favour of the amendment, 27 votes against and 2 abstentions. The amendment was rejected.
Upon a recorded vote there voted 15 votes in favour of the amendment, 27 votes against and 2 abstentions. The amendment was rejected.
Amendment 4 – Supporting Local Businesses Through Parking Incentives
Proposer: Councillor Mummalaneni
Seconder: Councillor Dillow
It is proposed that the planned £1.00 charge for stays up to 1 hour in Albert Yard, Castons Yard, Feathers Yard and Jacobs Yard car parks is removed from the budget. The costs of this proposal is £0.08M per year.
It is also proposed that the fee for 1 hour and 2 hours of parking in the Malls is frozen at the current rates of £1.30 and £2.30 respectively, the budget proposals currently include a £0.20 increase in these rates from 1 April 2025. The costs of this proposal is £0.04M per year.
The cost of the proposed amendments totals £0.12M per year. It is proposed that the cost of these amendments would be met by reducing the draw from the MTFS risk reserve in 2028/29 to offset the cost in the first three years of the MTFS. This would increase the budget gap in 2028/29 by £0.48M to £3.34M.
Budget Proposal
2025/26
£M
2026/27
£M
2027/28
£M
2028/29
£M
Total
£M
Withdrawal of £1 charge for 1 hour parking in the yard car parks
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.32
Freezing 1 hour & 2 hour rates in the Malls car park
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.12
MTFS Risk Reserve
(0.12)
(0.12)
(0.12)
0.36
0.00
Budget Gap (Reduction)/Increase
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.48
0.48
The amendment was debated. A range of comments were made which included:
Free parking for a limited time would not necessarily encourage more people into the town centre. It could result in people carrying out their business as quickly as possible to make the use of the free hour rather than spending time browsing in the town centre. Free parking did not encourage uses of alternative forms of transport. The proposal to remove free parking during the day was to accommodate a new initiative as suggested by traders for free parking at the top of town at night to encourage the night-time economy. Another new initiative being introduced for commuters was flexible season tickets. Increased charges for The Malls car park was necessary as it incurred high maintenance costs as it was not a surface car park. The charges were however lower than those in Festival Place. Footfall in the town centre and top of town was increasing. Free 1 hour parking at the top of town enabled residents to carry out essential business such as banking or visit the market. Nationally businesses were struggling with rising costs, reduced footfall and growing competition from online retailers. The proposal to maintain the free parking and freezing the parking charge for short stay fees in the Malls was a simple cost effective way to encourage more visitors to shop locally, support the towns retailers and demonstrated a clear message of support for local businesses and the value placed on the high street. The financial impact of the amendment was modest but the benefits to the economy and community were significant. The proposal was a responsible and targeted way to invest in the town centre. Free parking at night was supported but it should not be at the cost of free parking during the day.
Upon a recorded vote there voted 10 votes in favour of the amendment, 30 votes against and 3 abstentions. The amendment was rejected.
The Chief Finance Officer informed Council that the agreed budget amendment had changed the overall deficit in terms of the budget gap in 2028/29 by an increase of £40,000 to £2.90 million as set out in the tables below.
Amendments to Reports (Tables Shaded Green)
Medium Term Financial Strategy and Budget Update Report 2025/26 to 2028/29 (Item 8)
Table 7 in the report would be updated to show:
Table 7 – Updated MTFS 2025/26 to 2028/29 February 2025
2025/26
£M
2026/27
£M
2027/28
£M
2028/29
£M
November 2024 Budget Gap
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.44
Central Items
Decrease in council tax base
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Extend Producers Responsibility income
(1.21)
(1.00)
(0.90)
(0.75)
Adjustments to assumed treasury management income
0.04
0.38
0.39
0.28
Employer National Insurance changes
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
Employer National Insurance compensation grant
(0.32)
(0.32)
(0.32)
(0.32)
Rent Income
(0.08)
0.00
(0.07)
(0.08)
Waste New Burdens
(0.50)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Additional proposals
Cost Pressures
0.35
0.25
0.25
0.25
Savings
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Additional Income
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
LGFS
Funding floor grant
0.35
(0.54)
(0.68)
(0.80)
New homes bonus grant
0.17
0.90
0.92
0.94
Use of Reserves
MTFS Risk Reserve - employer NI
(0.38)
(0.38)
0.00
0.00
MTFS Risk Reserve
0.67
(0.20)
(0.50)
0.03
February 2025 budget gap
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.90
(Decrease)/Increase in budget gap since November 2024 MTFS Update
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.46
Table 9 in the report would be updated to show:
Table 9 – Updated Medium Term Financial Forecast
Original Budget 2024/25
£M
Forecast Budget 2025/26
£M
Forecast Budget 2026/27
£M
Forecast Budget 2027/28
£M
Forecast Budget 2028/29
£M
Net Cost of Services
43.25
45.77
46.42
46.45
46.96
Investment Property Trading Accounts
(18.31)
(19.12)
(19.19)
(19.52)
(19.57)
Interest and Investment Income
(7.10)
(6.44)
(6.14)
(5.61)
(4.81)
Council Tax Income (base)
(9.87)
(9.87)
(9.87)
(9.87)
(9.87)
Council Tax Growth
0.00
(0.03)
(0.17)
(0.30)
(0.45)
Council Tax £5 Increase
0.00
(0.35)
(0.71)
(1.08)
(1.46)
Collection Fund (Surplus)/Deficit (council tax)
(0.05)
(0.05)
(0.05)
(0.05)
(0.05)
Retained Business Rates
(4.96)
(5.06)
(5.16)
(5.29)
(5.46)
New Homes Bonus Grant
(0.89)
(0.72)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Funding floor
(2.45)
(2.10)
(2.96)
(3.07)
(3.19)
Extended producer responsibility income
0.00
(1.22)
(1.00)
(0.90)
(0.75)
Other Government Grants
(0.38)
(1.43)
(0.71)
(0.73)
(0.72)
Corporate Income
(44.01)
(46.39)
(45.96)
(46.42)
(46.33)
Use of Revenue Budget to Finance Future Capital Spend
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
Net Expenditure (Surplus) / Deficit
3.24
3.38
4.46
4.03
4.63
Contribution To / (From) Reserves:
Capital Reserves
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
Infrastructure Reserves
(0.14)
(0.47)
(0.20)
0.00
0.00
Earmarked Revenue Reserves
(1.12)
(1.16)
(1.09)
(0.85)
(0.65)
Risk Reserves
(1.98)
(2.20)
(3.17)
(3.18)
(1.08)
Total Contribution To (From) Reserves
(3.24)
(3.38)
(4.46)
(4.03)
(1.73)
Future Savings Requirement
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.90
Council Tax Base
69,800.3
70,025.3
70,985.4
71,926.6
72,977.3
Band D Council Tax
141.42
146.42
151.42
156.42
161.42
The budget recommendations as amended were unanimously supported with 44 votes in favour, 0 votes against and 0 abstentions and therefore carried.
Resolved: That Council
note:
1) The S151 Officer’s (Chief Finance Officer) statutory report regarding the robustness of the estimates and adequacy of reserves detailed in section 11 of the report.
2) That the Chief Finance Officer (S151 Officer) on the 3 January 2025 calculated the Council Tax base for the whole Council area at 70,025.33 Band D equivalents and for dwellings in those parts of its area to which a parish precept relates as per Appendix 2 of the report.
3) The county, police and fire authority precepts detailed in Appendix 3 of the report.
4) That as the billing authority, the Council has not been notified by any major precepting authority that its relevant basic amount of Council Tax for 2025/26 is excessive and the billing authority is therefore not required to hold a referendum, in accordance with section 52ZK of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.
5) The risks and sensitivities within the financial forecasts highlighted in section 9 and in Appendix 5 of the report.
determine:
6) That for the purposes of section 35 (2) (d) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, any expenses incurred by the Borough Council in the financial year 2025/26 in performing functions in a part of the district which elsewhere in the district are performed by a Parish Council, shall not be special expenses of the Borough Council.
7) That its relevant basic amount of Council Tax for 2025/26 (£146.42 at Band D) reflects a £5.00 (3.54%) increase which is not excessive in accordance with principles approved under Section 52ZB of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.
approve:
8) The net Council Tax requirement of £10.25M for 2025/26, the revenue estimates including the budget proposals in and contributions to and from reserves summarised in sections 6 and 7 of the report.
9) The Medium Term Financial Strategy, as shown in Appendix 1 of the report as amended.
10) The financial policies set out in Appendix 4 of the report.
11) The Contract Standing Orders as set out in Appendix 7 of the report.
12) That the requirement for Council Tax for Borough purposes for 2025/26 be £146.42 (at Band D) as set out in Appendix 3 of the report.
13) The Council Tax Resolution as set out in Appendix 3 of the report, which brings together the Borough’s Council Tax Requirement and that of the other major preceptors (Hampshire County Council, Hampshire Fire and Rescue and The Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire) and sets the Council Tax charges for 2025/26.
14) That the S151 Officer (Chief Finance Officer) be given delegated authority to implement any variation necessary to the overall level of 2025/26 Council Taxes in the event that any of the precepting authorities change their precept calculation from that expected and reported at the Council meeting.
The Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property proposed the revenue budget proposals for 2025/26, seconded by the Leader of the Council. The proposals delivered a three year balanced revenue budget for 2025/26, 2026/27 and 2027/28. The proposals delivered a three year balanced revenue budget for 2025/26, 2026/27 and 2027/28.
Amendments to the proposals were moved:
Amendment 1 – Capping Sports Fee Increases at 3%
Proposer: Councillor Ibrahim
Seconder: Councillor Lee
It is proposed that sport fee increases will be capped at 3% for the MTFS period. This will ensure that the Council demonstrates its commitment to supporting sports and leisure and it will help maintain affordable sports facilities that encourage participation, health, and wellbeing across our community.
The cost of the proposed amendments totals £0.01M per year. It is proposed that the cost of these amendments would be met by reducing the draw from the MTFS risk reserve in 2028/29 to offset the cost in the first three years of the MTFS. This would increase the budget gap in 2028/29 by £0.04M to £2.90M.
Budget Proposal
2025/26
£M
2026/27
£M
2027/28
£M
2028/29
£M
Total
£M
Sports Fees and Charges
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
MTFS Risk Reserve
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
0.03
0.00
Budget Gap (Reduction)/Increase
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.04
The amendment was debated. The process for setting sports pitch fees was highlighted in relation to the cost to deliver the service, comparison with other local authority charges and the extent that the cost was subsidised by the taxpayer. It was suggested that the methodology of setting sports fees be reviewed by an overview and scrutiny committee. Comment was also made regarding supporting sports clubs with a fair fee cap to ensure sports facilities were inclusive and accessible to all residents and to promote healthy communities whilst keeping costs low. It was further commented that the cost of sports facilities such as football pitch fees were passed on to families. Supporting the amendment would recognise the cost of living crisis and the impact on families.
Upon a recorded vote there voted 32 votes in favour of the amendment, 10 votes against and 2 abstentions. The amendment was carried.
Amendment 2 – Removal of Proposed EV Charger Fee Increase
Proposer: Councillor McCormick
Seconder: Councillor Harper
The following amendment will ensure that the council demonstrates its commitment to the environment by promoting cleaner and more sustainable travel through the uptake of electric vehicles.
The cost of the proposed amendments totals £0.02M per year. It is proposed that the cost of these amendments would be met by reducing the draw from the MTFS risk reserve in 2028/29 to offset the cost in the first three years of the MTFS. This would increase the budget gap in 2028/29 by £0.08M to £2.94M.
Budget Proposal
2025/26
£M
2026/27
£M
2027/28
£M
2028/29
£M
Total
£M
EV chargers - fees and charges
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.08
MTFS Risk Reserve
(0.02)
(0.02)
(0.02)
0.06
0.00
Budget Gap (Reduction)/Increase
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.08
During debate of the amendment a mixed range of views were expressed which included:
It was unfair to expect residents to subsidise private EV car users. The fee increase was to reflect the increase in electricity costs and was based on cost recovery. At some point in the future it would become unsustainable to maintain a subsidy as the ownership of EV’s increase, which would impact a greater number of residents than charging the cost now. The issues facing residents regarding EV chargers was highlighted such as the installation cost of a charger, parking spaces not adjacent to a property, permitted development issues such as listed buildings, private and housing association tenants, availability of installers, lead in time for the equipment, lack of chargers available and properties without dedicated parking. It was further commented that EV users would only use on street chargers as a necessity. The biggest obstacle to switching to an EV was cost. Costs should be kept low now to encourage the transition from petrol vehicles to EV’s. In time there would be a strong green grid generating cheaper electricity. The newly adopted EV Strategy demonstrated the value and support the council placed on EV charging in the borough and a number of chargers had been installed on council land. Support for EV charging needed to be sustainable. The proposed fee increase for EV charging would not make a significant impact to residents transition to EV’s when considering the significant cost of purchasing a new EV. Offering EV charging at cost would enable investment to be made in other ways to tackle the climate and ecological emergency. Electric cars were still an expensive luxury item for many people. It was reasonable to charge at cost to EV users. The council applied subsidies to other charges, it was wrong to penalise people who have to use charging points.
Upon a recorded vote there voted 12 votes in favour of the amendment, 30 votes against and 2 abstentions. The amendment was rejected.
Amendment 3 – Support Fund for Pension Aged Residents
Proposer: Councillor McCormick
Seconder: Councillor West
It is proposed to introduce a support fund of up to £0.30M for 2025/26 only. This fund would be targeted at pension aged residents who are impacted by the loss of the Winter Fuel Allowance.
The fund would provide a one-off payment of £200 to residents who meet the following criteria;
· be a resident in the borough who is over the state pension age
· are not in receipt of pension credit; and
· have a household income of less than £17,000 for single households or £26,000 for couples.
The cost of the proposed fund would be by reducing the contribution to the MTFS risk reserve in 2025/26 and reducing the draw from the reserve in 2028/29. This would result in a £0.30M increase in the forecast deficit in 2028/29, from £2.86M to £3.16M.
Budget Proposal
2025/26
£M
2026/27
£M
2027/28
£M
2028/29
£M
Total
£M
Support fund for pension aged residents
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
MTFS risk reserve
(0.30)
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.00
Budget Gap (Reduction)/Increase
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.30
The amendment was debated. A mixed range of comments were made.
Those in support of the amendment commented that it was an opportunity to help the most vulnerable residents in the borough particularly considering a backlog of assessments for pension credit assistance and there were sufficient funds to implement it. It was commented that the fund was an interim targeted approach to help local residents who could be falling through the cracks of the benefits system. Furthermore it was an opportunity to work together and within the gift of the council to help local pensioners. It was clarified that it was not a vote against national government.
Comments made opposing the amendment referred to the action of government to withdraw the winter fuel allowance and that it was not the role of local government to subsidise something removed by national government. Concern was raised that the proposed scheme was for a limited period, poorly targeted and not a progressive scheme. Further concern was raised regarding other vulnerable residents in greater poverty than some pensioners who would not have access to the proposed scheme and how the scheme would prioritise claims. The administration of the scheme was also highlighted as an area for concern as it would drain resources from the officer team. It was also highlighted that the scheme could be open to abuse as it did not fall within benefit fraud legislation. Further comments were made regarding the council’s Anti-poverty Strategy, support for residents from the Green Team to advise on better fuel efficiency and advice being delivered by Citizens’ Advice to support residents to claim what they were entitled to.
Upon a recorded vote there voted 15 votes in favour of the amendment, 27 votes against and 2 abstentions. The amendment was rejected.
Upon a recorded vote there voted 15 votes in favour of the amendment, 27 votes against and 2 abstentions. The amendment was rejected.
Amendment 4 – Supporting Local Businesses Through Parking Incentives
Proposer: Councillor Mummalaneni
Seconder: Councillor Dillow
It is proposed that the planned £1.00 charge for stays up to 1 hour in Albert Yard, Castons Yard, Feathers Yard and Jacobs Yard car parks is removed from the budget. The costs of this proposal is £0.08M per year.
It is also proposed that the fee for 1 hour and 2 hours of parking in the Malls is frozen at the current rates of £1.30 and £2.30 respectively, the budget proposals currently include a £0.20 increase in these rates from 1 April 2025. The costs of this proposal is £0.04M per year.
The cost of the proposed amendments totals £0.12M per year. It is proposed that the cost of these amendments would be met by reducing the draw from the MTFS risk reserve in 2028/29 to offset the cost in the first three years of the MTFS. This would increase the budget gap in 2028/29 by £0.48M to £3.34M.
Budget Proposal
2025/26
£M
2026/27
£M
2027/28
£M
2028/29
£M
Total
£M
Withdrawal of £1 charge for 1 hour parking in the yard car parks
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.32
Freezing 1 hour & 2 hour rates in the Malls car park
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.12
MTFS Risk Reserve
(0.12)
(0.12)
(0.12)
0.36
0.00
Budget Gap (Reduction)/Increase
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.48
0.48
The amendment was debated. A range of comments were made which included:
Free parking for a limited time would not necessarily encourage more people into the town centre. It could result in people carrying out their business as quickly as possible to make the use of the free hour rather than spending time browsing in the town centre. Free parking did not encourage uses of alternative forms of transport. The proposal to remove free parking during the day was to accommodate a new initiative as suggested by traders for free parking at the top of town at night to encourage the night-time economy. Another new initiative being introduced for commuters was flexible season tickets. Increased charges for The Malls car park was necessary as it incurred high maintenance costs as it was not a surface car park. The charges were however lower than those in Festival Place. Footfall in the town centre and top of town was increasing. Free 1 hour parking at the top of town enabled residents to carry out essential business such as banking or visit the market. Nationally businesses were struggling with rising costs, reduced footfall and growing competition from online retailers. The proposal to maintain the free parking and freezing the parking charge for short stay fees in the Malls was a simple cost effective way to encourage more visitors to shop locally, support the towns retailers and demonstrated a clear message of support for local businesses and the value placed on the high street. The financial impact of the amendment was modest but the benefits to the economy and community were significant. The proposal was a responsible and targeted way to invest in the town centre. Free parking at night was supported but it should not be at the cost of free parking during the day.
Upon a recorded vote there voted 10 votes in favour of the amendment, 30 votes against and 3 abstentions. The amendment was rejected.
The Chief Finance Officer informed Council that the agreed budget amendment had changed the overall deficit in terms of the budget gap in 2028/29 by an increase of £40,000 to £2.90 million as set out in the tables below.
Amendments to Reports (Tables Shaded Green)
Medium Term Financial Strategy and Budget Update Report 2025/26 to 2028/29 (Item 8)
Table 7 in the report would be updated to show:
Table 7 – Updated MTFS 2025/26 to 2028/29 February 2025
2025/26
£M
2026/27
£M
2027/28
£M
2028/29
£M
November 2024 Budget Gap
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.44
Central Items
Decrease in council tax base
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Extend Producers Responsibility income
(1.21)
(1.00)
(0.90)
(0.75)
Adjustments to assumed treasury management income
0.04
0.38
0.39
0.28
Employer National Insurance changes
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
Employer National Insurance compensation grant
(0.32)
(0.32)
(0.32)
(0.32)
Rent Income
(0.08)
0.00
(0.07)
(0.08)
Waste New Burdens
(0.50)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Additional proposals
Cost Pressures
0.35
0.25
0.25
0.25
Savings
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Additional Income
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
LGFS
Funding floor grant
0.35
(0.54)
(0.68)
(0.80)
New homes bonus grant
0.17
0.90
0.92
0.94
Use of Reserves
MTFS Risk Reserve - employer NI
(0.38)
(0.38)
0.00
0.00
MTFS Risk Reserve
0.67
(0.20)
(0.50)
0.03
February 2025 budget gap
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.90
(Decrease)/Increase in budget gap since November 2024 MTFS Update
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.46
Table 9 in the report would be updated to show:
Table 9 – Updated Medium Term Financial Forecast
Original Budget 2024/25
£M
Forecast Budget 2025/26
£M
Forecast Budget 2026/27
£M
Forecast Budget 2027/28
£M
Forecast Budget 2028/29
£M
Net Cost of Services
43.25
45.77
46.42
46.45
46.96
Investment Property Trading Accounts
(18.31)
(19.12)
(19.19)
(19.52)
(19.57)
Interest and Investment Income
(7.10)
(6.44)
(6.14)
(5.61)
(4.81)
Council Tax Income (base)
(9.87)
(9.87)
(9.87)
(9.87)
(9.87)
Council Tax Growth
0.00
(0.03)
(0.17)
(0.30)
(0.45)
Council Tax £5 Increase
0.00
(0.35)
(0.71)
(1.08)
(1.46)
Collection Fund (Surplus)/Deficit (council tax)
(0.05)
(0.05)
(0.05)
(0.05)
(0.05)
Retained Business Rates
(4.96)
(5.06)
(5.16)
(5.29)
(5.46)
New Homes Bonus Grant
(0.89)
(0.72)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Funding floor
(2.45)
(2.10)
(2.96)
(3.07)
(3.19)
Extended producer responsibility income
0.00
(1.22)
(1.00)
(0.90)
(0.75)
Other Government Grants
(0.38)
(1.43)
(0.71)
(0.73)
(0.72)
Corporate Income
(44.01)
(46.39)
(45.96)
(46.42)
(46.33)
Use of Revenue Budget to Finance Future Capital Spend
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
Net Expenditure (Surplus) / Deficit
3.24
3.38
4.46
4.03
4.63
Contribution To / (From) Reserves:
Capital Reserves
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
Infrastructure Reserves
(0.14)
(0.47)
(0.20)
0.00
0.00
Earmarked Revenue Reserves
(1.12)
(1.16)
(1.09)
(0.85)
(0.65)
Risk Reserves
(1.98)
(2.20)
(3.17)
(3.18)
(1.08)
Total Contribution To (From) Reserves
(3.24)
(3.38)
(4.46)
(4.03)
(1.73)
Future Savings Requirement
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.90
Council Tax Base
69,800.3
70,025.3
70,985.4
71,926.6
72,977.3
Band D Council Tax
141.42
146.42
151.42
156.42
161.42
The budget recommendations as amended were unanimously supported with 44 votes in favour, 0 votes against and 0 abstentions and therefore carried.
Resolved: That Council
note:
1) The S151 Officer’s (Chief Finance Officer) statutory report regarding the robustness of the estimates and adequacy of reserves detailed in section 11 of the report.
2) That the Chief Finance Officer (S151 Officer) on the 3 January 2025 calculated the Council Tax base for the whole Council area at 70,025.33 Band D equivalents and for dwellings in those parts of its area to which a parish precept relates as per Appendix 2 of the report.
3) The county, police and fire authority precepts detailed in Appendix 3 of the report.
4) That as the billing authority, the Council has not been notified by any major precepting authority that its relevant basic amount of Council Tax for 2025/26 is excessive and the billing authority is therefore not required to hold a referendum, in accordance with section 52ZK of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.
5) The risks and sensitivities within the financial forecasts highlighted in section 9 and in Appendix 5 of the report.
determine:
6) That for the purposes of section 35 (2) (d) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, any expenses incurred by the Borough Council in the financial year 2025/26 in performing functions in a part of the district which elsewhere in the district are performed by a Parish Council, shall not be special expenses of the Borough Council.
7) That its relevant basic amount of Council Tax for 2025/26 (£146.42 at Band D) reflects a £5.00 (3.54%) increase which is not excessive in accordance with principles approved under Section 52ZB of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.
approve:
8) The net Council Tax requirement of £10.25M for 2025/26, the revenue estimates including the budget proposals in and contributions to and from reserves summarised in sections 6 and 7 of the report.
9) The Medium Term Financial Strategy, as shown in Appendix 1 of the report as amended.
10) The financial policies set out in Appendix 4 of the report.
11) The Contract Standing Orders as set out in Appendix 7 of the report.
12) That the requirement for Council Tax for Borough purposes for 2025/26 be £146.42 (at Band D) as set out in Appendix 3 of the report.
13) The Council Tax Resolution as set out in Appendix 3 of the report, which brings together the Borough’s Council Tax Requirement and that of the other major preceptors (Hampshire County Council, Hampshire Fire and Rescue and The Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire) and sets the Council Tax charges for 2025/26.
14) That the S151 Officer (Chief Finance Officer) be given delegated authority to implement any variation necessary to the overall level of 2025/26 Council Taxes in the event that any of the precepting authorities change their precept calculation from that expected and reported at the Council meeting.
9
Capital Programme Update and Strategy Report for 2024/25 to 2028/29
Report of the Chief Finance Officer (S151 Officer) and recommendation from the Cabinet meeting held on 11 February 2025.
Attachments:
- Document Capital Programme Update and Strategy Report for 202425 to 202829 Council 19 Feb 2025
Minutes
Council considered a report which provided an update on the capital programme and Capital Programme Strategy for 2025/26 to 2028/29 for Council approval. It was highlighted that the programme included new priority additions of £22 million which included funding for the rolling programme of replacement vehicles, redevelopment of the Leisure Park and replacement of the Aquadrome and £1 million for the reprovision of golf as well as a number of scheme slippages.
During debate concern was raised regarding the delayed progress of major projects with capital expenditure being rephased to later years however other members felt that the rephasing was no different to previous years. The lack of progress on the redevelopment of the Leisure Park, Basing View and refurbishment of the Anvil were also highlighted. It was also commented that with local government reorganisation on the horizon and whilst the council had control of its funds, it was essential that improvements were driven forward for the benefit of residents. Comments in support of the capital programme also referred to support for the regeneration of South Ham and Buckskin, particularly for a community centre, progress on the Manydown development, investment in Basing View and the regeneration of Winklebury. It was further highlighted that capital investment had been put into new play areas and there was a significant amount of S106 funds that needed to be spent. Furthermore there were significant regeneration projects that required huge capital investment for the benefit of residents. It was further highlighted that the capital scheme was fully funded.
Resolved: To
1) Agree the addition of £22.539M to the capital programme and the removal of scheme underspends of £37.650M, which gives rise to a net reduction of £15.111M to the overall capital programme as detailed in sections 4 and 5 and Appendix 2 of the report.
2) Approve the revised capital programme, which totals £131.135M (as detailed in sections 2 to 9 and Appendix 1 of the report) and the associated use of resources.
3) Approve the capital scheme renaming of Replacement Waste Collection Vehicles to New Waste Collection Contract.
4) Approve expenditure being incurred on capital schemes in accordance with the revised capital programme and the Financial Regulations.
5) Approve the rephasing and scheme virements as set out in sections 6 and 7 and as detailed in Appendix 3 of the report.
6) Note that the capital programme remains fully funded from the council’s own resources up to 2028/29 based on the latest forecast of available resources.
7) Approve the Capital Programme Strategy shown as Appendix 4 of the report, which includes the council’s Infrastructure List shown as Annex 2 of the report.
During debate concern was raised regarding the delayed progress of major projects with capital expenditure being rephased to later years however other members felt that the rephasing was no different to previous years. The lack of progress on the redevelopment of the Leisure Park, Basing View and refurbishment of the Anvil were also highlighted. It was also commented that with local government reorganisation on the horizon and whilst the council had control of its funds, it was essential that improvements were driven forward for the benefit of residents. Comments in support of the capital programme also referred to support for the regeneration of South Ham and Buckskin, particularly for a community centre, progress on the Manydown development, investment in Basing View and the regeneration of Winklebury. It was further highlighted that capital investment had been put into new play areas and there was a significant amount of S106 funds that needed to be spent. Furthermore there were significant regeneration projects that required huge capital investment for the benefit of residents. It was further highlighted that the capital scheme was fully funded.
Resolved: To
1) Agree the addition of £22.539M to the capital programme and the removal of scheme underspends of £37.650M, which gives rise to a net reduction of £15.111M to the overall capital programme as detailed in sections 4 and 5 and Appendix 2 of the report.
2) Approve the revised capital programme, which totals £131.135M (as detailed in sections 2 to 9 and Appendix 1 of the report) and the associated use of resources.
3) Approve the capital scheme renaming of Replacement Waste Collection Vehicles to New Waste Collection Contract.
4) Approve expenditure being incurred on capital schemes in accordance with the revised capital programme and the Financial Regulations.
5) Approve the rephasing and scheme virements as set out in sections 6 and 7 and as detailed in Appendix 3 of the report.
6) Note that the capital programme remains fully funded from the council’s own resources up to 2028/29 based on the latest forecast of available resources.
7) Approve the Capital Programme Strategy shown as Appendix 4 of the report, which includes the council’s Infrastructure List shown as Annex 2 of the report.
10
The Camrose - disposal of council owned land and removal from list of Assets of Community Value
Recommendation from the Cabinet meeting held on 11 February 2025.
To request Council to reserve proceeds from the sale of council-owned land to invest in football facility improvement works in Basingstoke.
To request Council to reserve proceeds from the sale of council-owned land to invest in football facility improvement works in Basingstoke.
Attachments:
- Document Camrose COUNCIL report 19 Feb 2025
- Document Appendix 1 Location Plan The Camrose site 19 Feb 2025
- Document Appendix 2 Site plan and land ownership 19 Feb 2025
Minutes
The Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property presented a report which sought Council approval to reserve proceeds from the sale of council-owned land to invest in football facility improvement works in Basingstoke. Council approval was sought to set aside the capital receipt when received for the specified proposed purpose.
The proposal was supported. It was commented that it was an opportunity to build socially rented homes for those in need, however there should be mechanisms to ensure delivery of high standard units the same as the rest of the development. It was also commented that the sale presented an opportunity to use the funds to support improvements in local football facilities. Disappointment was expressed regarding the end of an era with the sale of the Camrose land and it was suggested that had there been the political will, the situation could have been different for the football club. Responding to some comments, assurance was given that the focus working with SNG was for the provision of socially rented housing and that processes had been thoroughly followed for the value to be achieved on the site.
Resolved: To agree to reserve proceeds from the sale of council-owned land to invest in football facility improvement works in Basingstoke.
The proposal was supported. It was commented that it was an opportunity to build socially rented homes for those in need, however there should be mechanisms to ensure delivery of high standard units the same as the rest of the development. It was also commented that the sale presented an opportunity to use the funds to support improvements in local football facilities. Disappointment was expressed regarding the end of an era with the sale of the Camrose land and it was suggested that had there been the political will, the situation could have been different for the football club. Responding to some comments, assurance was given that the focus working with SNG was for the provision of socially rented housing and that processes had been thoroughly followed for the value to be achieved on the site.
Resolved: To agree to reserve proceeds from the sale of council-owned land to invest in football facility improvement works in Basingstoke.
11
Treasury Management Strategy 2025/26
Report of the Chief Finance Officer (S151 Officer)
Attachments:
- Document TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 25-26 19 Feb 2025
Minutes
Council considered a report which set out the Treasury Management Policy Statement and proposed Treasury Management Strategy for 2025/26 which set the framework and limits for the delivery of the council’s Treasury Management Strategy.
Resolved: To approve
1) The Treasury Management Policy Statement.
2) The Treasury Management Strategy for 2025/26.
Resolved: To approve
1) The Treasury Management Policy Statement.
2) The Treasury Management Strategy for 2025/26.
12
Capital Investment Strategy for 2025/26
Report of the Chief Finance Officer (S151 Officer)
Attachments:
- Document Capital Investment Strategy 2025-26 19 Feb 2025
Minutes
Council considered a report which set out the Capital Investment Strategy for 2025/26 and Investment Strategy (Non-Treasury) for 2025/26.
Resolved: Council approve:
1) The Capital Investment Strategy for 2025/26 which includes:
a) the Prudential Indicators for 2025/26 to 2028/29;
b) the Authorised Limit for External Debt of £60.00M for 2025/26 (as set out in the prudential indicators); and
c) the Annual Minimum Revenue Provision Statement for 2025/26
2) The Investment Strategy (Non-Treasury) for 2025/26.
Resolved: Council approve:
1) The Capital Investment Strategy for 2025/26 which includes:
a) the Prudential Indicators for 2025/26 to 2028/29;
b) the Authorised Limit for External Debt of £60.00M for 2025/26 (as set out in the prudential indicators); and
c) the Annual Minimum Revenue Provision Statement for 2025/26
2) The Investment Strategy (Non-Treasury) for 2025/26.
13
Notice of Motion - Support for Basingstoke Town Football Club
Proposer: Councillor A Lee
Seconder: Councillor Z West
In April 2019, Basingstoke Town Football Club played its last game at the Camrose. The land was intended to be used for football or a sports ground, for decades to come but has unfortunately been lost to development. The loss of this important facility has dealt a blow to football, the football community and Basingstoke.
Whilst the towns football club, who are slowly recovering from this ordeal, have settled into a new facility, the longer term viability of the clubs aspirations are at risk, leaving the club unable to control its own destiny. Playing football at Winklebury also leaves other grassroots football clubs with reduced access to one of only a handful of 3g pitches in the Borough.
With local government reorganisation taking place we have a prime opportunity to support our towns football club. Whilst it is understood that full funding cannot, or will not, be provided by this council, there are still options that could provide a starting point to support the club.
This council therefore notes:
1) The Council’s part of the former Camrose Stadium site is subject to a leasehold covenant requiring the tenant to use the site as a football ground only or for another purpose as may be approved by the Council.
2) Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council is in the process of selling its portion, subject to the lease, of the Camrose site, generating significant financial proceeds.
3) Football is an integral part of the community, providing social, health, and economic benefits to residents of all ages.
4) Basingstoke Town Football Club currently lacks a permanent home that meets its needs and aspirations for future growth.
5) Section 106 agreements (s106) and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions are designed to mitigate the impact of development and support local infrastructure, including sports and recreation facilities.
6) That Section 16 of the Local Government Act 2003 grants local authorities the discretion to use capital receipts as revenue for purposes including funding further expenditure which is capital in nature.
This Council believes that:
1) Any proceeds received from the sale of the Camrose site should be reinvested in football in Basingstoke, given the original intended use of the land.
2) A new, fit-for-purpose football stadium would provide significant benefits to the town, including boosting community engagement, increasing participation in sport, and supporting economic regeneration.
3) This council has a unique opportunity to reinvest proceeds from the sale of land at the former Camrose into helping kickstart funding for a new stadium.
4) Where possible, additional funds arising from related development contributions, such as s106 and CIL payments linked to this or future developments on the site, should be considered as part of a broader funding strategy supporting football in Basingstoke and specifically Basingstoke Town Football Club.
5) This council should identify appropriate, council owned, land that could support a new stadium, but acknowledges that due process should be followed if the club wishes to acquire any sites identified.
This Council resolves to:
1) Ring-fence the net proceeds from the sale of the Camrose site to contribute towards the funding of a new football stadium for Basingstoke Town Football Club so long as it complies with the requirements of section 16 Local Government Act 2003.
This Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
1) Ensure that any s106 and CIL contributions from current & future developments linked to the Camrose site, are used for the purpose of football within Basingstoke where this is legally possible and in compliance with the CIL Spending Protocol. Ensuring that any funds spent include the club for decision making and are linked with the aims and objectives of Basingstoke Town Football Club
2) Engage with Basingstoke Town Football Club, the Hampshire FA, Sport England, and other stakeholders to develop a viable plan for securing a permanent, high-quality football facility in the town, including identifying suitable land to support future plans.
3) Commit to transparency and community engagement by reporting regularly, on a frequency of no more than 6 months, on the progress of securing funding and developing plans for a new stadium.
4) Explore additional funding options including potential grant applications, partnerships, or public-private funding models to supplement the funds secured through this motion.
Seconder: Councillor Z West
In April 2019, Basingstoke Town Football Club played its last game at the Camrose. The land was intended to be used for football or a sports ground, for decades to come but has unfortunately been lost to development. The loss of this important facility has dealt a blow to football, the football community and Basingstoke.
Whilst the towns football club, who are slowly recovering from this ordeal, have settled into a new facility, the longer term viability of the clubs aspirations are at risk, leaving the club unable to control its own destiny. Playing football at Winklebury also leaves other grassroots football clubs with reduced access to one of only a handful of 3g pitches in the Borough.
With local government reorganisation taking place we have a prime opportunity to support our towns football club. Whilst it is understood that full funding cannot, or will not, be provided by this council, there are still options that could provide a starting point to support the club.
This council therefore notes:
1) The Council’s part of the former Camrose Stadium site is subject to a leasehold covenant requiring the tenant to use the site as a football ground only or for another purpose as may be approved by the Council.
2) Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council is in the process of selling its portion, subject to the lease, of the Camrose site, generating significant financial proceeds.
3) Football is an integral part of the community, providing social, health, and economic benefits to residents of all ages.
4) Basingstoke Town Football Club currently lacks a permanent home that meets its needs and aspirations for future growth.
5) Section 106 agreements (s106) and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions are designed to mitigate the impact of development and support local infrastructure, including sports and recreation facilities.
6) That Section 16 of the Local Government Act 2003 grants local authorities the discretion to use capital receipts as revenue for purposes including funding further expenditure which is capital in nature.
This Council believes that:
1) Any proceeds received from the sale of the Camrose site should be reinvested in football in Basingstoke, given the original intended use of the land.
2) A new, fit-for-purpose football stadium would provide significant benefits to the town, including boosting community engagement, increasing participation in sport, and supporting economic regeneration.
3) This council has a unique opportunity to reinvest proceeds from the sale of land at the former Camrose into helping kickstart funding for a new stadium.
4) Where possible, additional funds arising from related development contributions, such as s106 and CIL payments linked to this or future developments on the site, should be considered as part of a broader funding strategy supporting football in Basingstoke and specifically Basingstoke Town Football Club.
5) This council should identify appropriate, council owned, land that could support a new stadium, but acknowledges that due process should be followed if the club wishes to acquire any sites identified.
This Council resolves to:
1) Ring-fence the net proceeds from the sale of the Camrose site to contribute towards the funding of a new football stadium for Basingstoke Town Football Club so long as it complies with the requirements of section 16 Local Government Act 2003.
This Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
1) Ensure that any s106 and CIL contributions from current & future developments linked to the Camrose site, are used for the purpose of football within Basingstoke where this is legally possible and in compliance with the CIL Spending Protocol. Ensuring that any funds spent include the club for decision making and are linked with the aims and objectives of Basingstoke Town Football Club
2) Engage with Basingstoke Town Football Club, the Hampshire FA, Sport England, and other stakeholders to develop a viable plan for securing a permanent, high-quality football facility in the town, including identifying suitable land to support future plans.
3) Commit to transparency and community engagement by reporting regularly, on a frequency of no more than 6 months, on the progress of securing funding and developing plans for a new stadium.
4) Explore additional funding options including potential grant applications, partnerships, or public-private funding models to supplement the funds secured through this motion.
Minutes
The following motion was proposed by Councillor Lee and seconded by Councillor West.
In April 2019, Basingstoke Town Football Club played its last game at the Camrose. The land was intended to be used for football or a sports ground, for decades to come but has unfortunately been lost to development. The loss of this important facility has dealt a blow to football, the football community and Basingstoke.
Whilst the towns football club, who are slowly recovering from this ordeal, have settled into a new facility, the longer term viability of the clubs aspirations are at risk, leaving the club unable to control its own destiny. Playing football at Winklebury also leaves other grassroots football clubs with reduced access to one of only a handful of 3g pitches in the Borough.
With local government reorganisation taking place we have a prime opportunity to support our towns football club. Whilst it is understood that full funding cannot, or will not, be provided by this council, there are still options that could provide a starting point to support the club.
This council therefore notes:
1) The Council’s part of the former Camrose Stadium site is subject to a leasehold covenant requiring the tenant to use the site as a football ground only or for another purpose as may be approved by the Council.
2) Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council is in the process of selling its portion, subject to the lease, of the Camrose site, generating significant financial proceeds.
3) Football is an integral part of the community, providing social, health, and economic benefits to residents of all ages.
4) Basingstoke Town Community Football Club currently lacks a permanent home that meets its needs and aspirations for future growth.
5) Section 106 agreements (s106) and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions are designed to mitigate the impact of development and support local infrastructure, including sports and recreation facilities.
6) That Section 16 of the Local Government Act 2003 grants local authorities the discretion to use capital receipts as revenue for purposes including funding further expenditure which is capital in nature.
This Council believes that:
1) Any proceeds received from the sale of the Camrose site should be reinvested in football in Basingstoke, given the original intended use of the land.
2) A fit-for-purpose football stadium would provide significant benefits to the town, including boosting community engagement, increasing participation in sport, and supporting economic regeneration.
3) This council has a unique opportunity to reinvest proceeds of the sale towards securing BTCFC a home of their own, so long as it complies with the requirements of section 16 of the Local Government Act 2003.
4) Where possible, additional funds arising from related development contributions, such as s106 and CIL payments linked to this or future developments on the site, should be considered as part of a broader funding strategy supporting football in Basingstoke and specifically Basingstoke Town Community Football Club.
5) This council should identify appropriate, council owned, land that could support a new stadium, but acknowledges that due process should be followed if the club wishes to acquire any sites identified.
This Council resolves to:
1) To reserve the proceeds from the sale of the council owned land to invest in a home for BTCFC, so long as it complies with the requirements of section 16 of the Local Government Act 2003.
This Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
1) Ensure that any s106 and CIL contributions from current & future developments linked to the Camrose site, are used for the purpose of football within Basingstoke where this is legally possible and in compliance with the CIL Spending Protocol. Ensuring that any funds spent include the club for decision making and are linked with the aims and objectives of Basingstoke Town Football Club
2) Engage with Basingstoke Town Community Football Club, the Hampshire FA, Sport England, and other stakeholders to develop a viable plan for securing a permanent, high-quality football facility in the town, including identifying suitable land to support future plans.
3) Commit to transparency and community engagement by reporting regularly, on a frequency of no more than 6 months, on the progress of securing funding and developing plans for a new stadium.
4) Explore additional funding options including potential grant applications, partnerships, or public-private funding models to supplement the funds secured through this motion.
The motion was debated. Comments were supportive of the motion. There was recognition of the importance of BTCFC to the town and the opportunity to support the club to rebuild for the future and secure a stadium of its own. The wider aspirations of the club were also recognised and it was commented that positive discussions between the council and the club were being held to support their ambitions. The importance of football across the borough was also recognised. It was commented that in a town the size of Basingstoke there should be a plan and aspirations for the club to achieve big ambitions which could be achieved with support from local businesses and the community.
Upon a recorded vote the motion was unanimously agreed with 43 votes in favour.
Resolved: The motion be carried.
In April 2019, Basingstoke Town Football Club played its last game at the Camrose. The land was intended to be used for football or a sports ground, for decades to come but has unfortunately been lost to development. The loss of this important facility has dealt a blow to football, the football community and Basingstoke.
Whilst the towns football club, who are slowly recovering from this ordeal, have settled into a new facility, the longer term viability of the clubs aspirations are at risk, leaving the club unable to control its own destiny. Playing football at Winklebury also leaves other grassroots football clubs with reduced access to one of only a handful of 3g pitches in the Borough.
With local government reorganisation taking place we have a prime opportunity to support our towns football club. Whilst it is understood that full funding cannot, or will not, be provided by this council, there are still options that could provide a starting point to support the club.
This council therefore notes:
1) The Council’s part of the former Camrose Stadium site is subject to a leasehold covenant requiring the tenant to use the site as a football ground only or for another purpose as may be approved by the Council.
2) Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council is in the process of selling its portion, subject to the lease, of the Camrose site, generating significant financial proceeds.
3) Football is an integral part of the community, providing social, health, and economic benefits to residents of all ages.
4) Basingstoke Town Community Football Club currently lacks a permanent home that meets its needs and aspirations for future growth.
5) Section 106 agreements (s106) and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions are designed to mitigate the impact of development and support local infrastructure, including sports and recreation facilities.
6) That Section 16 of the Local Government Act 2003 grants local authorities the discretion to use capital receipts as revenue for purposes including funding further expenditure which is capital in nature.
This Council believes that:
1) Any proceeds received from the sale of the Camrose site should be reinvested in football in Basingstoke, given the original intended use of the land.
2) A fit-for-purpose football stadium would provide significant benefits to the town, including boosting community engagement, increasing participation in sport, and supporting economic regeneration.
3) This council has a unique opportunity to reinvest proceeds of the sale towards securing BTCFC a home of their own, so long as it complies with the requirements of section 16 of the Local Government Act 2003.
4) Where possible, additional funds arising from related development contributions, such as s106 and CIL payments linked to this or future developments on the site, should be considered as part of a broader funding strategy supporting football in Basingstoke and specifically Basingstoke Town Community Football Club.
5) This council should identify appropriate, council owned, land that could support a new stadium, but acknowledges that due process should be followed if the club wishes to acquire any sites identified.
This Council resolves to:
1) To reserve the proceeds from the sale of the council owned land to invest in a home for BTCFC, so long as it complies with the requirements of section 16 of the Local Government Act 2003.
This Council resolves to request Cabinet to:
1) Ensure that any s106 and CIL contributions from current & future developments linked to the Camrose site, are used for the purpose of football within Basingstoke where this is legally possible and in compliance with the CIL Spending Protocol. Ensuring that any funds spent include the club for decision making and are linked with the aims and objectives of Basingstoke Town Football Club
2) Engage with Basingstoke Town Community Football Club, the Hampshire FA, Sport England, and other stakeholders to develop a viable plan for securing a permanent, high-quality football facility in the town, including identifying suitable land to support future plans.
3) Commit to transparency and community engagement by reporting regularly, on a frequency of no more than 6 months, on the progress of securing funding and developing plans for a new stadium.
4) Explore additional funding options including potential grant applications, partnerships, or public-private funding models to supplement the funds secured through this motion.
The motion was debated. Comments were supportive of the motion. There was recognition of the importance of BTCFC to the town and the opportunity to support the club to rebuild for the future and secure a stadium of its own. The wider aspirations of the club were also recognised and it was commented that positive discussions between the council and the club were being held to support their ambitions. The importance of football across the borough was also recognised. It was commented that in a town the size of Basingstoke there should be a plan and aspirations for the club to achieve big ambitions which could be achieved with support from local businesses and the community.
Upon a recorded vote the motion was unanimously agreed with 43 votes in favour.
Resolved: The motion be carried.
14
Notice of Motion - Local Government Pay to Council: A Fully Funded, Proper Pay Rise for Council and School Workers
Proposer: Councillor A Lee
Seconder: TBC
This council notes:
Local government has endured central government funding cuts of more than 50% since 2010. Between 2010 and 2020, councils lost 60p out of every £1 they have received from central government. Research by UNISON has shown that councils across England, Wales and Scotland are facing a collective funding shortfall of more than £4bn by the financial year 2024/25 and a cumulative funding gap of £8bn by 2025/26. The last Government’s ‘levelling up’ pots of money did little to help.
Council and school workers kept our communities safe through the pandemic, often putting themselves at considerable risk as they work to protect public health, provide quality housing, ensure our children continue to be educated, and look after older and vulnerable people.
Since 2010, the local government workforce has endured years of pay restraint with the majority of pay points losing at least 25 per cent of their value since 2009/10. Staff have endured the worst cost of living crisis in a generation.
At the same time, workers have experienced ever-increasing workloads and persistent job insecurity. Across the UK, 900,000 jobs have been lost in local government since June 2010 – a reduction of more than 30 per cent. Local government has arguably been hit by more severe job losses than any other part of the public sector. There has been a disproportionate impact on women, with women making up more than three-quarters of the local government workforce.
Recent research shows that if the Government were to fully fund the unions’ 2025 pay claim, around half of the money would be recouped thanks to increased tax revenue, reduced expenditure on benefits and tax credits, and increased consumer spending in the local economy.
This council believes:
1) Local government workers keep our communities clean and safe, look after those in need and keep our towns and cities running.
2) Without the professionalism and dedication of our staff, the council services our residents rely on would not be deliverable.
3) Local government workers deserve a proper real-terms pay increase. The Government needs to take responsibility and fully fund this increase; it should not put the burden on local authorities whose funding has been cut to the bone and who were not offered adequate support through the Covid-19 pandemic.
This council resolves to:
1) Support the pay claim submitted by UNISON, GMB and Unite on behalf of council and school workers for an increase of £3,000 on all pay points.
2) Call on the Local Government Association to make urgent representations to central government to fund the NJC pay claim.
3) Write to the Chancellor and Secretary of State to call for a pay increase for local government workers to be funded with new money from central government.
4) Meet with local NJC union representatives to convey support for the pay claim and consider practical ways in which the council can support the campaign.
5) Encourage all local government workers to join a union.
Seconder: TBC
This council notes:
Local government has endured central government funding cuts of more than 50% since 2010. Between 2010 and 2020, councils lost 60p out of every £1 they have received from central government. Research by UNISON has shown that councils across England, Wales and Scotland are facing a collective funding shortfall of more than £4bn by the financial year 2024/25 and a cumulative funding gap of £8bn by 2025/26. The last Government’s ‘levelling up’ pots of money did little to help.
Council and school workers kept our communities safe through the pandemic, often putting themselves at considerable risk as they work to protect public health, provide quality housing, ensure our children continue to be educated, and look after older and vulnerable people.
Since 2010, the local government workforce has endured years of pay restraint with the majority of pay points losing at least 25 per cent of their value since 2009/10. Staff have endured the worst cost of living crisis in a generation.
At the same time, workers have experienced ever-increasing workloads and persistent job insecurity. Across the UK, 900,000 jobs have been lost in local government since June 2010 – a reduction of more than 30 per cent. Local government has arguably been hit by more severe job losses than any other part of the public sector. There has been a disproportionate impact on women, with women making up more than three-quarters of the local government workforce.
Recent research shows that if the Government were to fully fund the unions’ 2025 pay claim, around half of the money would be recouped thanks to increased tax revenue, reduced expenditure on benefits and tax credits, and increased consumer spending in the local economy.
This council believes:
1) Local government workers keep our communities clean and safe, look after those in need and keep our towns and cities running.
2) Without the professionalism and dedication of our staff, the council services our residents rely on would not be deliverable.
3) Local government workers deserve a proper real-terms pay increase. The Government needs to take responsibility and fully fund this increase; it should not put the burden on local authorities whose funding has been cut to the bone and who were not offered adequate support through the Covid-19 pandemic.
This council resolves to:
1) Support the pay claim submitted by UNISON, GMB and Unite on behalf of council and school workers for an increase of £3,000 on all pay points.
2) Call on the Local Government Association to make urgent representations to central government to fund the NJC pay claim.
3) Write to the Chancellor and Secretary of State to call for a pay increase for local government workers to be funded with new money from central government.
4) Meet with local NJC union representatives to convey support for the pay claim and consider practical ways in which the council can support the campaign.
5) Encourage all local government workers to join a union.
Minutes
Councillor Lee proposed the following motion, seconded by Councillor McCormick:
This council notes:
Local government has endured central government funding cuts of more than 50% since 2010. Between 2010 and 2020, councils lost 60p out of every £1 they have received from central government. Research by UNISON has shown that councils across England, Wales and Scotland are facing a collective funding shortfall of more than £4bn by the financial year 2024/25 and a cumulative funding gap of £8bn by 2025/26. The last Government’s ‘levelling up’ pots of money did little to help.
Council and school workers kept our communities safe through the pandemic, often putting themselves at considerable risk as they work to protect public health, provide quality housing, ensure our children continue to be educated, and look after older and vulnerable people.
Since 2010, the local government workforce has endured years of pay restraint with the majority of pay points losing at least 25 per cent of their value since 2009/10. Staff have endured the worst cost of living crisis in a generation.
At the same time, workers have experienced ever-increasing workloads and persistent job insecurity. Across the UK, 900,000 jobs have been lost in local government since June 2010 – a reduction of more than 30 per cent. Local government has arguably been hit by more severe job losses than any other part of the public sector. There has been a disproportionate impact on women, with women making up more than three-quarters of the local government workforce.
Recent research shows that if the Government were to fully fund the unions’ 2025 pay claim, around half of the money would be recouped thanks to increased tax revenue, reduced expenditure on benefits and tax credits, and increased consumer spending in the local economy.
This council believes:
1) Local government workers keep our communities clean and safe, look after those in need and keep our towns and cities running.
2) Without the professionalism and dedication of our staff, the council services our residents rely on would not be deliverable.
3) Local government workers deserve a proper real-terms pay increase. The Government needs to take responsibility and fully fund this increase; it should not put the burden on local authorities whose funding has been cut to the bone and who were not offered adequate support through the Covid-19 pandemic.
This council resolves to:
1) Support the pay claim submitted by UNISON, GMB and Unite on behalf of council and school workers for an increase of £3,000 on all pay points.
2) Call on the Local Government Association to make urgent representations to central government to fund the NJC pay claim.
3) Write to the Chancellor and Secretary of State to call for a pay increase for local government workers to be funded with new money from central government.
4) Meet with local NJC union representatives to convey support for the pay claim and consider practical ways in which the council can support the campaign.
5) Raise awareness of the opportunities and benefits of joining a union
The motion was debated where mixed views were expressed. Some members considered the motion to be misguided and misplaced however some considered the intent of the motion was well meant. The work of local government employees was acknowledged to ensure the delivery of vital public services to residents. It was commented that meaningful pay increases needed to be fully funded or there would be a risk to cut services already under strain from rising demand, in particular in adult and children’s social care, rising employers national insurance costs and inflationary pressures across services. It was suggested that the best way forward was to support the lobbying efforts of the Local Government Association, which represented all councils, and advocated not just for fair pay but for the funding required to sustain it alongside other essential service delivery to ensure local government funding was made in a way that reflects the full range of pressures on all council budgets. It was also suggested that a course of action was to write to the local MP to make representation to national government. Concern was also raised that funding to support a pay award should be new money and not taken from funding provided for services and residents. Data regarding the pay differential between public and private sector pay was highlighted.
Upon a recorded vote there were 21 votes in favour, 4 votes against and 18 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be carried.
This council notes:
Local government has endured central government funding cuts of more than 50% since 2010. Between 2010 and 2020, councils lost 60p out of every £1 they have received from central government. Research by UNISON has shown that councils across England, Wales and Scotland are facing a collective funding shortfall of more than £4bn by the financial year 2024/25 and a cumulative funding gap of £8bn by 2025/26. The last Government’s ‘levelling up’ pots of money did little to help.
Council and school workers kept our communities safe through the pandemic, often putting themselves at considerable risk as they work to protect public health, provide quality housing, ensure our children continue to be educated, and look after older and vulnerable people.
Since 2010, the local government workforce has endured years of pay restraint with the majority of pay points losing at least 25 per cent of their value since 2009/10. Staff have endured the worst cost of living crisis in a generation.
At the same time, workers have experienced ever-increasing workloads and persistent job insecurity. Across the UK, 900,000 jobs have been lost in local government since June 2010 – a reduction of more than 30 per cent. Local government has arguably been hit by more severe job losses than any other part of the public sector. There has been a disproportionate impact on women, with women making up more than three-quarters of the local government workforce.
Recent research shows that if the Government were to fully fund the unions’ 2025 pay claim, around half of the money would be recouped thanks to increased tax revenue, reduced expenditure on benefits and tax credits, and increased consumer spending in the local economy.
This council believes:
1) Local government workers keep our communities clean and safe, look after those in need and keep our towns and cities running.
2) Without the professionalism and dedication of our staff, the council services our residents rely on would not be deliverable.
3) Local government workers deserve a proper real-terms pay increase. The Government needs to take responsibility and fully fund this increase; it should not put the burden on local authorities whose funding has been cut to the bone and who were not offered adequate support through the Covid-19 pandemic.
This council resolves to:
1) Support the pay claim submitted by UNISON, GMB and Unite on behalf of council and school workers for an increase of £3,000 on all pay points.
2) Call on the Local Government Association to make urgent representations to central government to fund the NJC pay claim.
3) Write to the Chancellor and Secretary of State to call for a pay increase for local government workers to be funded with new money from central government.
4) Meet with local NJC union representatives to convey support for the pay claim and consider practical ways in which the council can support the campaign.
5) Raise awareness of the opportunities and benefits of joining a union
The motion was debated where mixed views were expressed. Some members considered the motion to be misguided and misplaced however some considered the intent of the motion was well meant. The work of local government employees was acknowledged to ensure the delivery of vital public services to residents. It was commented that meaningful pay increases needed to be fully funded or there would be a risk to cut services already under strain from rising demand, in particular in adult and children’s social care, rising employers national insurance costs and inflationary pressures across services. It was suggested that the best way forward was to support the lobbying efforts of the Local Government Association, which represented all councils, and advocated not just for fair pay but for the funding required to sustain it alongside other essential service delivery to ensure local government funding was made in a way that reflects the full range of pressures on all council budgets. It was also suggested that a course of action was to write to the local MP to make representation to national government. Concern was also raised that funding to support a pay award should be new money and not taken from funding provided for services and residents. Data regarding the pay differential between public and private sector pay was highlighted.
Upon a recorded vote there were 21 votes in favour, 4 votes against and 18 abstentions.
Resolved: The motion be carried.
15
Questions from Members of the Council on notice
Minutes
There were no questions.
16
Questions to the Chair of Cabinet and/or a committee
To receive questions from members in relation to the minutes of the meetings detailed below:
Committee
Meeting Date
Development Control
4 December 2024
Environment & Infrastructure
5 December 2024
Cabinet
10 December 2024
Development Control
11 December 2024
Council
19 December 2024
Cabinet
7 January 2025
Development Control
8 January 2025
Residents Services
15 January 2025
Resources
21 January 2025
Licensing
3 February 2025
Committee
Meeting Date
Development Control
4 December 2024
Environment & Infrastructure
5 December 2024
Cabinet
10 December 2024
Development Control
11 December 2024
Council
19 December 2024
Cabinet
7 January 2025
Development Control
8 January 2025
Residents Services
15 January 2025
Resources
21 January 2025
Licensing
3 February 2025
Minutes
There were no questions.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in