Basingstoke & Dean Borough Council Council Meeting

Apologies were received from Councillors Bean, Court, Godesen, Grant, Leeks and McIntyre.

Councillor Minas-Bound arrived at 6.51 pm.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 2024 were confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Deputy Mayor.

A minutes silence was observed and tributes were made to former Mayors Marilyn Tucker and Jack Evans following the sad news of their death.

There were no questions.

No petitions were received.

There were no resignations or appointments to committees or outside bodies.

The four Groups 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 2024/25, seconded by the Leader of the Council. The proposals delivered a two year balanced revenue budget for 2024/25 and 2025/26.

A number of amendments to the proposals were moved:

Amendment 1 – Review of Key Residents Services

Proposer:  Councillor Izett

Seconder: Councillor Carr

To remove the additional posts, identified in 2024/25, funded initially by the Council Plan priority funding, in relation to 12.0 FTE of Street Cleansing Staff - Make a Difference and Sweeper Teams and 3.0 FTE Grounds Maintenance Staff - Make a Difference Team. The full year funding requirement over the 4 years of the MTFS will reduce by £2.62M, but this will need to be adjusted by the assumed increase in Vacancy Management (2.25% to 5.00%) reducing this to £2.54M.

This would initially be held within the MTFS risk reserve to be allocated as relevant to any other agreed budget proposals. Any net saving would reduce the budget gap in the final year of the MTFS 2027/28.

The amendment was debated. Some members expressed concern regarding the long term financial impact to the council in relation to the significant staffing increase in grounds maintenance and street cleansing staff. It was suggested that evidence to justify the significant increase had not been demonstrated which would place long term burdens on the taxpayer through salary increases and pension costs in the years ahead. The priority had not been included in the public consultation and the saving could be better spent to support other priorities. It was commented that the amendment was not intended to stop investment but promote good financial stewardship to ensure that any investment would not have to be undone in the future, would make the best difference that it could and which would be felt across the whole borough.

Several members spoke against the proposed amendment. Comments made included the noticeable difference in the upkeep of estates since the increase in staffing, pride in place was important for residents, investment in services was necessary to make a difference to improve standards for residents, the response to the consultation was insignificant compared to the size of the population, residents wanted the upkeep of local areas improved and reducing the number of staff would not be supported.

Upon a recorded vote there voted 9 votes in favour of the amendment, 32 votes against and 6 abstentions. The amendment was rejected.

Amendment 2 – Council Tax Freeze

Proposer:  Councillor Minas-Bound

Seconder: Councillor Ganesh

A freeze in the borough’s element of the Council Tax for 2024/25. This will impact in each year of the MTFS. A total loss of income of £1.4M over the period of the MTFS.

In the first instance this will be funded from the MTFS risk reserve. If other budget amendments have been approved that provide a saving this cost will be funded from this additional saving. However, if this is not the case, this cost would need to be met from the additional assumed central government funding and will increase the budget gap in the final year of the MTFS.

The amendment was debated and a range of comments were made. Comments included:

• Freezing council tax would be affordable for the council.
• A freeze would help all residents in the borough at a time when people were struggling with the cost of living crisis.
• It would help alleviate the burden for residents who were being asked to increase their contribution to services provided by other authorities.
• Targeted support such as COLAF was more appropriate to support those residents in need rather than a blanket approach of freezing council tax for all residents.
• Cannot continue to keep freezing council tax. The loss of revenue would have an ongoing impact to the council’s resources in future years effecting the services that could be delivered to residents.
• The slight increase in the borough’s element of council tax would not be noticed by most residents who are being asked to make much larger contributions by other authorities.
• Freezing council tax would make little benefit to those already in receipt of a council tax reduction but the accumulated loss of revenue would impact services to the detriment of residents.

Upon a recorded vote there voted 15 votes in favour, 28 votes against and 4 abstentions. The amendment was rejected.

Amendment 3 – COLAF

Proposer:  Councillor Izett

Seconder: Councillor Rhatigan

The proposed allocation is for £1M this will include £0.05 for additional resources to administer the scheme.

It will be necessary to review and update the policy in line with the need to recognise and define Carers separately in the policy.

In the first instance this will be funded from the MTFS risk reserve. If other budget amendments have been approved that provide a saving this cost will be funded from this additional saving. However, if this is not the case, this cost would need to be met from the additional assumed central government funding and will increase the budget gap in the final year of the MTFS.

The amendment was supported. Put to a recorded vote, there voted 46 votes in favour, 0 votes against and 1 abstention. The amendment was carried.

Amendment 4 – Basingstoke Big Bin

Proposer:  Councillor Minas-Bound

Seconder: Councillor Edwards

The proposal includes provision of a skip in each ward 4 times a year at a cost of £0.60M per annum including lorry and skip hire.

In the first instance this will be funded from the MTFS risk reserve. If other budget amendments have been approved that provide a saving this cost will be funded from this additional saving. However, if this is not the case, this cost would need to be met from the additional assumed central government funding and will increase the budget gap in the final year of the MTFS.

The amendment was debated and a mixed range of views were expressed which included:

• The cost to implement the scheme was relatively low and would bring communities together to help themselves and make a difference.
• It was a practical solution for waste disposal particularly for residents of flats with shared bins.
• The scheme would help create cleaner and more attractive environments.
• It would help reduce fly-tipping and may increase recycling.
• Due to legislation there were several items that could not be put in a skip such as large electrical items, tyres, paint, mattresses etc and a limited number of items that could be put in.
• It was suggested that the implications of the initiative should be considered by the CEP committee with the funding ringfenced whilst a viable scheme could be considered. Alternative views were that the council should be ambitious and look at how it could be made to work to make a difference to every ward in the borough. Other local authorities were already doing it.
• Most people take waste items to the Household Waste Recycling Centre, it unclear what the incentive would be to put it in a community skip. It was however, acknowledged that the HWRC was reliant on having a car to get to the centre.
• Concerns regarding the practicalities of the scheme such as managing the items being put in it, what skips were used, where the skips would be emptied, process for separating the waste and the effect on recycling rates.
• Free bulky waste collections as a better option was a view expressed however an alternative view was the big bin scheme would compliment the bulky waste scheme by allowing the disposal of smaller waste items such as rubble, builders bags, pipework, small junk items etc.
• Concerns regarding the impact on the furniture project.

Upon a recorded vote there voted 30 votes in favour, 7 against and 9 abstentions. The amendment was carried.

Amendment 5 – Reduction in Car Parking Charges

Proposer:  Councillor Minas-Bound

Seconder: Councillor Mummalaneni

Car Parking Charges to be updated to:

This will result in an estimated £0.08M reduction in car parking income.

In the first instance this will be funded from the MTFS risk reserve. If other budget amendments have been approved that provide a saving this cost will be funded from this additional saving. However, if this is not the case, this cost would need to be met from the additional assumed central government funding and will increase the budget gap in the final year of the MTFS.

The amendment was debated. A mixed range of comments were made. Some comments supported the amendment to car parking charges as making it simpler and cheaper would support the recovery of the town centre, encourage more shoppers to the town and be beneficial for residents on low incomes and those living in rural areas. Other comments raised referred to the climate emergency and incentives for sustainable travel, encouraging walking and cycling rather than car use and encouraging the use of local shops. Comments were also made regarding the small difference it would make to the average shopper and whether it was sufficient incentive to change shoppers’ behaviour.

The amendment was put to a recorded vote with 20 votes in favour, 22 votes against and 5 abstentions. The amendment was rejected.

Amendment 6 – Investing in Making Roads Safer

Proposer:  Councillor Minas-Bound

Seconder: Councillor Falconer

The proposal is to make up to 60 cameras available which will be a year one purchase cost, with an allowance for dealing with applications in allocating the cameras. Further there would then be an ongoing annual charge for the annual data handling.

In the first instance this will be funded from the MTFS risk reserve. If other budget amendments have been approved that provide a saving this cost will be funded from this additional saving. However, if this is not the case, this cost would need to be met from the additional assumed central government funding and will increase the budget gap in the final year of the MTFS.

The amendment was debated. Comments were made regarding the impact of speed cameras to change driver behaviour to reduce speed, injury, and anti-social behaviour. Car meets were highlighted as an issue that speed cameras would not address and it was suggested that there should be a specific place where car meets could be held safely. Comments were also made regarding the effectiveness of Speed Watch, who would use the camera’s, how enforcement action would be taken against those speeding, investment in traffic calming measures would be more appropriate and that HCC were the authority with responsibility for road safety in the borough. Some members welcomed the opportunity to use average speed cameras on certain roads in the borough to make roads safer.

The amendment was put to a vote. There voted 19 votes in favour, 25 against and 3 abstentions. The amendment was rejected.

Amendment 7 – Bulky Waste

Proposer:  Councillor Tustain

Seconder: Councillor Tom

To provide 1 free collection per year (April – March) for residents in receipt of Council Tax Reduction Scheme support for up to 3 items.

At this time, it is difficult to accurately predict what demand for this service would be and therefore the associated financial implication.

In 2022/23 there were 3,098 collections of which 23% related to those on a concessionary rate with an average collection of circa 3 items per collection.

Research with other authorities has shown that there is no set pattern to the number of low income households that use a free bulky waste collection service.

Estimated additional revenue costs include the cost for the provider to make the collection, the cost of bagging required for Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) materials, the cost of handling additional call volumes to enable customers to verify their eligibility, and the income foregone as we would no longer expect to receive any concessionary income.

The current resource allocation of a single collection crew includes an existing take-up of 10% based on households in receipt of Council Tax Reduction Scheme support. There is flexibility within the existing resource provision to allow an increase to 15% before an additional collection crew needs to be deployed.

At a 15-20% take-up amongst households in receipt of Council Tax Reduction Scheme Support, an additional collection crew and vehicle will be required to provide the service. The costs are based on a 20% take up and therefore it should be noted that if take up exceeded this assumption this would have to be considered as a future years budget pressure or a change in, for example, the waiting times for collections.

Additional annual revenue costs based on 20% take up would be £0.15M which includes loss of income of £0.02M. It should be noted that charges would still be applicable for more than 3 items which could potentially replace some of this assumed lost income.

It is proposed that this is funded from the identified additional central government funding announced in the Local Government Financial Settlement. This will be an annual ongoing impact. This will serve to increase the budget gap in the final year of the MTFS 2027/28 and future years. Initially this funding will be held within the MTFS risk reserve and will be released once the actual costs are determined. The following amendments assume that this funding will be released in the relevant financial year.

The amendment was put to a vote with 32 votes in favour, 1 against and 10 abstentions. The amendment was carried.

The Mayor invited debate on the substantive budget recommendations as amended. In summing up the Co-Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Property clarified that the agreed budget amendments had changed the overall deficit in terms of the budget gap by adding £0.21M to 2026/27 and £1.63M in 2027/28, a total of £1.84M cost pressure over the period of the MTFS.

The budget recommendations as amended were unanimously supported with 47 votes in favour, 0 votes against and 0 abstentions and therefore carried.

Resolved: That Council

note:

1.      The S151 Officer’s (Executive Director of Corporate Services and Assets) statutory report regarding the robustness of the estimates and the adequacy of reserves detailed in section 14 of the report.

2.      That the Executive Director of Corporate Services and Assets (S151 Officer) on the 5 January 2024 calculated the Council Tax base for the whole Council area at 69,800.3 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 2024/25 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 10 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 2024/25 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 2024/25 (£141.42 at Band D) reflects a £5.00 (3.67%) 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 £9.87M for 2024/25, the revenue estimates including the budget proposals in sections 6 and 7 of the report and contributions to and from reserves as summarised in sections 7 and 9 of the report.

9.      The Medium Term Financial Strategy, as shown in Appendix 1 of the report.

10.   The financial policies set out in Appendix 4 of the report.

11.   That the requirement for Council Tax for Borough purposes for 2024/25 be £141.42 (at Band D) as set out in Appendix 3 of the report.

12.   The 2024/25 net income budget of £0.11M for the Joint Manydown Committee as set out in section 16 of the report and that the net income is shared equally between the Council and Hampshire County Council.

13.   The Financial Regulations as set out in Appendix 7 of the report.

14.   The Contract Standing Orders as set out in Appendix 8 of the report.

15.   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 2024/25.

16.   That the S151 Officer (Executive Director of Corporate Services and Assets) be given delegated authority to implement any variation necessary to the overall level of 2024/25 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 presented a report which provided an update on the capital programme and Capital Programme Strategy for 2023/24 to 2027/28. He highlighted the redevelopment of the Leisure Park as a key addition to the programme.

During debate concern was expressed regarding the forecast reduction in available reserves and the adverse effect it would have on funds to support services. Concern was also expressed regarding the possibility of cost overruns to redevelop the aquadrome. Others were of the view that you could not have investment without impacting capital. It was clarified that the report had been considered by the Audit and Accounts committee who discussed the reduction in investment income and were satisfied that the council had a replenishment of funds policy whereby capital receipts would be used to replenish capital. Redeveloping the leisure park was a significant investment for the future.

The recommendations were agreed with 46 votes in favour, 0 votes against and 1 abstention.

Resolved:    That Council:

1.      Agree the addition of £46.952M to the capital programme and the removal of scheme underspends of £1.223M, which gives rise to a net increase of £45.729M to the overall capital programme as detailed in sections 4 to 6 and Appendix 2 of the report.

2.      Approve the revised capital programme, which totals £167.882M (as detailed in sections 2 to 8 and Appendix 1 of the report) and the associated use of resources.

3.      Approve expenditure being incurred on capital schemes in accordance with the revised capital programme and the Financial Regulations.

4.      Approve the rephasing, slippage and scheme virements as set out in sections 7 to 8 and as detailed in Appendix 3 of the report.

5.      Approve the addition of a new scheme for the redevelopment of the leisure park with approval to spend subject to a successful procurement process and sign off of the Final Business Case to be phased £35.368M to 2027/28 £24.632M in 2028/29 as detailed in paragraph 5.3 and confidential appendix 5 of the report.

6.      Approve the addition of a new scheme for Replacement Waste Collection Vehicles with a budget of £5.000M in 2025/26 as detailed in paragraph 5.9 of the report subject to finalisation of the future Waste Services provision option.

7.      Note that the capital programme remains fully funded up to 2027/28 based on the latest forecast of available resources.

8.      Approve the Capital Programme Strategy including financial polices detailed in Appendix 4 of the report.

9.      Approve the updated CIL Allocation Policy detailed within the Capital Programme Strategy detailed in Appendix 4, Annex 3 of the report.

Council considered a report which set out the Treasury Management Policy Statement and proposed Treasury Management Strategy for 2024/25 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 (set out in Appendix 1 of the report).

2.      The Treasury Management Strategy for 2024/25 (set out in Appendix 2 of the report)

Council considered a report which set out the Capital Investment Strategy for 2024/25 and Investment Strategy (Non-Treasury) for 2024/25.

Resolved:    To approve:

1.      The Capital Investment Strategy for 2024/25 (Appendix 1 of the report) which includes:

a.    the Prudential Indicators for 2024/25 to 2027/28;

b.    the Authorised Limit for External Debt of £60.00M for 2024/25 (as set out in the prudential indicators);

c.     the Annual Minimum Revenue Provision Statement for 2024/25; and

2.      The Investment Strategy (Non-Treasury) for 2024/25 (Appendix 2 of the report).

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Lee and seconded by Councillor Ibrahim:

For over five years, our community has faced challenges with the repair of the Ice Rink. Despite numerous commitments, progress remains elusive, impacting not only the residents of our Borough but also the broader Southeast region. 

The rink, a vital hub for young athletes, is at risk of losing its distinguished GB-level hockey and skating coaches. These professionals play a crucial role in nurturing the UK's future talents in Ice Hockey and Figure Skating. 

Furthermore, the uncertainty surrounding this issue also threatens the presence of the Bison, a much loved and well supported ice hockey team, potentially leading to another lost season or worse, their permanent departure. This motion emphasises the need for immediate attention and a definitive plan of action to prevent further detriment to our community's sports and recreational landscape. 

Therefore, this council notes that:

·        Whilst the ongoing issues require two private companies to negotiate a path forward, there is still a need to support the development of ice sports in the Borough.

·        Repair work to the existing facilities will result in the closure of the rink, and potentially cause a long-term impact if alternatives to support future development programmes are not identified.

·        Previous work to identify temporary sites for rinks was conducted but may have sought to offer a solution that was over engineered for the situation and therefore costs were too high.

·        There is significant frustration amongst the community of Basingstoke & Deane and the wider Southeast region over how this issue has been handled. We should make every effort to stop and prevent such situations in the future.

·        That the Ice Rink was once a crown jewel in the Borough’s sports offering and that to continue to allow a building, that poses a health and safety risk to residents, is unacceptable.

This council therefore requests that the Cabinet:

·        Commission an independent investigation to start within two months of passing this motion, examining the events that led to the demise of the ice rink, the council’s responsibilities in this and if it failed to meet any documented processes, procedures, or contractual responsibilities.

·        Report the results of the investigation to the Communities, Environment & Partnerships Committee no longer than one calendar month after the investigation’s conclusion, outlining steps to prevent identified failures in the future.

·        Communicate the results of the investigation to the public through appropriate channels, and releasing such information which is not exempt within the terms of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

·        Arrange a meeting within two months of the passing of this motion between the Ice Users Forum, Ice Hockey & Figure Skating Coaches/Leadership and the relevant cabinet member and officer team to understand the minimum standards for the safe continuation of the relevant sports. 

·        Submit a report to the June 2024 meeting of CEP on how the council will provide the necessary temporary facilities to those standards to support ice hockey and figure skating in the borough whilst any repairs are taking place.

·        Seek legal advice on invoking the relevant clause in the contract that holds the leaseholder accountable for the repairs of the facility and where possible and within the legal and/or contractual limitations ensure these works are completed.

·        Cabinet to report back to the soonest full Council, with detailed reasons, if any of the proposed actions are not to be implemented.

The motion was debated and members were generally supportive. Comment was made regarding meeting some of the timescales set out in the motion such as commissioning an independent investigation due to the procurement process. Comment were also made regarding whether it was a beneficial use of resources to commission consultants to look back on past events which would not change the current position of the ice rink or whether there was a better use of those funds such as supporting the ice users. Others felt it was an opportunity to get some definitive answers and ensure that any mistakes made were not repeated in the future. It was suggested that the Scrutiny Committee could conduct a full scrutiny and make recommendations as appropriate. The motion was welcomed as an opportunity to bring various parties together to find a resolution.

Concern was raised regarding the commitment to provide a temporary ice rink. An amendment to the wording was suggested to replace ‘will’ with ‘may be able to’ which was agreed by the proposer and seconder.

The motion as amended was put to a recorded vote with 43 votes in favour, 0 votes against and 2 abstentions.

Resolved: The motion as amended be carried and referred to Cabinet for consideration.

This item was deferred to the next meeting.

This item was deferred to the next meeting.