Test Valley Borough Council Council Meeting

Prayers were led by Reverend Waako.

The Mayor called for a one-minute silence to reflect on people across the world who were impacted by conflict.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors A Dowden, C Dowden, Gillies, Gwynne, Neal, K North, P North, and Sangster.

Mr Burley had registered to speak in accordance with the Council’s Public Participation Scheme under item 7 - To Receive and Adopt Committee Reports and Item 11 – Regeneration programme and Financial Strategy.

Mr Vignaux, Dr Dougall and Mr Taylor had registered to speak in accordance with the Council’s Public Participation Scheme under item 14 – Notice of Motion Rule 12.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the Council meeting held on 17 January 2024 were proposed by Councillor Adams-King and seconded by Councillor Flood.

Resolved:

That the minutes of the meetings of the Council held on 17 January 2024 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

The Worshipful The Mayor of Test valley advised tat the Borough Council had received the official portrait of His Majesty King Charles III from the palace which was now displayed in the main chamber of the Guildhall, Andover.

The Mayor reminded Councillors that the Commonwealth Day flag raising ceremonies would be held in Andover High Street and outside the FMC in Romsey on Monday 11 March from 9.50am. All Councillors were welcome to attend.

Minutes of Meetings

The minutes of meetings were proposed by Councillor Phil North and seconded by Councillor Adams-King.

Resolved:

That the minutes of the following Committees and Cabinet meetings be received:

To adopt recommendations from the following:

Cabinet – 28 February 2024

Capital Programme Update

Resolved:

That the revised estimates and financing for the 2023/24 to 2025/26 Capital Programme, as shown in the Annex to the report, be approved.

Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Annual Investment Strategy 2024/25

Resolved:

1.  That the Treasury Management Strategy Statement and the Annual Investment Strategy for 2024/25, as set out in the report, be approved.

2.  That the Minimum Revenue Provision policy, as shown in paragraph 4.5 of the report, be approved.

3.  That the Prudential Indicators, as set out in Annex 1 to the report, be approved.

Capital Strategy Update 2023/24 – 2028/29

Resolved:

  That the Capital Strategy 2023/24 to 2028/29 be approved.

Revenue Budget and Council Tax Proposals 2024/25

In accordance with the Council’s Public Participation Scheme, Mr Burley made a statement on the Revenue Budget and Council Tax Proposals 2024/25.

Councillors asked Mr Burley a number of questions on his statement which he responded to.

The Finance and Resources Portfolio Holder introduced the item by delivering her annual budget speech. A balanced budget has been achieved, no front line services have been cut and the proposed Council Tax increase was below the rate of inflation.

As required by law, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services took the vote on the original motion, Councillors voted as follows:

Resolved:

1.  That the Forecast for 2023/24, as set out in Column 3 of Annex 1 to the report, be noted.

2.  That the Income Generation Proposals, Savings Options and Revenue Pressures, as set out in Annexes 2 and 3 to the report, be approved.

3.  That the transfers to or from reserves, as detailed in paragraph 4.34 of the report, be approved.

4.  That subject to recommendations 2 and 3 above and taking due regard of the Head of Finance and Revenues’ comments in Annex 7 to the report, the budget for 2024/25, as set out in Column 6 of Annex 1 to the report, be approved.

5.  That subject to recommendations 2, 3 and 4 above, the revenue estimates for each Service contained in Annex 6 to the report be approved.

6.  That a Council Tax Requirement for 2024/25 of £11,012,693 be approved.

7.  That a Special Expenses Levy of £343,604 be made in respect of the area of Andover to cover the cost of providing burial grounds, sports grounds and playgrounds.

8.  That a general precept of £8,532,991 be levied for the year 2024/25.

9.  That the Medium Term Forecast, contained in Annex 5 to the report, be noted.

10.  That a Band D Council Tax, excluding Parishes and Special Expenses, of £163.91 in 2024/25 be approved.

The Finance and Resources Portfolio Holder presented details of the Council Tax for 2024/25 and proposed an alteration to the motion to replace the figure shown for Andover Town Council on page 103 from £226.17 to £206.32. The meeting’s consent was signalled without discussion.

The Worshipful the Mayor reminded Councillors that a recorded vote was required on this item. The Head of Legal and Democratic Services took the vote, Members voted as follows:

Resolved:

1.  That approval is noted of the revised revenue forecast for the year 2023/2024 and the revenue estimates for the year 2024/2025, together with the revised capital programme for the year 2023/2024 and the capital programme for the year 2024/2025.

2.  That for the purposes of Section 35(2) (d) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended (the Act), the sum of £343,604, being the aggregate sum of expenses in relation to burial grounds, sports grounds and playgrounds incurred by the Council in performing in the parish of Andover the functions not performed by the Town Council, shall be treated as Special Expenses and any expenditure other than the £343,604 herein specified shall be treated as general expenses.  The Special Expenses sum equates to an amount of £19.85 per Band D Council Tax.

3.  That it be noted that the Head of Finance & Revenues has calculated the Council Tax Base for 2024/2025 for the whole Borough area as 52,059 (Item T in the formula in Section 31B(1) of the Act) and, in those parts of its area to which a Parish/Town precept relates, as per the table below:

4.  That the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2024/2025 in accordance with Sections 31, 34 and 35 of the Act and subsequent regulations:

4(a)  £133,218,927  being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(2) of the Act taking into account all precepts issued to it by Parish/Town Councils.

4(b)  £122,206,234  being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(3) of the Act.

4(c)  £11,012,693  being the amount by which the aggregate at 4(a) above exceeds the aggregate at 4(b) above, calculated by the Council in accordance with Section 31A(4) of the Act as its Council Tax requirement for the year (Item R in the formula in Section 31B(1) of the Act).

4(d)  £211.54  being the amount at 4(c) above (Item R), divided by 3 above (Item T), calculated by the Council in accordance with Section 31B of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year (including Parish/Town precepts).

4(e)  £2,479,722  being the aggregate amount of all special items (the amount at 2 above and Parish/Town precepts) referred to in Section 35(1) of the Act.

4(f)  £163.91  being the amount at 4(d) above less the result given by dividing the amount at 4(e) above by 3 above (Item T), calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 34(2) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which no Parish/Town precept relates.

4(g)  Part of the Council’s area: 

being the amounts given by adding to the amount at 4(f) above, the amounts of the special item or items relating to dwellings in those parts of the Council's area mentioned above divided in each case by the Council Tax Base for that part of the Council's area, calculated by the Council in accordance with Section 34(3) of the Act as the basic amounts of its Council Tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which one or more special items relate.

4(h)  Part of the Council’s area:

Valuation Bands

being the amounts given by multiplying the amounts at 4(g) above by the number which, in the proportion set out in Section 5(1) of the Act, is applicable to dwellings listed in a particular valuation band divided by the number which, in that proportion, is applicable to dwellings listed in valuation band D, calculated by the Council in accordance with Section 36(1) of the Act as the amounts to be taken into account for the year in respect of categories of dwellings listed in different valuation bands.

5.  That in accordance with Section 52ZB of the Act, the Council's basic amount of Council Tax for the year 2024/2025 is not excessive.

6.  That the following details in respect of precept authorities are noted. These figures are based on anticipated budget amounts that will be approved by the various preceptors between the publication of this agenda and the Council meeting. Any changes to the figures below will be reported accordingly.

6(a)  For the year 2024/2025, the Hampshire County Council have stated the following amounts in precepts issued to the Council, in accordance with the requirements of the Act, for each of the categories of dwellings shown below:

Valuation Bands

6(b)  For the year 2024/2025, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire has stated the following amounts in precepts issued to the Council, in accordance with the requirements of the Act, for each of the categories of dwellings shown below:

Valuation Bands

6(c)  For the year 2024/2025, the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Authority have stated the following amounts in precepts issued to the Council, in accordance with the requirements of the Act, for each of the categories of dwellings shown below:

Valuation Bands

7.  That having calculated the aggregate in each case of the amounts at 4(h) and 6(a), 6(b) and 6(c) above, the Council, in accordance with the requirements of the Act, hereby sets the following amounts as the amounts of Council Tax for each of its areas for the year 2024/2025 for each of the categories of dwellings shown below:

Valuation Bands

Councillor Geoff Cooper asked a question in relation to the minutes of the Council meeting held on 17 January 2024, minute number 408 – Notion of Motion – Rule 12. Councillor Geoff Cooper asked whether the Chief Executive had written to the CEO of Aster Group outlining the Council’s concerns and whether he had received a response.

Councillor Adams-King responded to confirm that the Chief Executive had written the letter, but no response had been received to date. Councillor Adams-King further advised that he understood Aster were now looking to assess the maintenance of sewage treatment plants in their ownership to review whether there was outstanding maintenance that should have been undertaken and consider next steps.

Councillor Yalden asked the Recycling and Environmental Services Portfolio Holder the following question:

‘As the Councillor is aware, there are 24 recycling centres in the HWRC network of which 12 are under consultation for closure. Hampshire County Council has stated that Casbrook recycling centre at Romsey will be closed unless there is significant investment. Council leader Rob Humby said: "We currently have 24 HWRCs and we think that's more than any other shire county. He said "We truly believe most of the residents of Hampshire are law abiding and will not fly-tip." However, as you can imagine residents are very angry about these proposals. Will TVBC formally request via the current consultation that HCC retains and upgrades Casbrook Common HWRC?’

Councillor Drew responded to confirm that the Council did not support the closure of the Household Waste and Recycling Centre located at Bunny Lane, Romsey. He noted that it was an important and essential facility that was valued by residents based in the south of the borough and that closing the site would cause an inconvenience to residents who, in many cases, would have to travel much further afield to dispose of their waste.

Councillor Drew further advised that the Council would be making this clear in the formal consultation response to the County Council and thanked Councillor Yalden for her question.

Councillor Yalden asked a supplementary question expressing concern that she felt that the closure of the site could lead to an increase in fly tipping and a reduction in the Council’s recycling rate and that if the centre should be closed would the Borough Council consider assisting with funding to allow the centre to remain open and to make improvements to the facilities available?

Councillor Drew responded that he felt that most residents would not fly tip should the centre close and that the recycling rates at the centre were unlikely to impact on the Council’s own recycling rate as it was owned and operated by Hampshire County Council. He further advised that as the consultation had not yet concluded he would not be supportive of the Council investing funding in the Household Waste and Recycling Centre located at Bunny Lane, Romsey.

Councillor Drew noted that it was vital that all Councillors made their own representations to the consultation and encouraged their communities to do so to.

Councillor Parker asked the Community and Leisure Portfolio Holder the following question:

‘Could the portfolio holder please advise us as to when the report from the consultants conducting the review of tourism in Test Valley will be made available to members?’

Councillor Swain responded that the outcomes of the report were presented to an Overview and Scrutiny Committee roundtable on 22 November 2023 where the consultant outlined the outcome of the study and what actions could be undertaken to best support the tourism sector in the Borough. Councillor Swain confirmed that the Tourism Review report would be made available on a confidential basis to Councillors in the next Councillor Bulletin. 

Councillor Parker asked a supplementary question asking what the timetable was for the recommendations of the tourism review being considered by Cabinet?

Councillor Swain responded that the timetable was not yet confirmed but details would be brought forward once known.

Councillor Parker asked the Democracy and Governance Portfolio Holder the following question:

‘’A recent report from the Electoral Reform Society suggests that as many as 11,696 voters could be missing from the electoral roll for Romsey and Southampton North constituency. Does the portfolio holder believe this figure to be reasonably accurate and, if so, what is being done to increase voter registration?’

Councillor Lodge responded to state that he did not believe the figure to be accurate and that it was unclear what figures the Electoral Reform Society had used, but it was likely that they had scaled national data. Consideration of locally available data showed that there were 55,144 electors registered to vote in parliamentary elections for the constituency with the Office for National Statistics census figures from 2021 suggesting there were 59,187 people aged 18 and over living within that area, which would include residents of all nationalities. Therefore, the figure was likely to be significantly lower.

The council undertook an extensive range of activities to encourage voter registrations including an annual canvass, sending empty property poll cards and leaflets with annual council tax bills, registering people over the phone if they contact the Council to say they have recently moved and working with colleagues in communities to ensure information on registering for elections was available.

Councillor Parker asked a supplementary question enquiring as to whether Southampton City Council, who were responsible for two areas within the parliamentary constituency outside of Test valley, carried out the same number of initiatives and activities to encourage voter registration?

Councillor Lodge responded that the Council had no authority over those two areas within the Southampton City Council boundary and he was therefore unable to advise on the work they undertook, but that Councillor Parker could contact them asking for details.

Councillor Gidley asked that Portfolio holder for Climate Emergency and Countryside the following question:

‘Since the beginning of 2023, how many reports of instances or complaints of pollution in Test Valley's waterways have been brought to the attention of the Portfolio holder and what action has been taken as a result’.

Councillor Adams-King responded as the relevant Portfolio Holder with responsibility for environmental Health. He responded to confirm that the control and regulation of the pollution of waterways lies with the Environment Agency (EA).

The EA did not have a statutory responsibility to report pollution incidents to the Borough Council. Since the beginning of 2023 the EA had however reported two incidents of pollution by Southern Water, to the Council one of which being the recent incident which occurred on the River Test at Fullerton, this week. The incident was reported to him as the relevant portfolio holder, along with the Overview and Scrutiny chairman and local ward members.

The Council had no authority to take action against Southern Water. However, he was pleased to say that the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Local Resilience Forum (LRF) had taken up a number of operational issues up with Southern Water this week. Due to the LRF’s scale and membership, it was the Council’s best chance of getting action from Southern Water.

Councillor Gidley asked a supplementary question to note that she did not believe there had only been two incidents and asked what assurances there were that Southern Water and the EA were reporting what was necessary?

Councillor Adams-King responded that the figure he had reported represented all reports from the EA to the Borough Council but acknowledged this was unlikely to be all incidents that had occurred. He noted that obtaining information from the EA was challenging with further work to understand the number of incidents along with other issues being investigated by the LRF.

Councillor Geoff Cooper asked the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee the following question:

‘Following Councillor Neil Gwynne's motion of November 2022 with amendments from Councillor Adams-King, which was passed by this Council, how many reports from the Portfolio Holder for Climate Emergency and Countryside regarding instances or reports of pollution have been reviewed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee? 

And in light of recent events involving Southern Water, has therebeen any progress by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee insummoning the Chair of Southern Water to appear before the committee, to answer for his company's poor lack of service to residents, including losses of supply and data breaches and for Southern Water's persistent environmental vandalism of our rivers and waterways?’

Councillor Jeffrey responded to confirm that both Southern Water and the Environment Agency had been invited to attend a meeting of the Committee to discuss incidents of pollution and general issues of Southern Water’s performance in Test Valley. The Council had not received a response from Southern Water however, the Environment Agency had indicated that it may send a representative to a future meeting although there had been no confirmation of when this might be. Councillor Jeffrey noted that the committee did not have the power to summons either of the agencies to attend one of its meetings. Councillor Jeffrey would continue to pursue the invitation to both agencies to attend a future meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Councillor Geoff Cooper asked a supplementary question as to whether the request for attendance by the CEO of Southern Water could be broadened to allow an alternative representative from the organisation?

Councillor Jeffrey responded to confirm that he would of course welcome any representative from Southern Water to a meeting of the Committee.

In accordance with the Council’s Public Participation Scheme, Mr Burley made a statement on the Regeneration Programme and Financial Strategy.

Councillors asked Mr Burley a number of questions on his statement which he responded to.

Consideration was given to a report of the Strategic Regeneration and Partnerships (North) which considered the priorities and funding strategy for the delivery of the regeneration programme for Romsey and Andover town centres.

The report set out the background of the masterplans approved for both town centres and highlighted four priority projects which had been identified and well as considering the financial resources available to the Council to meet the forecast cost of the projects, setting out a range of potential funding delivery mechanisms.

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Flood and seconded by Councillor Adams-King.

Resolved:

1.  To approve the regeneration priority projects as identified in section 3 of the report.

2.  To approve the funding strategy for the regeneration programme, as outlined in section 4 of the report.

3.  That £2M be added to the Capital Programme for architectural services for the Romsey Bus Station redevelopment, as set out in paragraph 7.5 of the report, to be funded from the Capital Receipts Reserve and that officers be authorised to procure the works set out in paragraph 3.13 of the report to deliver this.

4.  That £3M be added to the budget for the creation of the linear riverside park at Western Avenue, as set out in paragraph 7.3 of the report, to be funded from the Capital Receipts Reserve.

5.  That the funding sources identified in paragraph 4.30 be approved for delivery of the regeneration projects identified in the report, in respect of:

·  Levelling Up Funding

·  Capital receipts from the disposal of assets

·  Use of Capital Receipts Reserve balances

·  Use of Regeneration Reserve balances

·  Use of Community Infrastructure Levy contributions

Consideration was given to a report of the Democracy and Governance Portfolio Holder which considered the work undertaken by the Member and Community Development Group to consider options available for the broadcasting of the Council’s Democratic meetings.

The Member and Community Development Group had agreed principles for any broadcasting system which had been used in considering the options available to provide a live stream of Council meetings to allow members of the public to access meetings without attending in person.

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Lodge and seconded by Councillor Adams-King.

Councillor Daas proposed an amendment to the second recommendation as set out in the report, to remove the current wording and include that the Council commits to following recommendation 5.18 of the report – option 2 – to install an audio only solution in all 4 current meeting venues. Councillor Gregori seconded the proposed amendment/

Upon being put to the vote, the amendment was carried.

Resolved:

1.  That the work undertaken by the Member and Community Development Group to investigate the implications of broadcasting the Council’s Democratic meetings as set out in the report be noted.

2.  That the Council commits to paragraph 5.18 of the report – Option 2 – to install an audio only solution in all 4 current meeting venues.

Consideration was given to a report of the Leader which set out the Pay Policy Statement for 2024/25. The Council was required in accordance with section 38 of the Localism Act 2011 to prepare and publish an annual Pay Policy Statement.

As a minimum, the pay policy statement must set out the Council’s policies for the financial year relating to:

·  The remuneration of its chief officers,

·  The remuneration of its lowest paid employees,

·  The relationship between the remuneration of its chief officers and the remuneration of its employees who are not chief officers.

The Pay Policy Statement attached as an annex to the report assembled the required statutory information from the Council’s existing policies and presented them as a single document to meet the requirements of the Localism Act.

Councillor Adams-King proposed, and Councillor Flood seconded the recommendation.

Resolved:

That the Pay Policy Statement, attached at the Annex to the report, be approved.

The Mayor moved agenda item 14 forward due to the number of members of the public who had registered to speak on this item.

In accordance with the Council’s Public Participation Scheme, Mr Vignaux, Dr Dougall and Mr Taylor each made a statement on the motion as set out in the agenda.

Councillors asked the public speakers a number of questions on their statements which they responded to.

Council considered the following motion moved by Councillor Drew and seconded by Councillor Hasselman:

This Council strongly opposes Southern Water pumping wastewater into the River Test or its tributaries. The Council is therefore calling on Southern Water to fix the problem by improving its infrastructure more widely and at greater speed, and work with OFWAT and the Environment Agency to enable the required investment funding to be released. In addition, we are calling on all parties to inform and closely engage with affected communities and relevant agencies. Water quality must be monitored and transparency must be maintained by publishing all testing data promptly.

Upon being put to the vote the Motion was carried.