Meeting documents

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Mrs Beattie, Higgins, Marsh, Mrs Mort, Mrs Noblet and Rainsbury.

Councillor Martin declared a personal interest in Items 4 and 5 as an employee of Lancashire County Council but under the Code of Conduct for Elected Members was permitted to remain in the meeting for the duration of those items.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that:
the minutes of the meeting held on 21 January 2015 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

The Leader commended the report of the meeting held on 11 February 2015, with the exception of items 3(b), (c), (d) and 5 which were linked to and would be considered in conjunction with the next item on the agenda (Council Tax Fixing 2015/16). The report was seconded.

Councillor M Green indicated he wished to speak on item 8 (Land at Leyland). As this was an exempt item, consideration was deferred until the end of the meeting.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that:
1) the report be noted, with the exception of items 3(b), (c), (d), 5 and 8.

2) Discretionary Rate Relief Autumn Statement Changes [unanimously]
i) the amended policy in APPENDIX A in the report to remain in force between the 30th September 2013 and expiring on the 1st October 2016 unless otherwise amended and approved by Council; and
ii) the Revenues Manager or responsible officer be given delegated authority to decide upon any application for relief made under this policy taking into account the contents of this policy, the council?s priorities and policies and in addition the advice provided by the Department for Communities and Local Government?s ?Retail Relief - Guidance? and ?New Build Empty Property ? Guidance? documents. This mirrors the provisions contained within our existing Discretionary Rate Relief Policy;

3) Moss Side Playing Fields [unanimously]
Expenditure of up to ?50,000 in Section 106 monies be approved to fund an extension to the existing car park, increasing capacity from 26 spaces to 128 and to widen the access road off Moss Side Way; and

4) Corporate Plan, Budget and Risk Register 2015/16
(a) Corporate Plan and Corporate Risk Register 2015/16 [unanimously]
The Corporate Plan (appendix 1) and the Corporate Risk Register 2015/2016 (appendix 2) be agreed.

Councillor Robinson (Cabinet member for Finance & Resources) started by stating that the amendment to the Capital Programme (Appendix F) circulated before the start of the meeting would be proposed as part of the overall budget.

It had been an honour and privilege to present the budget for this Council since 2009 during what had been almost unprecedented financial circumstances. The goal had been producing the highest possible standards, and the protection of, our frontline services. Despite the Council?s core funding falling by around 46% since 2010, it had had very few redundancies, services most important to the people of South Ribble had been maintained and Council Tax had been frozen for four out of the last five years.

Last year Councillor Robinson had stated a principal reason for this financial success and stability was a commitment to forward planning. Not the wringing of hands and whining to the press when authorities had not looked ahead even though they were aware of future financial settlements and demands. Nor the constant complaints that it was always someone else to blame and a point of no return had been reached where services could not be maintained.

Despite facing over the last five years the toughest percentage reductions of any council in Lancashire, the council?s approach to proper forward planning had put it in a position to propose this budget tonight: one that was optimistic, vibrant and full of exciting plans for the future. This council had a leading role in managing the growth of the borough, along with its communities, neighbours and partners. International auditors Grant Thornton had revealed a few months ago, that as many jobs were created in South Ribble as in Manchester and Liverpool combined over an eight-year period. This put South Ribble at the top of the tree for job creation in the North West, and in 16th place out of 324 regions across the country.

Whilst the administration had said for a long time that South Ribble had been weathering the economic storm better than most, and those remarkable figures clearly showed that had been a major understatement. He was very proud that the borough was already at the heart of the North of England?s economic powerhouse, and could be even stronger in the future through working with businesses and its partners to support growth. That would provide the funding to drive improvements in the hearts of our towns and villages, and there were already significant schemes in the pipeline across the borough, that would enhance South Ribble as a top class place to live, work and do business.

The Cabinet member began by confirming that the Council proposed to freeze its share of Council Tax for the fifth time in six years. However, unfortunately, for the second year in succession, our residents will see a rise in their bills because once again the Labour run County Council and the Labour Police Commissioner have increased their Council Tax share by 1.99%. The maximum allowed without having to consult the people of Lancashire. In addition the Fire Service has also increased its share of tax by the same percentage. Councillor Robinson was sure that the people of South Ribble would notice where financial responsibility was exercised properly and make their opinions known at the ballot box in May.

He emphasised that under this administration the Council had a consistent and excellent track record of meeting financial targets, having achieved more than ?4M in efficiency savings since 2010. He referred to the Council?s annual audit letter, in which the external auditor said that a key challenge facing the Council going forward was that ?the need for robust governance and financial planning and management in local government is greater than ever.? The letter went on to say that ?South Ribble Borough Council has robust arrangements in place to face these challenges.? This statement endorsed the administration?s policy of planning and management.

The aim in 2014/15 was to close a budget gap of more than ?500,000 by identifying savings of ?410,000 and using around ?130,000 of reserves. Although due to the great efforts of members and officers, the Council had made further efficiencies that meant it would not need to use reserves in the current financial year. In 2015/16 whilst there was a projected gross budget deficit of ?775,000 as shown in the report savings of ?590,000 had already been identified. This left approximately ?185,000 of reserves to be used but again the administration would strive to close this gap during the year. In addition, despite all the challenges faced, the Council was forecast to have a budget surplus in 2016/17.

Councillor Robinson then turned to more detail on the economic growth of the area, the role that this council could play in managing it, and the enormous benefits it could bring to residents and businesses. ?50M had already been committed over the next ten years to the Preston, South Ribble and Lancashire City Deal in partnership with Preston City Council and Lancashire County Council. This would bring new homes, thousands of jobs and new community facilities to the area over the next 10 years. The amounts specified in the capital budget were instrumental in producing major new funds from the City Deal. It was planned that over ?10 million would be available for public transport corridors, local centres and Community and Green infrastructure in the next three years. The Council?s commitment would unlock the development potential of sites identified in the local plan, which would release monies through the development process that would be used to drive the ambitious projects to improve its neighbourhoods.

The Council was obliged to provide land for housing and it wanted to attract more businesses to South Ribble. It had plans to make sure this growth was co-ordinated, and that infrastructure such as roads and sustainable transport links were in place first. Ambitions being worked on and to be brought forward included, multi-million pound regeneration of Station Road in Bamber Bridge, as well as future additional investment in schemes covering Penwortham, Longton, Lostock Hall and Leyland. With this in mind, the City Deal and the Council?s aspirations for South Ribble were far more than new roads and buildings. It was committed to improving the facilities available for leisure and recreation, such as over half a million pounds to improve its wonderful array of parks and open spaces in 2015/16.

This would include further investment in our existing three Green Flag-winning parks, like the de-silting of the pond at Worden Park, along with some more community-based projects. This also involves a commitment to the new Central Park, which was an excellent example of the way in which the Council carefully managed the growth of South Ribble. It not only intended to protect the green and rural nature of the borough, but also wanted to enhance it by creating a real community asset that would be treasured by generations to come. The new masterplan demonstrated the breadth of innovative thinking that had gone into the scheme. He quoted Councillor Hughes? apt statement that, ?the images in the plan really help bring the park to life and hopefully bring home to people the sheer scale of our ambitions.?

The Council was also investing in recruitment to support growth, which mirrored its commitment to managing the growth of South Ribble in a co-ordinated way. It has made more than a dozen new appointments in the past three months to bring together the strategic housing and planning services, whilst enabling them to work seamlessly with the people who would be supporting businesses and delivering community improvements.

Those outlined measures represented very substantial capital projects taking place over the next few years but the Council was also concentrating on its day-to-day revenue commitments. The management restructure implemented in 2014/15 saved ?500,000 a year on senior management than five years ago. Such savings, along with many others, had enabled the Council to freeze car parking charges for the sixth year in a row and establish a new apprenticeship scheme from September this year.

Looking forward Councillor Robinson stated a great development was the announcement of a new seven year contract for the critical service of waste collection and control. This contract would produce savings of over ?4M during the period of the agreement. This was great news for residents, who also deserved enormous credit for their efforts to help the council recycle more than 50% of all the waste that was collected in South Ribble last year. That was already the best recycling rate in Lancashire, and the Council will improve the service even further by investing almost ?1.5M in the waste collection fleet in 2015/16. This was a perfect example of the way it worked in recent years: a highly-valued service had been improved through working smarter and embracing new technology, which in turn allowed investments to be made to improve further still.

The Cabinet member then referred to the setting of the Council Tax for 2015/16 and as could be seen, no increase was proposed for the weekly Council tax support deduction. Ordinarily, because of the increases by the county council, police commissioner and fire service, the deduction should rise to ?3.97 per week if those increases were to be passed on to the people affected. However, the Council was holding the amount at ?3.50 per week. A saving of more than 13% of the sum. He added that those Councils with percentage rather than flat rate schemes would pass on this increase automatically. In conjunction with this and a wider range of support for vulnerable people in the budge, ?30,000 per annum was provided to run a personal budgeting service in Gateway. Residents would be able to have one to one sessions to help reduce their debt, lower bills and make their money go further. This would be available all residents not just to those people in receipt of Universal Credit.

The budgeting service, along with a freeze in this Council?s share of Council tax, a high performing benefits service, continued support for the Citizens Advice Bureau and the absorption of the increased Council tax support sums, showed how the Conservatives considered the needs of those people in the Borough that might be struggling financially. The fact the Council was able to give such extensive support to those in need demonstrated that proper stewardship of finance was far more effective than merely throwing money at a problem that had been the Labour Party?s response to any difficulties that arise. It was little wonder that the Conservatives were trusted so much more with money and economics both locally and nationally.

Councillor Robinson went on to state that this success had been considerably helped by the great officer team which supported members of the Council in so many ways. He took the opportunity to thank the Shared Heads of Assurance Services and Financial Services and their teams for their much appreciated efforts. Also the Revenue Services Manager and his team, who was shortly leaving the Council, wishing him well for the future. On a personal note, he added that this was his last budget presentation as he would stand down in May. At which point he expressed sincere thanks to the Chief Executive and the senior management team. Also thanking his Conservative colleagues for their support and whose efforts over the last few years were reflected in the exciting proposals the Council was able to publish for the coming years.

Councillor Robinson moved the statutory resolution, which included all the elements of Council Tax and also moved those items deferred from the previous item (Report of the Cabinet, min. no.80 refers). The Conservative administration had faced many difficult and seemingly insoluble financial problems and dealt with them all head on. Services had been maintained, staffing levels protected in almost every sense and due to advance planning and imaginative management major developments and projects were now in place and being implemented. There was no complacency ? much still needed to accomplish and much to produce for the Borough of South Ribble and its residents. The Council had come a long way in the past eight years and would continue to progress in the years ahead ? the job was not yet done. He hoped and trusted those achievements would produce the right result on 7 May.

He commended this budget to the Council and its residents.
The Leader of the Council (Councillor Mrs M Smith) was pleased to second Councillor Robinson and thanked him for his work.

Councillor Foster rose and spoke to the administration?s budget and proposed an alternative. He felt that whilst acknowledging that Councillor Robinson had spoken eloquently the administration?s proposal had not real substance and was more of the same. There had been 8 years of this administration which had been accused of being out of touch and how the government?s measures had had a negative impact no only on the vulnerable but everyone.

He stated that this could be demonstrated in a number of areas such as: published 2014 Personal Wellbeing Survey were nationally, South Ribble was in the bottom 5; figures last week showed women in South Ribble were not being paid the living wage with a staggering 47.9% earning less than ?7.85 an hour (third worst in the North West) and South Ribble was also third worst in the region for men and women combined (38.1% on less than the living wage) and; looking at official data relating to the provision of affordable housing, this council was the second worse performing authority in Lancashire. This did not depict a flourishing borough of content, but rather out of touch, ideas and sit back and wither. Whilst other authorities such as Chorley, Preston, West Lancashire and the County Council were are all coming up with exciting new initiatives; this council?s administration had produced its earlier proposals that failed to address those issues.

Councillor Foster added it was therefore time for progressive ideas in South Ribble, the time had come for an outward thinking administration that delivered initiatives that brought improvements across the borough, not just Longton and Walmer Bridge. An administration that did everything it could to support young people, the unemployed, the hungry, dealt with anti-social behaviour, and made use of all resources available to create once again a great place to live, work and play. He Foster then outlined Labour Group?s amendment to the Budget (copies of which were then circulated).

However, before Councillor Foster went into detail of the alternative budget and significant policy changes his group would deliver following the May elections. He added that it wanted to make it clear that all the budget assumptions had been independently validated with either this council?s officers or neighbouring authorities, whom they thanked. The assumptions were made based on data contained in the Financial Strategy, Budget and Council Tax 2015/16 paper before this council. Councillor Foster also stated that his group had assumed like the Conservative administration, that the stated efficiency targets within the current budget wold be met, as they had in previous years. He also confirmed that the revised budget would result in no additional Council Tax requirement, even with all that he was about to suggest, the Labour group would deliver a freeze in Council Tax. A Labour Council would deliver far more for less. It wold put the residents first and provide support and opportunities for all, as a priority, whilst ensuring it was effective and efficient.

Councillor Foster then presented the following headlines to the council.
- a cleaner borough ? additional resources to guarantee cleaner streets;
- car parking enforcement ? additional resources to ensure that the disabled could access dropped kerbs, local permit holders could readily park near their homes, and council car parks were utilised more fully;
- disabled facility grant (DFG) ? never allow repeat situation where council sat on ?350,000 of grant leaving most vulnerable exposed. A study be commissioned looking at the feasibility of grant being facilitated by a third party for the council along with the option of the provider offering a loan system for those who could not afford the capital contribution up front;
- employment opportunities for the young ? ensure that every area of the borough, particularly the most deprived, received direct support in finding employment opportunities for young adults. Looking to facilitate job fairs in conjunction with the job centre/local industries/training providers in each borough area. Introduction of a bursary scheme for those young people not in employment, education or training for a period over 6 months;
- major public open air events ? liaison with local/regional/national event coordinators and promoters with a view to at least one major annual event staged within our large parks (Worden/Withy/Hurst Grange) each and every year.
- my neighbourhood forums ? change their constitution to allow a much more fluid/timely decision making process so that these forums could actually make a significant difference. Also review their number and boundaries with a view to making them fit for purpose and encourage more closer working with Town & Parish Councils;
- improving leisure facilities ? not only a priority to both improve leisure facilities as well as the current commercial & contractual negotiations be brought to a swift resolution considering all options reporting;
- skate park ? look at providing this in the borough for younger people;
- credit unions ? look at supporting the provision of a South Ribble credit union along the lines of the schemes in Preston and Chorley;
- a living wage authority ? immediately adopt this as a policy and ensure that all council suppliers did the same or they would not work with the Council;
- supporting our food banks ? whilst numerous options were available to the Council, it would adopt policies that actively supported food banks in South Ribble;
- affordable housing ? in respect of provision, actively look at all opportunities available to take the Council from one of the worst to best performing in Lancashire. Also, strive to ensure the minimum requirement of 30% provision within all new developments. Immediately start dialogue with the local housing associations with a view to using ?1.1m of reserved Right to Buy precepts currently held by the Council. This sum was not part of the Council?s ?11.6m General Reserve Fund but held separately. Therefore this ?1.1m investment had no impact on either the Council?s Revenue Budget or General Reserves but would hugely impact for residents;
- supporting the voluntary sector ? the Council should be in a position to offer certain services and/or officers time in the support of local charities/ voluntary sector at no cost. Its further facilitation would be looked at with the South Ribble Partnership.

Councillor Foster commented that this highlighted significant Council policy changes but as stated earlier, it must be in a position where the Council provided more for less. He then turned to the Council?s Shared Services agreement with Chorley Borough Council, which he and his group had no hesitation in stating that this had been a successful policy with significant efficiencies achieved. However, Councillor Foster stated that there was still much to be achieved on this topic. He understood the Cabinet was split on taking this further but his group was not. As a result of his group with support of neighbouring authorities completing an in depth review of both shared services and organisational structure of this Council, full year additional efficiencies of ?500,000 per year. In 2015, given a newly elected Labour Council would only be a partial year, a saving of ?350,000 from the 2015/16 Revenue Budget was estimated. Councillor Foster was confident this was realistically achieved by fully embracing the Shared Services agenda, and the introduction of a much more dynamic organisational structure. All, whilst retaining the standards and individual identity of the Borough of South Ribble.

Councillor Foster repeated his group promised more for less, and went on to indicate how their initiatives would be delivered;
- utilise some of the generated saving to balance the 2015/16 budget (not requiring a balance from the Council?s reserves) and as a recurring saving balance the 2016/17 budget and again not requiring funds from reserves. More for less.
- initiatives and employment for our young people ? whilst the administration?s announced apprenticeship scheme was welcomed it was not enough. He stated a commitment to double that number to eight.
- funding for an additional Parking Enforcement Officer
- funding for an additional My Neighbourhood Hit Squad
- funding for an additional My Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer
- funding for an Employment Bursary for Young People for those that had not been in employment, education or training for a period of more than 6 months. The Council would operate a grant scheme and award ?2000 to small/medium employers that offered employment/apprenticeships to those people. Thus getting young people into work, supporting local employers, and providing real jobs.

Councillor Foster summarised that the foregoing identified recurring efficiencies balancing the budget, created more employment opportunities for the young, produced a cleaner borough and parking with no increase in Council Tax or monies from reserves and made available ?1+m for affordable housing..

Councillor Foster then turned to the topic of Council?s reserves (currently ?11.6m). It was felt that this was a ridiculously large amount of tax payers? money held by this Council being only ?2m short of the Council?s annual funding requirement. He referred to the government?s Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles MP, who had stated local authorities were keeping too much in reserve that negatively impacted on their central government settlement. This money belongs to the borough?s residents. This money belonged to the borough?s residents.

Whilst Councillor Foster and his group agreed wholeheartedly in capital receipts being reserved for the unknown, rainy day and the upkeep of the estate, such a large amount simply could not be justified. It should be invested into the borough to benefit the people who are paying the taxes in the first place. Therefore Councillor Foster went on to announce, in addition to the spending plans of the current administration, that under his group?s administration the following capital contributions would also be allocated.
- parks and open spaces had suffered under investment and it was proposed to have a challenging programme to upgrade these across the borough.
- Worden Park ? additional ?100,000 pa for the next 3 years;
- Withy Grove Park ? additional ?100,000 pa for the next 3 years;
- Hurst Grange/Middleforth ? additional ?100,000 pa for the next 3 years;
- Longton Brickcroft ? additional ?50,000 pa for the next 2 years;
- Lostock Hall ? upgrade of outside sports facilities ? additional ?150,000; and
- Other parks within the borough ? additional fund of ?50,000 pa for the next 3 years.
- regeneration of our town and district centres on which Councillor Foster was critical of the administration?s prioritisation of and performance in areas, and proposed
- Leyland Town Centre ? additional ?200,000
- Walton Le Dale ? additional ?100,000
- Penwortham ? additional ?100,000
.
Councillor Foster summed up the expenditure figures for the above additional proposals and stated that the Council?s General Reserve was estimated to be ?12.235m (31/03/16), ?9.954m (31/03/17) and ?9.488m on March 2018 and still standing at almost ?4m as at 31 March 2018. He was sure all members would agree that following the full delivery of those plans, the Council?s reserves would still be particularly healthy.

Then in addition Councillor Foster referred to an ongoing issue of unallocated s106 funds held by the Council. These were funds separate to the reserves and given to the Council by developers for the benefit of the residents impacted by their developments. The total balance of those funds was currently over ?1m. However, it was suggested that under this administration there seems to be a lack of urgency to spend those funds (unless it becomes politically expedient to do so). However, Councillor Foster stated that under a Labour administration, the applicable Neighbourhood forums would be actively encouraged to use that money as it was intended. He identified current funds available as Western Parishes ?161,000; Penwortham ?30,000; Central ?199,000; Eastern ?504,000 (?350k related to Bamber Bridge) and Leyland ?244,000. The forums would be encouraged to redevelop and reprioritise local plans with a view to those funds been made available immediately.

Councillor Foster summed up and proposed an alternative progressive, outward looking budget that delivered far more for less for the Council and residents of the borough with Progress with Humanity. The amendment was seconded by Councillor M Tomlinson.

Councillor Titherington spoke in support of Councillor Foster and the alternative budget, which was felt to compliment that proposed by the Conservative administration. Yet it had a different ethos by focusing on what mattered to residents. He was astounded that the Council had held some Section 106 monies for up to 20 years. The Council had to ask itself was it making the best use of the resources it had available. The administrations emphasis appeared to have been to reduce the budget. Whilst the Council had large reserves, the development of the town centre had slowed, Worden Park was empty, it had lost its catering service, there were insufficient funds to clean (litter/dog fouling/car parking etc) the borough and, its performance on affordable housing was the second worst in the county. The original budget lacked imagination and thought whilst the alternative displayed initiative and drive with genuine efficiencies not cuts. It addressed under investment, opportunities for the young, low pay, re-engaged and re-invigorated the parks. The alternative budget had been carefully prepared/costed with professional/independent assistance. It looked to realise aspirations for the borough.

Councillor Bell felt that Labour?s proposal was a very viable alternative, providing help for young people, jobs and bursaries (commenting on the number of people in the borough that met the proposed criteria) and improving the provision of affordable housing.

Councillor Crook commended Councillor Foster and welcomed the proposed alternative budget. In particular the aspect to improve the provision of affordable housing. He then provided figures relating to numbers of units granted planning permission and the number of those built and still outstanding (99 built/231 outstanding). He added that the strategic housing assessment had predicted a 660 pa unit shortfall commenting that this cleared identified a problem needing to be addressed with a radical approach. Councillor Crook was quite confident Councillor Foster?s proposal would go some way to rectify this and fully supported the amendment.

Councillor K Jones referred to the alternatives for the My Neighbourhood Forums, stating he was shocked at the level of surplus monies, amounts of Section 106 monies appeared to have been squirreled away. The announced scheme for Walmer Bridge, was this coincidence or a response to pressure from UKIP. He called for monies to be released and given to the My Neighbourhood Forums which were unfortunately currently limited to 10 projects. The alternative budget would increase the borough?s attraction as a great place to work, do business and live. He commented the alternative amendment.

Councillor Mrs S Jones welcomed the proposed increased funding to tackle the cleanliness of the borough. In particular additional Neighbourhood Team staff. The existing staff consistently responded to councillors and residents and this proposal of additional staff would enhance the service. She concurred that South Ribble was a good place to live and work and commended the alternative budget.

The Leader (Councillor Mrs M Smith) commented that imitation was the sincerest form of flattery which was how the Labour amendment appeared. The budget already included ?100,000 for Worden Park and additional funding for Withy Grove Park. The borough would receive a lot more through funding from the City Deal. She was amazed at the comments relating to Walmer Bridge and Longton, some years ago Leyland had received priority, and was scheduled to receive more funding. The master plan was to be re-visited. Longton Brickcroft had recently received investment in the region of ?100,000. The Council was creating a new Central Park (?100,000) with ?40,000 to develop a master plan. She added that there was already an amazing amount in the original budget and the alternative just added a little more but was not a very comprehensive vision. The proposed Apprentice Scheme was just a start. In addition the Council through its leisure centres was working with Preston?s College which could see around another 18 apprenticeships. She felt that the existing hit squads were very effective and commended their work in keeping the borough clean. The Leader had not seen anything earthshattering in the alternative budget and would vote against it.

Councillor Martin felt that in real terms there had been an underinvestment in parks which needed to be let breath again.

Councillor Watts commented that there were many virtues to Councillor Foster?s amendment
Such as an additional parking enforcement officer (something the late Councillor Hanson had tried to secure in Bamber Bridge for many years). This small additional service in conjunction with the county council was at no cost to this council.

Councillor P Smith (Cabinet member for Regeneration, Leisure & Healthy Communities) stated he would vote against the amendment. In respect of leisure/Serco and the opposition?s comments, they needed to have an understand contracts which they had not. The council was investing funds to do a job properly and the City Deal (generated by this Conservative Council and the former Conservative County Council) provided numerous opportunities.

Councillor Michael Green thanked Councillor Foster for his amendment and wondered if he would run for Leadership of the Labour Group. In respect of South Ribble withering, eight years ago the opposition had been happy to sell us out of existence. In respect of Section 106 monies and the Leyland Neighbourhood, Labour members with a majority failed to put forward suggestions. He suggested that Labour?s DNA was to increase Council tax and reduce services (cuts) citing the current Labour administration of the County Council and the Labour Police and Crime Commissioner.

Councillor Titherington felt there had been a misrepresentation. Initially the Leyland Neighbourhood had looked at a ?200,000 plan but was subsequently informed by the Cabinet member that this was not a matter for the forum to decide but Cabinet. In addition the master plan for Leyland had made little progress under the current administration.

Councillor O?Hare started with an apology, because whilst it was 4 March based on comments so far between members he wondered if it was still pantomime season or was there an election? Members were elected to serve the people and they should reflect on this. He felt Councillor Foster had read to the press. Councillor K Jones referred to squirrelling monies yet the Council?s finances were regularly independently audited and by committees. The figures had always been there to look at/find. He had reservations on the aspects of the alternative budget, some of which lacked detail. Based on the Labour Group?s reactions at the previous meeting of Council, he was surprised they had now simply circulated the alternative budget at the meeting. Councillor O?Hare referred to former Councillor Gore (when Leader of the Council) that the budget was future based planning and should not be presented as a knee jerk reaction. Councillor O?Hare stated he would vote against the amendment.

Councillor Mrs Moon thanked Councillor Mrs S Jones and agreed that South Ribble was good and could be better. However, she was worried about some of the amendments proposals. In respect of DFG this would increase the cost of administration and regarding the bursary scheme for youths, she worked in this area and felt the issues had been under estimated. Also the amendment mentioned a number of things that were not in this Council?s control/delivery ? problems with young/youths were the burden of the county council. In respect of Foodbanks these were unregulated. It appeared that Labour was back to short termism, which was the wrong way. Also she did not agree with the comments around S106 monies because with a strong degree of tenacity she had managed to deliver a fantastic project along with other Labour members.

Councillor Hughes (Cabinet member for Strategic Planning & Housing) referred to previous comments about DFG and affordable housing and confirmed that the administration was serious about these. In respect of monies squirrelled away, he reminded members that the current administration had been in control for the last eight years and some of these monies pre-dated that. He accepted that affordable housing was an issue and problem which needed developments in the borough (through planning permissions) and then a developer to put down bricks and mortar to get 30%. Also a housing associate has to finance at discounted rate and if there isn?t one in the borough then the Council is stuck. He confirmed more affordable homes were needed and the Council was doing what it could. Councillor Hughes was disappointed about the DFG comments, as this was now doing very well. Yes there had been a problem but that had been resolved and the Council was now as good as anyone and if someone could not get a grant, it would help them with the County Council.

Councillor W Bennett was disappointed by the level of debate between members. He was glad to see some proposals but would have been better if sooner. He agreed with Councillor Mrs M Smith?s comment that the amendment was the same as his group?s proposal but more money. Whilst ?1m sounded good it was only about 10-12 houses and it sounded like the amendment said 30% or nothing which would be counter-productive. Whilst Labour stated My Neighbourhoods not fit, he had arranged a drainage scheme valued at ?40,000. He was surprised by the projected ?350,000 saving through shared services especially as there was nothing to back it up. He felt that the amendment might have ahd one or two pints but not the way presented and the figures did not stack up, he would vote against it.

Councillor Howarth commented that he dreaded the budget meeting before an election. He thought he had missed it as he?d seen a leaflet stating it had been set. In respect of short term planning, two years ago the County Council put its part of Council Tax down by 2% and it was now catching up. He hoped members would agree that what mattered were the residents of the borough. He suggested that members agreed to set the Council?s budget and start delivering services to the people, which was what members were here to do.

Councillor Mullineaux (Deputy Leader & Cabinet member for Neighbourhoods and Streetscene) commented that plenty had been said tonight. He did not agree that there was a blight on the borough?s streets. Nor did he feel that the amendment was a credible budget, basically the original budget with a few items changed. It could have been better though through and presented.

Councillor M Tomlinson had been surprised by the administration tonight, tabling a further amendment to the budget only two weeks after making an earlier amendment, which did not seem like strategic thinking. He commented that flattery was the sincerest form of praise and acknowledged that the administration had done some things well, but his group wanted to do more. In respect of a comment that his group had not given prior notice of its proposals, Councillor M Tomlinson stated he had not had prior invitation to comment on the administration?s budget plans.

Councillor M Tomlinson added his thanks to the Chief Executive and his staff for their advice during this process. He also thanked his group for their thoughtful contributions and thanked colleagues in other local authorities for their support, advice and guidance. He would not dwell too much on the submitted alternate figures, it was now for individual members of the Council to decide whether to support those proposals or not.

He pointed out that the amendment proposed the beginning of a radical new direction for the Council. It recognised that, whatever members? own private views were about the validity of the concept of austerity, there was little chance of any increase in Central Government funding in future. Indeed, he suggested that a complete end to Central Government support for local authorities was not too far away. Therefore in that environment it was vital that the Council worked with partners to ensure that any back office functions of our organisations were delivered in the most efficient manner possible, thus freeing up funds to be spent out in our communities. The proposed alternative budget marked a step change in the approach to that process, freeing monies spent in the Civic Centre, to spend it out in our neighbourhoods.

Councillor M Tomlinson commented that he wanted to highlight a couple of issues, such as the release of ?1m to support the provision of affordable housing that was seen as a moral issue. It was money given to the Council as a direct result of the sale of former Council houses. Whilst families in the borough had to pay the bedroom tax and could not move because there are no smaller properties to go to, it could not be right that the Council continued to hold this money in its bank account. The proposal would free up that ?1m to contribute to the delivery of much needed smaller, affordable homes in the borough.

He added that his group had for some time said that the Council?s reserves were too high. Although some would say it was right to hold money ?for a rainy day?, frankly, the Council could comfortably survive a deluge of biblical proportions with its current holdings of around ?12 million. There was over ?3m (General Reserve), ?1.8m (ICT Strategy Reserve), ?2.2m (Asset Management Reserve), over ?350,000 (Organisational Restructure Reserve) and, a myriad of other smaller amounts squirreled away, and then, finally, over ?900,000 (unidentified ?Others? Reserve) simply could not be justified. It was proposed that a sizable chunk of this money, which was the residents? money after all, be set to work out in our community.

Councillor M Tomlinson commented on the plans to change the way the Council dealt with Section 106 monies. In the future a Cabinet member would not be able to announce a last minute amendment to a pre-election budget that offered a ?windfall? to a part of the borough for purely political reasons. The village of Walmer Bridge had recently benefitted from the largesse of Councillor Smith who announced such a ?windfall? last month. When asked where the money was coming from, Councillor Tomlinson stated he was told ?Why, it?s Section 106 monies!? In other words, it was money the Council already had in the bank from developers for the benefit of local residents and which had been sat in that bank account here in the Civic Centre, until Cabinet decided it was politically convenient to spend it. That was not the way to treat our residents, and the alternative proposal would make sure it couldn?t happen in future.

Councillor M Tomlinson stated that he had got elected so that he could hoard Council Tax payer?s money in the Civic Centre. He was elected to improve the borough that was proud to call home. He called upon the other Groups on the Council to join us and show that even in a time of so called austerity South Ribble Borough Council could offer real hope, real ambition and a real vision for the future. Councillor Tomlinson was delighted to be able to second this amendment and I commended it to the whole Council.

Councillor Foster responding to comments on the proposed alternative budget indicated that Labour?s proposals were in addition to the original budget not an imitation. He reminded members that the Council had a history of underspend (year on year) on its Capital Programme which would not happen under a Labour administration. This alternative was not knee jerk but had been discussed with officers etc over the last six months. The explanation given by the administration on affordable housing was not a reason not to invest monies to improve delivery. Those monies would produce far more than the suggested 10-12 properties and the proposal included an adherence to the Council?s existing planning policy to achieve 30% affordable housing. Labour was presenting a progressive and outward looking budget providing more for less with no budget gap.

The Mayor invited members to vote on the amendment. The vote was lost.

(YES (21) - Councillors Ms Bell, S Bennett, Bradley, Crook, Evans, Forrest, Foster, Harrison, Heyworth, Howarth, K Jones, Mrs S Jones, Kelly, Martin, Patten, Pimblett, Ms Prynn, Titherington, C Tomlinson, M Tomlinson and Watts)
(NO (27) - Councillors Mrs Ball, W Bennett, Clark, Coulton, Mrs D Gardner, M Gardner, Mrs Mary Green, Michael Green, Hamman, Hesketh, Mrs Hothersall, Hughes, Mrs Moon, Mullineaux, Nelson, O'Hare, Ogilvie, Otter, Robinson, Mrs M Smith, P Smith, Stettner, Suthers, Miss Walker, Walton, Mrs Woollard and Yates)

Councillor M Tomlinson stated that he had read the budget and there was much that could be supported but was disappointed his group?s amendment had not been supported. However, his group would support the administration?s proposed budget.

The Mayor then invited members to vote on the original proposal.

RESOLVED (unanimously )
(Councillors Mrs Ball, Ms Bell, S Bennett, W Bennett, Bradley, Clark, Coulton, Crook, Evans, Forrest, Foster, Mrs D Gardner, M Gardner, Mrs Mary Green, Michael Green, Hamman, Harrison, Hesketh, Heyworth, Mrs Hothersall, Howarth, Hughes, K Jones, Mrs S Jones, Kelly, Martin, Mrs Moon, Mullineaux, Nelson, O'Hare, Ogilvie, Otter, Patten, Pimblett, Ms Prynn, Robinson, Mrs M Smith, P Smith, Stettner, Suthers, Titherington, C Tomlinson, M Tomlinson, Miss Walker, Walton, Watts, Mrs Woollard and Yates)) :

1. That, with regard to the financial strategy, budget and council tax 20015/16, personal budgeting service, apprenticeship scheme and treasury strategy 2015/16 to 2016/17 items deferred from the report of the Cabinet under min. no.80 above:-
a) Financial Strategy, Budget and Council Tax 20015/16
Revenue Estimates
1. That the council's revised estimates for 2014/15, the original estimate for 2015/16 and indicative original estimates for 2016/17 through to 2018/19, summarised at Appendix A be approved;
2. That Appendix E and the proposed budget efficiency targets designed to further improve efficiency/increase income and reduce the forecast budget deficit be approved;
3. That the assessment on the level of reserves for 2015/16 be endorsed;
4. That the forecast residual revenue funding deficit in 2015/16 (?0.185 million) be addressed through making appropriate contributions from the General Fund Reserve;
5. That a Borough Council Net Expenditure requirement for 2015/16 (including parish/town council precepts) adequate to support the delivery of the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) be approved;
6. That the Chief Executive be authorised to deal with all staffing issues arising from the report within the agreed budget and in accordance with the council?s human resources policies in consultation with the Leader, and in her absence the Deputy Leader, and the Cabinet member with responsibility for Finance and Resources and, as appropriate, other relevant Cabinet Members;
Council Tax
7. That the Borough Council?s Band D equivalent Council Tax for 2015/16, remain at the same level as for 2014/15 being ?208.38. This will entitle the Council to receive an estimated Council Tax Freezing Grant in the sum of ?77,000;
8. That the reduction in Council Tax support applicable to working age claimants be ?3.50 with effect from 1 April 2015;
Capital Programme and Budget
9. That the Capital Programme as amended, as set out in revised Appendix F and its proposed funding be approved.

b) Personal Budgeting Service
That to continue with Personal Budgeting Support service providing funding as set out in the Financial Strategy Budget & Council Tax 2015/16 report be agreed;

c) Apprentice Scheme
That the proposal to introduce an Apprenticeship Scheme, as set out in the Financial Strategy Budget & Council Tax 2015/16 report be agreed;

d) Treasury Strategy 2015/16 to 2016/17
1. That the following be approved:
The Prudential Indicators for 2015/16 to 2017/18.
The Treasury Management Strategy and Treasury Prudential Indicators for 2015/16.
The Annual Investment Strategy 2015/16.
The Annual Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) Policy Statement 2015/16.
2. That a review of investment counterparties (financial institutions and investment criteria) be presented to Governance Committee during 2015/16.

2. That the formal Council Tax resolution Appended to these minutes and the revised budget for 2014/15 and proposed council budget for 2015/16 be approved.

RESOLVED (unanimously):
that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following two items of the report of the Report of the Cabinet as they involved the discussion of information defined as exempt from publication under paragraph 3, Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, ?information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings? and, in which the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing it.

Land at Leyland
Councillor M Green agreed it had been the right decision to defer consideration of this item at the meeting held on 21 January 2015. This had also given an opportunity to further look at issues in the Paradise Park area, and ensure the right development for the community and South Ribble.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that:
1. the terms provisionally agreed for the disposal of land at Moss Side, Leyland be approved; and
2. the Council enter into a new ?clawback? agreement with the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) which provides for recovery of 50% of the proceeds if the Council disposes of any part of Paradise Park within the next 21 years.