Agenda item

BUDGET CONSULTATION 2021-22

Meeting of County Council, Wednesday, 24th February, 2021 3.00 pm (Item 6.)

This report provides a summary result of the budget consultation undertaken between 10th December 2020 and 21st January 2021. The budget consultation helps to inform the Council’s Budget and Medium-Term Financial Plan (see pages 147-158).

Minutes:

BUDGET CONSULTATION 2021-22, BUDGET 2021-22 AND MTFP 2021-24 AND COUNCIL TAX 2021-22

These items on the agenda were dealt with as one.

Budget Consultation 2021-22

The report provided a summary result of the budget consultation undertaken between 10th December 2020 and 21st January 2021. The budget consultation helped to inform the Council’s Budget and Medium-Term Financial Plan.

Budget 2021-22 and MTFP 2021-24

The report provided the Revenue Budget for 2021-22 and Revenue Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP) 2021-24 and the Capital Budget for 2021-22 and Capital MTFP to 2021-24, following the Government’s Spending Round Announcement 2020 (SR 2020), on 25 November 2020, and the publication of the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement on 17 December 2020.

Addendum to the Budget 2021-22 and Medium-Term Financial Plan

2021-24 Report

The report updated members with matters relating to the Budget 2021-22 which had arisen following publication of the report which was presented to an all member Corporate Services and Economic Growth Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 8 February 2021 and Cabinet on 9 February 2021.

Council Tax 2021-22

The report provided Council Members with the financial information to enable the Council to calculate and set the Council Tax for 2021-22.

The Leader introduced these matters and referred to the high quality of staff who delivered the Council’s services, adding that there would be no compulsory redundancies. Consultation had been much wider than in previous years and he thanked those who had participated in it. He detailed the key findings from the consultation and the main points of the Administration’s achievements, priorities and investments.

Councillor Oliver commented that this was very positive and equitable budget with investment in all parts of the County. He thanked everyone who had been involved in putting the budget together. Regarding efficiencies, the aim was to improve front line services by finding more modern ways of doing things. Council Tax support would be doubled for those who needed it and one of the Administration’s priorities was to rebuild the economy post Covid through jobs and investment. He recommended the budget to members.

A number of comments were made including the following:-

· Councillor Dungworth commented this was an election year budget with lots of empty promises that would not be delivered. Half of the Administration’s achievements had begun under the previous Administration and they had not delivered for schools in Seaton Valley, Amble and Berwick, they had not delivered regeneration for Bedlington and Ashington, and they had not significantly changed people’s lives in the poorest communities in Northumberland. The vast majority of people in the County had seen no change. In the last ten years of Conservative Government there had been a £47.88m reduction in the Council’s funding. The budget made no reference to outstanding liabilities currently facing the Council through Advance Northumberland and money spent on this meant less to spend on residents. She urged the Administration to properly start delivering for those communities that needed it.

· Councillor Dickinson asked whether the Leader or Councillor Oliver had just presented the budget. He agreed this was an election budget that would level £30m worth of cuts after it. It let communities down and would not deliver what it said. He also did not agree with the change in agenda order.

· Councillor Hill commented that some proposals in the budget were good, but she was very disappointed in what was happening with the investment in Berwick schools, which demonstrated the Administration’s change in priorities and failure in leadership. Two years ago, £15m had been put into the budget to set the ball rolling but since then nothing had happened. This approach was likely to lead to complete failure of the project and Covid could not be blamed for the delays. The ambition had been capped. She had challenged the delays and the limitations to the project and had cross party support for that, but she did not know how to answer parents when they asked her what was happening. The situation was not acceptable and she proposed an amendment in the Capital Programme (pg 92) Berwick Partnership Schools to (1) increase the figure from 2021-22 from £0 to £250,000 to be taken from the contingency to support grant funded projects; and (2) to increase the additional budget commitment (pg 38) from £30.403m to £33.403m to ensure that the business case and other work could commence straight away and reverse the delays to the project. It increased the overall budget commitment from £19.74m to £40m. This was seconded by Councillor Dungworth.

· Councillor Renner Thompson replied that everyone agreed on spending money on the Berwick Partnership and that it needed to brought forward in as timely a way as possible. Officers had been working on this for some time, but it would not be possible to have a top down reorganisation of a partnership without taking the schools along. He was in discussion with the school and there were plans for consultation to begin in March, and if agreement could be reached then the funding would be brought forward. However, officers could not prepare the budget for it until the plan had been agreed by all parties. The £5m in the budget would build a high school. He wanted an academy on the site, but this had to be agreed.

· Councillor Oliver disagreed that the Administration had not delivered on its promises and detailed the priorities which had been delivered.

· Councillor Jackson commented that he was proud of the investment in schools over the last four years totalling £101.2m which had had a huge impact on the school estate. There had to be a clear plan for investment which was supported by the local community. This consensus of opinion had not been agreed in the Berwick area and it was irresponsible to pluck a figure of £40m out of the air.

· Councillor Bowman supported the amendment and expressed concern that £21m had been taken out of the budget for schools in Seaton Valley previously and had been again. Nothing had been delivered.

· Councillor Renner Thompson did not agree; the budget had been increased to £31.6m at the request of the Governing Body of the High School and work would begin in April 2022. The narrative that nothing was being delivered was just not true. There had been some slippage on the larger projects due to Covid.

· Councillor Dungworth proposed an amendment to Councillor Hill’s amendment, with her permission, to bring forward the schools spending in Amble and Seaton Valley, and that a working group be set up to look at how the next two years projects could be brought forward into one year and started straight away. She was aware of why these projects had been pulled in the past and they had not been officer decisions, they had been political ones. Her Group fully supported the projects in Berwick, Seaton Valley and Amble, but they had been delayed numerous times.

· Councillor Clark supported the amendment because this investment was vitally needed in schools.

· Councillor Daley agreed that there had been a clear focus on attainment and investment from the Administration which had been achieved. He had a lot of sympathy with Councillors Hill’s and Dungworth’s comments and agreed that investment was very badly needed. Bringing £250,000 forward to produce a business case did not need an amendment. There was already an Education Improvement Board which could look at the assessment of capital bids going forward. However, there was a massive revenue implication for everyone million pounds of capital and whilst everyone wanted investment, he was concerned about trying to move significant amounts of money around at a budget meeting without proper assessment of the implications. He did agree with the sentiments expressed about the delivery of investment in Berwick.

· Councillor Dickinson commented that having Amble and Seaton Valley included in the amendment would show some commitment to the communities involved. The projects were viable as they had been in previous budgets and the pre-work had been done. It was eight years since the first business case had been put forward.

· Councillor Watson commented that there was money already in the budget for the consultation on Amble and did not need to be brought forward. The Headteacher of the school had said that the project had been pushed back because of Covid, and until there was an agreed plan then nothing could be built.

· Councillor Roughead did not feel that £40m was ambitious enough. He proposed a further amendment that as part of the £40m for Berwick, there would be engagement with higher education providers to make sure that there was adequate provision for the wider age group. He supported the amendment subject to that inclusion.

· Councillor Hill advised members that her amendment would not affect the revenue position or prudential indicators and had checked this with officers. She was not proposing bringing any funding forward, it was to increase the budget in 21-22 from £0 to £250,000, funded from the contingency from grant funded projects. Also, to increase additional budget commitment detailed on pg 38 from £13.403m to £33.403m which had been confirmed as being feasible without upsetting the budget. The idea of driving this forward was to demonstrate some commitment to a more ambitious project. She supported Councillor Dungworth’s proposal, but there was no specific financial data attached to it. She repeated her amendment as detailed above, adding to it a commitment that the other schools which had been delayed should be considered as a matter of urgency

· Councillor Dungworth confirmed that the business cases for Amble and Seaton Valley were already completed and asked that the proposal that these be progressed urgently be included in Councillor Hill’s amendment, which Councillor Hill confirmed was acceptable.

· Councillor Oliver sought clarification on whether Councillor Dungworth’s proposal would change anything in the first three years of the budget or whether a commitment was just being made to move things along as quickly as possible. Regarding the additional £20m which Councillor Hill was proposing, he sought clarity that this was outside the three year term of the MTFP, as it would be irresponsible to agree to that at this stage. Councillor Hill replied that the money was there now to start the business case, and then the commitment was there to a realistic figure without affecting the prudential indicators and the revenue position.

· The S151 Officer advised members that Councillor Hill’s substitution of one capital item for another would not have any impact on the overall quantum. Realigning profile spend or introducing additional capital spend would affect the revenue position and would require a recalculation of savings, prudential indicators and would affect the gross expenditure calculations which fed into the council tax assumptions. Any changes beyond the current year would require consideration by CSG, Cabinet and Council, if they were beyond the delegations to Cabinet.

· In view of the financial advice received, Councillor Dungworth withdrew her amendment to the amendment. The S151 Officer’s advice had clarified that the money was not there this year to start doing anything.

· Councillor Hill then re-read her amendment. This would ensure that work on the business case could commence straight away and reverse the delay to the project. It would also increase the overall budget commitment from £19.74m to £40m. This had been seconded by Councillor Dungworth.

A named vote took place and the votes were cast as follows:-

FOR:46 as follows;

Armstrong, E.A.	Jackson, P.A.
Bawn, D.L.	Kennedy, D.
Bowman, L.	Lang, J.A.
Bridgett, S.C.	Lawrie, R.
Campbell, D.	Murray, A.H.
Cartie, E.	Nisbet, K.
Castle, G.	Parry, K.
Clark, T.	Pattison, W.
Crosby, B.	Quinn, K.R.
Dale, P.A.M.	Renner Thompson, G.
Daley, W.	Richards, M.E.
Dickinson, S.	Robinson, M.
Dunbar, C.	Roughead, G.
Dungworth, S.	Seymour, C.
Dunn, L.	Sharp, A.
Foster, J.	Simpson, E.
Gallacher, B.	Stow, K.
Gobin, J.J.	Swinburn, M.D.
Grimshaw, L.	Swithenbank, I.C.F.
Hepple, A.	Thorne, T.N.
Hill, G.	Towns, D.J.
Homer, C.R.	Wallace, R.
Horncastle, C.W.	Webb, G.

AGAINST: 6 as follows;

Beynon, J.	Jones, V.
Cessford, T.	Oliver, N.
Dodd, R.R.	Watson, J.G.

ABSTENTIONS:7 as follows;

Flux, B.	Sanderson, H.G.H.
Gibson, R.	Stewart, G.
Reid, J.	Wearmouth, R.
Riddle, J.R.

It was therefore RESOLVED that the amendment be accepted.

The debate on the budget continued and included the following:-

· Councillor Bridgett commented that in his area in the last four years the Administration had promised nothing and delivered nothing, and the proposed budget delivered nothing but council tax rises. He informed members that there were homes in his division that were using diesel generators to power their homes and that was a huge shame and did nothing for the environment. His division was not the only one. He called on the Council to work with partner agencies to provide mains services for all residents. He asked Councillor Oliver if account had been taken in the MTFP of potential claims against the Council and would the position be defended if it reached a judicial process. Councillor Oliver confirmed this was the case.

· Councillor Dale commented that she had concerns about recovery from Covid and that the Administration had not kept within the finance and contract rules in its relationships with corporate bodies in bringing forward capital spend. RAP had not met for a long time and this was concerning as it was part of finance and contract rules. Another S151 Officer was about to be appointed which would make the 6^th appointment since 2017. She had concerns also about the amount spent on capital and not enough being spent on revenue.

· Councillor Reid commented that the proposed council tax rise was actually the same as everywhere else in the region, but the adult social care element had not been factored in. A small amount of people were carrying the burden for adult social care and this was not fair. It was a national problem and should be dealt with accordingly. Regarding the savings, it was all about reviews. These were not real savings. He also raised concerns about income from planning, which were explained by Councillor Riddle.

· Councillor Jackson commented that Finance staff should be congratulated for managing the Covid crisis. Regarding previous comments made, he felt the public should have high expectations. The reality was that budgets were going up and he urged opposition members to stop talking the Council down. He referred to a number of other achievements the Administration had secured in the last four years.

· Councillor Dickinson commented that opposition members were very conscious of the fantastic work done by staff during Covid, despite the dreadful treatment they had suffered. He had raised issues with various aspects of the budget previously and he detailed these. He strongly denied that Opposition members rubbished the County or its staff.

· Councillor Grimshaw asked whether it was correct that not fit for purpose IT equipment was being sold back to schools at £50 a time, without charging trolleys or appropriate licensing.

· Councillor Hill referred to the budget line about further loans to Advance Northumberland and asked what reassurance there was around drawing down any further loans to them.

· Councillor Daley referred to special education needs and was proud of the work he had done in 2017 to get the team and offer in this area right. Investment had been put in to get the educational health care plans right. Great work had also been done on building children’s homes.

· Councillor Dungworth commented that the budget was simply a list of reviews which enabled the Administration to put a figure into the budget without a commitment to actual savings and transferred responsibility to the next Administration. The reality was that residents would be paying more and getting less and there was less support for local government despite the role it had played in the recent pandemic. She also stressed that no-one in the Labour Group talked staff down.

· Councillor Dunn felt that council tax rises were not long term solutions to pressures faced by Councils, particularly adult social care, which was in desperate need of reform. These increases were coming at a time when families could least afford it. She appreciated the remedial work being done at Lynemouth, but this would not have an immediate betterment for her residents. Regarding the additional income from Planning, she referred to the 70 enforcement orders which had been issued on Lynemouth residents and felt this was the Council simply cashing in. There had not been a lot of investment in south east Northumberland, or her ward.

· Councillor Gallacher asked what the Administration had done for Ashington. Promises had been made and they had all been broken and something had to be done. The Town deal issue had not got anywhere.

Councillor Oliver then recommended the budget to Council, and the Deputy Monitoring Officer reminded members of Councillor Hill’s amendment which had already been agreed and which affected recommendations 37, 38 and 42.

Councillor Dickinson sought clarification about who had moved and seconded the budget and the Deputy Monitoring Officer confirmed that it had been the Leader and Councillor Oliver respectively.

Before members voted on the substantive motion, the Deputy Monitoring Officer advised members of the effect of the amendment they had agreed on the report’s recommendations. This added wording to recommendations 37, 38 and 42 as follows:-

37. Approve the Capital Strategy 2021-22 to 2023-24 contained within Appendix 12, with the following amendments to reflect the agreed motion in relation to Berwick Partnership Schools:

· Update the capital expenditure in the table on pg 89 in Appendix 12

· Finance row from £37.264m to £37.014m in 2021-22

· Schools row from £24.566m to £24.816m in 2021-22

38. Approve the revised Capital Programme as detailed within Appendix 13; and the projects highlighted within the main body of the report which will complete after 2023-24, with the following amendments to reflect the agreed motion in relation to Berwick Partnership Schools:

· Increase the budget for 2021-22 for the project Berwick Partnership Schools in Appendix 13 on page 92 by £0.250m from £0 to £0.250m

· Reduce the budget for 2021-22 for contingency to support grant funded projects in Appendix 13 on pg 91 by £0.250m from £1.405m to £1.155m

· To increase the gross budget figure for Berwick Partnership Schools for 2024-25 to 2025-26 on pg 34 point 134 by £20m from £13.403m to £33.403m

42. Approve the Prudential Indicators based on the proposed Capital Programme detailed within Appendix 14 with the following amendments to reflect the agreed motion in relation to Berwick Partnership Schools:

· Update the capital expenditure in the table on pg 95 in Appendix 14 in respect of Finance row from £37.264m to £37.014m in 2021-22

· In respect of Schools row from £24.566m to £24.16m.

On the substantive motion being put to the vote the votes were cast as follows:-

FOR: 37 as follows;-

Armstrong, E.	Oliver, N.
Bawn, D.L.	Pattison, W.
Beynon, J.A.	Quinn, K.
Castle, G.	Renner Thompson, G.
Cessford, T.	Riddle, J.R.
Crosby, B.	Robinson, M.
Daley, W.	Roughead, G.
Dodd, R.R.	Sanderson, H.G.H.
Dunbar, C.	Seymour, C.
Flux, B.	Sharp, A.
Gibson, R.	Stewart, G.
Hill, G.	Stow, K.
Homer, C.R.	Swinburn, M.D.
Horncastle, C.W.	Thorne, T.N.
Jackson, P.A.	Towns, D
Jones, V	Wallace, R.
Kennedy, D.	Watson, J.G.
Lawrie, R.	Wearmouth, R
Murray, A.H.

AGAINST: 0

ABSTENTIONS: 21 as follows;

Bowman, L.	Gobin, J.J.
Bridgett, S.C.	Grimshaw, L.
Campbell, D.	Hepple, A.
Cartie, E.	Lang, J.
Clark, T.S.	Nisbet, K.
Dale, P.A.M.	Parry, K.
Dickinson, S.	Reid, J.
Dungworth, S.	Simpson, E.
Dunn, L.	Swithenbank, I.C.F.
Foster, J.	Webb, G.
Gallacher, B.

The following resolutions were therefore agreed:

124.1 Budget Consultation 2021-22

RESOLVED that the summary results of the budget consultation undertaken between 10^th December 2020 and 21^st January 2021 be noted.

124.2 Budget 2021-22 and MTFP 2021-24

RESOLVED that:-

1. Council note that the figures contained within the Budget 2021-22 within Appendix 1 are based on the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement of 17 December 2020. Members noted the Revenue Support Grant of £10.508 million in each year of the MTFP, contained within Appendix 1.

2. Council approve the revenue budget for 2021-22 including, the budget balancing targets totalling £8.172 million contained within Appendix 1.

3. Council note the Revenue MTFP covering the period 2021-24 detailed within Appendix 1 and the requirement to deliver budget balancing measures in 2022-23 of £10.542 million and 2023-24 of £12.527 million.

4. Council note the estimated retained Business Rates and the Top-Up grant funding to be received by the Council for 2021-22 of £82.669 million and £173.556 million over the remaining period of the MTFP.

5. Council note the estimated deficit on Collection Fund Business Rates balances of £21.427 million.

6. Council note the estimated receipt of Rural Services Delivery Grant of £2.456 million for 2021-22 and the indicative allocation of £2.456 million for both 2022-23 and 2023-24.

7. Council note the estimated receipt of the New Homes Bonus of £4.303 million for 2021-22 and the indicative allocation of £1.337 million for 2022-23.

8. Council note the total estimated receipt of Improved Better Care Fund grant (including Winter Pressure funding) of £12.128 million for 2021-22 and the indicative allocations of £12.128 million for both 2022-23 and 2023-24.

9. Council note the receipt of Social Care funding of £9.534 million for 2021-22 and the indicative allocations of £9.534 million for both 2022-23 and 2023-24.

10. Council note the indicative receipt of non-recurrent Covid-19 Support Grant Funding of £13.087 million in 2021-22 and note the intended use of the grant. This comprises of:

· £8.509 million Covid-19 Support Grant, and

· £4.578 million Local Council Tax Support Grant.

11. Council note the receipt of non-recurrent Lower Tier Services Grant of £0.429 million in 2021-22.

12. Council approve a 1.99% increase in Council Tax for 2021-22, noting that this is in line with the Government’s assumptions regarding the Council’s Core Spending Power: and, within the Government’s referendum limit of 2.00%.

13. Council note that the MTFP 2021-24 includes a 1.99% annual increase in Council Tax for 2022-23 and 2023-24, and, that an estimate of annual tax base growth has been included.

14. Council note the non-collection rate for Council Tax purposes has been increased to 1.00% for 2021-22 (0.70% 2020-21).

15. Council note the estimated deficit on the Collection Fund Council Tax balance of £2.376 million which will be recovered over the three years of the plan.

16. Council approve a 1.75% increase in Council Tax for 2021-22 for use on Adult Social Care services; raising an additional £3.305 million to support the Budget 2021-22.

17. Council approve the remainder of the 3%, an increase of 1.25% in Council Tax to be introduced in 2022-23 for use on Adult Social Care services; raising an additional £2.616 million to support the Budget 2022-23.

18. Council note that the MTFP assumes no future increases in council tax for use on Adult Social Care services beyond 2022-23.

19. Council note the schedule of Service Specific grants of £247.195 million contained within Appendix 2.

20. Council approve the recurrent growth and pressures of £8.519 million and the additional revenue costs associated with the capital programme of £2.805 million for 2021-22; and, note the growth and pressures of £1.708 million in 2022-23 and £1.654 million in 2023-24, and the additional revenue costs associated with the capital programme of £4.058 million in 2022-23 and

£6.366 million in 2023-24, included within Appendices 1, 3 and 4.

21. Council approve the non-recurrent pressures of £1.325 million for 2021-22 and note the non-recurrent pressures of £0.565 million for 2022-23 included within Appendix 5.

22. Council approve the use of the Strategic Management Reserve of £4.862 million 2021-22, £2.205 million 2022-23, and £1.640 million 2023-24, as follows:

· non-recurrent pressures of £1.325 million for 2021-22, and £0.565 million in 2022-23 (as detailed within Appendix 5),

· the Active Northumberland Management fee of up to £1.000 million per annum for the three years of the plan,

· delayed receipt of investment income of £1.025 million in 2021-22 and note that £0.256 million is forecast to be repaid into the reserve in 2022- 23 and 2023-24 in this respect, and

· Collection fund Deficit (not subject to Government Grant relief):

· Business Rates; £0.244 million in 2021-22, and £0.342 million in each year, 2022-23 and 2023-24; and,

· Council Tax; £1.268 million in 2021-22, and £0.554 million in each year, 2022-23 and 2023-24.

23. Council approve the use of the Invest to Save Reserve to fund the costs of the Improvement and Innovation Team of £1.196 million per annum for the three years of the plan.

24. Council approve the use of the Collection Fund Smoothing reserve of £20.499 million in 2021-22, to part fund the 2020-21 forecast deficit of the Business Rates aspect of the Collection Fund.

25. Council approve the Inflation Schedule for 2021-22 totalling £10.974 million detailed in Appendix 6.

26. Council approve the identified budget balancing measures contained in Appendix 7 of £8.172 million for 2021-22.

27. Council note the Corporate Equality Impact Assessment at Appendix 8.

28. Council note the 2021-22 budgets by service area detailed in Appendix 9.

29. Council note the Summary of the Reserves and Provisions contained within Appendix 10.

30. Council approve the contribution to reserves of £8.509 million in 2021-22 for Covid- 19 grant funding, to be used in relation to pressures caused by the Covid-19 pandemic as they occur. It is also recommended that authority to utilise this grant is delegated to the Section 151 Officer in conjunction with the Portfolio holder for Corporate Services.

31. Council approve the transfer to the General Fund Reserve of £0.540 million in 2021- 22.

32. Council note the receipt of Dedicated Schools Grant of £146.181 million in 2021-22; and note the revised allocation of £139.315 million for 2020-21. This is following the conversion of six schools to academy status during 2020-21.

33. Council agree the Housing Revenue Account 2021-22 budget as detailed within Appendix 11, which will reduce the balance on the HRA reserve from £28.264 million at 31 March 2020, to £19.023 million at 31 March 2022; and note the indicative budgets to 2023-24 which will reduce the balance on the HRA reserve to £16.180 million. This will fund, alongside additional borrowing and grant funding, a Housing Investment Programme over the period to 2023-24 of £45.980 million of new investment in council housing.

34. Council note that from 1 April 2021 in line with the Rent Standard for rent setting for Council tenants, the budget detailed in Appendix 11 assumes that rents and service charges will rise by the Consumer Price Index of 0.50% plus 1.00% for the period 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022.

35. Council approve the increase of 1.50% for Housing rents from 1 April 2021.

36. Council note the indicative 30-year Housing Revenue Account business plan as detailed within Appendix 11.

37. Council approve the Capital Strategy 2021-22 to 2023-24 contained within Appendix 12, amended as follows:

· Update the capital expenditure in the table on pg 89 in Appendix 12

· Finance row from £37.264m to £37.014m in 2021-22

· Schools row from £24.566m to £24.816m in 2021-22

38. Council approve the revised Capital Programme as detailed within Appendix 13; and, the projects highlighted within the main body of the report which will complete after 2023-24, amended as follows:

· Increase the budget for 2021-22 for the project Berwick Partnership Schools in Appendix 13 on page 92 by £0.250m from £0 to £0.250m

· Reduce the budget for 2021-22 for contingency to support grant funded projects in Appendix 13 on pg 91 by £0.250m from £1.405m to £1.155m

· To increase the gross budget figure for Berwick Partnership Schools for 2024-25 to 2025-26 on pg 34 point 134 by £20m from £13.403m to £33.403m

39. Council approve the delegation of the detail of the final Local Transport Programme, any Pothole and Challenge Fund Grant received and any subsequent in year amendments to the Interim Executive Director Local Services and the Leader of the Council.

40. Council approve the delegation of the detail of the capital allocation for highway maintenance investment in U and C roads and footways to the Interim Executive Director of Local Services and the Leader of the Council.

41. Council agree delegation to Cabinet to approve individual projects which propose to utilise the flexibilities of capital receipts.

42. Council approve the Prudential Indicators based on the proposed Capital Programme detailed within Appendix 14 amended as follows:

· Update the capital expenditure in the table on pg 95 in Appendix 14 in respect of Finance row from £37.264m to £37.014m in 2021-22

· In respect of Schools row from £24.566m to £24.16m.

43. Council approve the Minimum Revenue Provision Policy detailed in Appendix 15.

44. Council approve the proposed Treasury Management Strategy Statement 2021-22 detailed in Appendix 16.

45. Council approve the Revenues and Benefits Policies for 2021-22 contained within Appendix 17 and note the proposed changes to the Council Tax Discounts, Corporate Debt, Local Welfare Assistance and Rate Relief policies.

46. Council approve the Pay Policy Statement for 2021-22 at Appendix 19 and note the Equality Impact Assessment.

47. Council approve a delegation to amend the Budget 2021-22 and MTFP in light of any changes as a result of the final Local Government Finance Settlement to the Council’s Section 151 Officer in consultation with the Portfolio holder for Corporate Services

124.3 Addendum to the Budget 2021-22 and Medium-Term Financial Plan 2021-24 Report

RESOLVED that:-

(a) Council note that the Final Local Government Finance Settlement 2021-22 has now been received and there are no changes required to be made to the figures shown in the 2021-22 Budget;

(b) Council note the amendments to the report outlined in Section 4.

124.4 Council Tax 2021-22

1. Council resolves:

(a) That the Council Tax Requirement for the Council’s own purposes for 2021-22 (excluding parish precepts) is£195,025,410.

(b) That the following amounts be calculated for 2021-22 in accordance with Sections 31 to 36 of theAct:

i) Being the aggregate amount of gross expenditure which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31 A (2) of the Act taking into account all precepts issued to it by parishcouncils:

£837,102,251.

ii) Being the aggregate of the gross income which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31 A (3) ofthe Act:

£632,685,484.

iii) Being the amount by which the aggregate at (b) i) above exceeds the aggregate at (b) ii) above, calculated by the Council in accordance with Section 31 A (4) of the Act as its Council Tax requirement for the year. (Item R in the formula in Section 31B of the Act) (including parish precepts): £204,416,767.

iv) Being the amount at (b) iii) above (Item R), all divided by Item T, above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section31B of the Act as the basic amount of its Council Tax at Band D for the year (including parish precepts): £1,911.60.

v) Being the aggregate amount of all special items referred to in Section 34 (1) of the Act (total all parish precepts):£9,394,573.

vi) Being the amount at (b) iv) above less the result given by dividing the amount at (b) v) above by Item T, above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 34 (2) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax at Band D for the year for dwellings in thoseparts ofits areato whichno parishprecept relates:£1,823.75.

(c) That the Council Tax for 2021-22, excluding the Police precept, will be increased by 3.74% (including the Adult Social Care Precept of 1.75%), equating to a charge per Band D household of £1,823.75 (excluding special expenses). For other bands different proportions will apply. For example, Band A properties will be charged 6/9 (two thirds) of a Band D property and Band H properties will be charged 18/9 (double) of a Band D property.

The relevant valuation bands are as follows:

Valuation Band	Northumberland CountyCouncil	Adult Social Care Precept	Total
	£ : p	£ : p	£ : p
A	1,092.29	123.55	1,215.84
B	1,274.33	144.14	1,418.47
C	1,456.38	164.73	1,621.11
D	1,638.43	185.32	1,823.75
E	2,002.53	226.50	2,229.03
F	2,366.62	267.68	2,634.30
G	2,730.72	308.87	3,039.59
H	3,276.86	370.64	3,647.50

(d) Under Section 52ZB of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that the Council’s basic amount of Council Tax for 2021-22 is not excessive in accordancewith principlesapproved underSection 52ZC(1)of theAct.

(i.e. the proposed Council Tax increase for 2021-22 means that the Council does not need to hold a referendum on its proposed Council Tax. The regulations set out in Section 52ZC of the Act requires all billing authorities (council and precept authorities (i.e. Fire and Police authorities)) to hold a referendum on their proposed level of basic Council Tax each year if they exceed government guidelines which are set out annually. For 2021-22 the guideline increase for Northumberland is 5% (including the Adult Social Care Precept).

As the Council is proposing a Council Tax increase of 3.74% (including Adult Social Care and special expenses) for 2021-22 then the above regulations have no impact for2021-22.

2. Council approves:

(a) That the matters listed in section 3 (c) of this report are identified as special expenses and that all other matters which might otherwise be considered to be special expenses under the prevailing legislation are deemed to be general expenses.

(b) That the Council Tax Leaflet continues to be made available via the Council’s website, rather than enclosed with Council Tax bills, and that the finaldocument isdelegated toand finalisedby theSection 151Officer.

3. Council notes:

(a) The Police and Crime Commissioner has agreed the recommended level of precept of £15,381,664 for 2021-22. This represents an increase of 4.99%, equating to an additional £6.84 on a Band D property; the resulting valuation bands will be as follows:

Northumbria Police

Valuation Band

Authority

£: p

A 95.89

B 111.88

C 127.86

D 143.84

E 175.80

F 207.77

G 239.73

H 287.68

(b) The Aggregate of Council Tax requirements, including that of Northumbria Police Authority, the Council’s own requirement and that for Adult Social Care purposes (excluding Parish Precepts), are asfollows:

Valuation Band	Northumberland County Council	Adult Social Care Precept	Northumbria Police Authority	Total
	£ : p	£ : p	£ : p	£ : p
A	1,092.29	123.55	95.89	1,311.73
B	1,274.33	144.14	111.88	1,530.35
C	1,456.38	164.73	127.86	1,748.97
D	1,638.43	185.32	143.84	1,967.59

Valuation Band	Northumberland County Council	Adult Social Care Precept	Northumbria Police Authority	Total
	£ : p	£ : p	£ : p	£ : p
E	2,002.53	226.50	175.80	2,404.83
F	2,366.62	267.68	207.77	2,842.07
G	2,730.72	308.87	239.73	3,279.32
H	3,276.86	370.64	287.68	3,935.18

(c) The total amount of parish precepts requested is £9,391,357 and is detailed in Appendix 1. This represents an increase of £51,140 when compared to2020-21.

(d) Special expenses of £3,216 are applied to North Sunderland Parish only in relation to play area inspection and maintenance. This has increased from £3,190 in2020-21.

4. Council notes:

(a) The basic Council Tax valuation bands are shown in paragraph 3(b).

(b) The detailed Council Tax calculations are set out in Appendices 2 and 3. Analysis of the Council Tax by parish is provided at Appendix 2 excluding Northumbria Police precept. Appendix 3 shows the total Council Tax charge by parish (including the Council only element and Adult Social Care Precept, Northumbria Police Precept, Special Expenses and Parish Precepts).

An adjournment was called at 18:16. The meeting reconvened at 18:21

Supporting documents:

budget consultation, item 6. PDF 293 KB