Agenda item

Budget 2025/26

Meeting of Budget Setting, Council, Tuesday 25th February 2025 6.00 pm (Item 21.)

To pass the following resolution:-

RESOLVED:-

1) That the following, as submitted, be approved:

(a) the Revenue estimates for 2025-2026;

(b) the Capital programme for 2025-2026;

(d) the Treasury Management Strategy for 2025-2026;

(e) the Prudential indicators for 2025-2026 (incorporating the Minimum Revenue Provision Statement); and

(f) the Capital Strategy for 2025-2026

2) that it be noted that, at the meeting of the Executive on the 14 January 2025, the Council calculated the figure of 39,852, as its council tax base for the year 2025-2026 in accordance with the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) (England) Regulations 2012 made under Section 33(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992;

3) that the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2025-2026 in accordance with Sections 31A of the Local Government and Finance Act 1992:-

(a) £125,161,660 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(2)(a) to (f) of the Act;

(b) £117,758,752 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(3)(a) to (d) of the Act;

(c) £7,402,908 being the amount by which the aggregate at (3)(a) above exceeds the aggregate at (3)(b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 31A(4) of the Act, as its council tax requirement for the year;

(d) £185.76 being the amount at (3)(c) above divided by the amount at 2 above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 31B(1) of the Act, as the basic amount of its council tax for the year;

(e) Valuation Bands

A	B	C	D
£123.84	£144.48	£165.12	£185.76

E	F	G	H
£227.04	£268.32	£309.60	£371.52

Being the amount given by multiplying the amount at (3)(d) 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.

(4) That it will be noted that, for the year 2025-2026, Devon County Council, the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon and Cornwall and the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority have stated the following amounts on precepts issued to the Council, in accordance with Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2003, for each of the categories of the dwellings shown below:-

Devon County Council

A	B	C	D
£xxx.xx	£xxx.xx	£x,xxx.xx	£x,xxx.xx

E	F	G	H
£x,xxx.xx	£x,xxx.xx	£x,xxx.xx	£x,xxx.xx

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon and Cornwall

A	B	C	D
£192.13	£224.16	£256.18	£288.20

E	F	G	H
£352.24	£416.29	£480.33	£576.40

Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority

A	B	C	D
£69.79	£81.42	£93.05	£104.68
E	F	G	H
£127.94	£151.20	£174.47	£209.36

(5) That, having calculated the aggregate in each case of the amounts at (3)(e) and (4) above, the Council, in accordance with Section 30(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, hereby set the following amounts as the amounts of council tax for the year 2025-2026 for each of the categories of dwellings shown below:-

Valuation Bands

A	B	C	D
£x,xxx.xx	£x,xxx.xx	£x,xxx.xx	£x,xxx.xx
E	F	G	H
£x,xxx.xx	£x,xxx.xx	£x,xxx.xx	£x,xxx.xx

Standing Order 30

Members are asked to note that a recorded vote is required to approve the budget and to set the Council Tax in accordance with the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014. Standing Order 30 refers.

Minutes:

The Leader moved and Councillor Wright seconded, the resolution as set out in the agenda and circulated papers in respect of the Council Tax and the budget for Exeter for 2025/26.

The Leader, in presenting his Budget speech, appended to this set of minutes, covered the following themes:

the challenge to maintain needed statutory services and the desired discretionary services;
the unanimous decision to prepare for a unitary bid;
the many successes of the Council;
extensive consultation which had been taken into account;
senior leadership restructure had been completed;
the customer being at the heart of everything; and
transparency and openness.

The Leader talked Members through the details of the Budget proposal making the following points:

it had been framed by consultations;
the proposed annual pay award would be reduced by 1%;
Northbrook pool had low usage and showed little improvement and would be subject to full consultation and impact assessment;
the Council would work with partners with regard to the Arena;
work had been undertaken to reset the working relationship with Citizens Advice (CA) Exeter;
car parking charges had not been increased during the last 2 years and would now increase by 32p;
a meanwhile use of the old bus station site as a temporary car park would see revenue go directly to net zero given that there was no budget identified beyond 2026; and
that the s151 Officer’s advice had been taken in preparing the budget.

The alternative budget amendments submitted by the Progressive Group as published and circulated were proposed by Councillor Moore and seconded by Councillor Mitchell.

In presenting the alternative budget amendments Councillor Moore made the following points:

in the area of good governance much work had been done to improve scrutiny but more could be done with additional officer support;
the principle for managing the budget would be to appoint less external consultants;
a review of all CIL and s106 funds would be undertaken;
spending for local government reorganisation would come from the transformation reserve;
community needs would be met, supporting those living precariously by granting transitional support to CA;
support the climate change team with renewed effort and earmarking funds to support a biodiversity strategy;
would maintain frontline services including introducing doorstep glass collection which would generate funds to invest in street cleansing;
a review of leisure services would be undertaken; and
reduce general fund surplus to £3.2 million.

Members speaking in favour of the alternative budget amendments made the following points:

three types of licensing within the housing sector could be different with the Council setting their own pricing structures;
income from licensing could pay for other much-needed resources and improve the health and wellbeing of residents;
welcomed a £50,000 grant to support CA Exeter which recognised the financial benefits the service brought to the Council and city;
with climate change crisis a priority selling carbon literacy training was a positive way forward;
developers would pay if they could see the biodiversity net gain; and
maintaining public toilets would create less Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).

Councillor Mitchell as seconder spoke in support of the alternative budget amendments making the following points:

there was much common ground;
reaching a consensus would be better;
the issue of CA Exeter had been addressed by scrutiny and a recommendation made to the Executive but this was the only Council which had ceased funding to their local CA; and
the scrutiny function had improved but a scrutiny officer would be a driver to improve performance and hold those in power to account.

Councillor Moore, in summing up on the alternative budget amendments reminded Members of what they had heard from those in support of the resolution making the following points:

· HMO licensing would be mandatory;

· CA Exeter was important;

· further efforts were needed with regards to climate action;

· toilets were valued by communities; and

· working together would be key in creating community facilities from CIL.

Councillor Bialyk, speaking as Leader and mover of the substantive motion and speaking against the alternative budget amendments said that many of the issues raised would be responded to.

In accordance with Standing Order No. 27 a named vote was requested by Councillor Mitchell and received adequate support.

The alternative budget amendments of the Progressive Group were put to a named vote and responses were recorded as follows:

Voting for:

Councillors Banyard, Bennett, Fullam, Haigh, Ketchin, Mitchell, M, Moore, Palmer, Read, Rees and Wetenhall. (11 Members)

Voting Against:

Councillors Allcock, Asvachin, Begley, Bialyk, Ellis-Jones, Foale, Harding, Jobson, Knott, Miller-Boam, Parkhouse, Patrick, Pole, Rolstone, Snow, Vizard, Williams, R, Wood and Wright. (19 Members)

Abstaining:

Lord Mayor, Councillor Mitchell, K. (1 Member)

Absent:

Councillors Atkinson, Darling, Holland, Hughes, Hussain, Wardle, Williams, M.

(7 Members)

The resolution was NOT CARRIED.

The alternative budget amendments submitted by the Conservative Group as published and circulated were proposed by Councillor Jobson and seconded by Councillor Mitchell.

In presenting the Conservative Group alternative budget amendments Councillor Jobson made the following points:

a grant of £15,000 and an additional £50,000 would be made to CA Exeter;
the proposed budget was balanced and all savings were funded;
leisure would contribute to debt repayment, which would require an additional £30,000 to be raised;
carbon literacy training would be sold which would raise £20,000;
PBSA commercial waste charges would be investigated;
serious consideration would be given to the closing of Northbrook Pool;
commercial use of car parks would be considered in order to raise £50,000 per annum;
a reduced car park charge of £2.50 for 4 hours would be introduced to encourage use on the quietest day;
a modest reduction in grant to The Phoenix would reflect their increased commercial activities; and
CIL charging would increase in quarter 2 with necessary consultation being undertaken prior to this.

Councillor Mitchell as seconder spoke in support of the amendments making the following points:

he was in support of CA Exeter;
there was a need for a full review of leisure in order to ascertain what was needed;
Capital funding would be allocated to the service which received the money;
investigation was needed into incidences of businesses who do not contribute to the city through rates; and
clarity could be sought from Government regarding council tax exemption properties and what compensation there might be.

Speaking against the alternative budget amendments Members’ made the following points:

cutting the grant to the Phoenix could impact young people and those who received mental health support and the building was Council-owned therefore ideas could be discussed with organisations who used it;
more car driving could not be supported; and
Northbrook Pool had St. James School as a key stakeholder with a weekly elective held there which enabled students who might not otherwise go swimming to access this facility.

In summing up Councillor Jobson commended the alternative budget amendments to the Council.

The Leader as mover of the substantive motion stated that many of the points raised would be drawn out in the full debate.

The alternative budget amendments of the Conservative Group were put to the vote and LOST.

During debate on the substantive motion Member’s in support of the proposed Budget made the following points:

holding reserves was very sensible;

the commitment to net zero was welcomed;
the achievements made through grant funding must be remembered, ward grants and the community lottery;
transition arrangements with CA Exeter showed support for their valuable work;
there was a need to replace the principal officer responsible for biodiversity;
Exeter had one of the lowest council tax rates in the country;
the budget was ambitious with commitments to the museum, leisure for getting active as well as green spaces;
there had been greater scrutiny of the budget setting;
the Council’s priorities were aligned with those of residents;
a scrutiny recommendation had been made to Executive without a dedicated officer;
there was a leisure centre open on either side of the river;
playing fields all had toilets which would remain open;
doorstep glass collection would increase glass recycled by 1% but as glass resale value was low this would be unlikely to make additional money;
the Council had a duty to collect from PBSA properties in the same way as other properties; and
the Portfolio Holder was proud to maintain in-house leisure and work such as in partnership with NHS, supplemented and support by Live & Move funded by Sport England and bringing harder to reach residents from inactivity into activity when the wider leisure industry was struggling.

Speaking as Leader of the Progressive Group, Councillor Moore made the following points:

she was concerned that discretionary services would be cut;
investment must be made in public services and would rise with the received Government grant had been reduced;
consultation needed to be open and transparent and the Council being clear with communities over what was genuine consultation;
she was concerned that the number on the housing waiting list had hugely increased in the last few years;
the Exeter Let programme had been shut down but the SWEP was not enough to meet needs;
there was a hostel on Magdalen Road Car Park which was empty but the Council were paying the lease; and
an environmental tax to continue to invest in the net zero team would be a better investment than car parking.

A Member speaking against the proposed Budget stated that there was a community toilet scheme in Bristol which Exeter could look to introduce and another Member expressed that they were horrified that a temporary car park would be set up to fund net zero as poor air quality played a part in low health outcomes.

Councillor Wright, in seconding the proposal made the following points:

there had been an enhanced and improved process for setting the budget this year which had included a briefing and scrutiny;
the success of CCTV and launch of the new Community Safety Team had demonstrated great partnership working with InExeter and OPCC both of which would continue for another year; and
there were many points of agreement and she looked forward to trying to work together.

In conclusion, the Leader summed up making the following points:

that realistic reserves had been set following advice from the LGA and s151 officer;
car parks would be discussed at the next Leader’s meeting;
there would be 30 spaces closed at the Triangle car park so there may not be extra car cars;
Sunday’s had been part of the previous consultation;
consultation would be in regard to cashless car parks rather than St. Sidwell’s Point;
no one wanted to close Northbrook and if would be fantastic if it became a community asset;
food waste was not fully rolled out as £8 million must be reinvested in the Materials Reclamation Facility to ensure the ability to deal with the waste;
in relation to housing projects were being brought forward;
no toilets had been closed and the Council were not withdrawing from the National portfolio or the RAMM; and
he would speak at the Leader’s meeting about how this process could be handled in future and look for an agreed way forward.

The Leader commended the Budget to Council.

In accordance with Standing Order 30, a named vote on the resolution, as set out in the agenda papers, was recorded, as follows:

Voting for:

Councillors Allcock, Asvachin, Begley, Bialyk, Ellis-Jones, Foale, Haigh, Harding, Knott, Miller-Boam, Parkhouse, Patrick, Pole, Rolstone, Snow, Vizard, Williams, R, Wood and Wright. (19 Members)

Voting against:

Councillors Banyard, Bennett, Fullam, Jobson, Ketchin, Mitchell, M, Moore, Palmer, Read and Wetenhall. (10 Members)