Agenda item

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources, Councillor B Mickelburgh to present for approval –

 

? The 2026/27 Budget

v  The 2026/27 – 2029/30 Capital Programme as set out in Appendix 2b

v  The Band D Council Tax rate for Huntingdonshire at £170.86, representing a £5 (3.01%) increase to the current charge

v  The Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) for the period 2027/28 to 2029/30, Capital Strategy, Investment Strategy and the Treasury Management Strategy

v  The Formal Resolution to determine the Council Tax as set out in Appendix 8

v  Endorsement of the statement of the Section 151 Officer on the robustness of the budget and the adequacy of the Council’s reserves as set out in Appendix 9

? The Fees and Charges Schedule for 2026/27 as set out in Annex B1 and B2

 

 

In accordance with Section 30(2) of the Local Government Act (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, the Council will be asked to resolve that a recorded vote be taken on conclusion of the debate on this item.

 

The reports were considered by the Cabinet at their meeting on 10th February 2026 and it was agreed that they should be recommended to Council for approval.

 

(The Leader of the Opposition will have a right of reply).

 

15 Minutes Presentation

45 Minutes Debate and Questions

In conjunction with a report by the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources and a PowerPoint presentation (copies of which are appended in the Minute Book), Councillor B A Mickelburgh, Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources presented to Members the 2026/27 Budget, the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) for the period 2027/28 to 2030/31, the Fees and Charges Schedule for 2026/27, the Treasury Management Strategy, the Capital Strategy, the Investment Strategy, the Annual Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) Statement for 2026/27 and other associated matters for the Council’s consideration and approval.

 

In accordance with Section 30 (2) of the Local Finance Act 1992, the Council also considered proposals for levels of Council Tax in 2026/27 for various parts of Huntingdonshire District.

 

By way of introduction, the Executive Councillor introduced the report, confirmed that the Section 151 Officer was satisfied with the robustness of the budget and the adequacy of the reserves and reflected upon the previous four years of the administration.

 

Councillor A R Jennings proposed that the amendment as published alongside the agenda and presented to members (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book), be moved and reserved his right to speak. This amendment, was then presented to the Chamber, following which it was seconded by Councillor R Martin.

 

The ensuing debate related to the proposed amendment, during which, Councillor B S Chapman observed that the proposed amendment included a free first hour of car parking but reflected that the Council had previously implemented a parking strategy which encouraged a longer dwell time in order to benefit High Streets and local businesses and that due to the location of many town centre carparks the impacts of this carparking amend would be minimal.

 

Councillor B Mickelburgh observed that the proposed amendment had some attractive sounding propositions but would not be sustainable, particularly in the uncertain future of LGR. He noted in particular that the garden bin waste subscription service was paying for itself and that any freezes to the Council Tax would have a lasting impact on the MTFS to the detriment of public services.

 

The Executive Councillor for Climate, Transformation and Workforce, Councillor L Davenport-Ray, agreed with the comments made by Councillor Mickelburgh and stated that she was note prepared to leave a legacy of underfunded budget assumptions which would create an obvious and predictable deficit in year one. She further commented that the proposed amendments effects on staff pay threatened the morale of Council officers and were insensitive particularly in the current period of uncertainty of the shadow of LGR.

 

Councillor P J Hodgson-Jones spoke in support of the amendment and focused his debate on the proposed changes to carparking, noting that they would be of benefit to the whole district and sought to increase footfall for town centre businesses, which in turn would increase the desirability of those locations and result an increased income from related Business Rates. He concluded by summarising that the amendment would seek to lower costs to residents, thereby improving the lives of residents.

 

In addressing the chamber, Councillor T Alban highlighted that the amendment also sought to increase funding for planning enforcement across the district which he felt would be of benefit to the district. A sentiment which was echoed by Councillor S Cawley who observed that planning enforcement rules were unviable if there was no mechanism to enforce them. He continued that whilst the proposed amendment did affect the MTFS, however this amount would be offset by opportunities identified within the proposal and that the net effect would strengthen future reserves. He noted the concerns of the Section 151 Officer but felt that it was the role of the chamber to weigh that advice against the mandate and priorities of the residents.

 

Councillor Sanderson advised that the planning enforcement service had greatly improved over the current administration having addressed a considerable backlog post COVID. He went on to highlight that Sawtry swimming pool was being reopened, having closed during the previous administration, and the future projects of the Huntingdon Health Hub.

 

It was corrected, by Councillor S Bywater, that an alternative operator had taken over Sawtry swimming pool under the previous administration and that they had been unable to reopen following COVID. He continued by noting the significant impact on residents due to increases to Council Tax, which were felt all the more due to the cost of living crisis.

 

Councillor Hunt felt that the hard working staff of the Council deserved to be recognised for their dedication and hard work with a fair pay. He noted that the proposed freeze on Council Tax was unachievable and questioned, should the Conservatives be part of the future administration, how long such a freeze would remain.

 

The achievements of the current administration were noted by Councillor M A Hassall, in particular the turnaround to profit making for One Leisure. He further noted that the CPCA Mayor had plans to implement free car parking across the district so queried why there was any need to accommodate it within the proposals. He also noted that it would be prudent to follow the advice of the Section 151 Officer so would therefore not be supporting the amendment.

 

The Executive Councillor for Resident Services and Corporate Performance, Councillor S W Ferguson, noted that the current administration had implemented changes to Council Tax Support to the benefit of the poorest members of the district and was proud of the progress made in supporting vulnerable residents. A sentiment which was echoed by Councillor S Wakeford, who reflected that, in his view, the opposition had had very different views on increases to Council Tax and was mindful that many of the points in the proposed amendment was unsubstantiated and rather wearing.

 

In addressing the chamber, Councillor J A Gray clarified the Council Tax amends in the proposed amendment but noted that the introduction of a green bin waste subscription fee was essentially an increase to payments made to the Council by residents, in addition to Council Tax Bills. He noted the comments of the Section 151 Officer but highlighted that this did not mean that the amendment was not reasonable, more that the proposed Budget was preferable.

 

In summarising the debate, Councillor Martin, made some corrections to inaccuracies during the debate, clarifying that there were no suggested changes to staffing so there would not be additional costs incurred however he observed that the proposed budget included the addition of a Community Safety Officer which would be an increased cost. He further noted that the proposed pay increase within the amendment would be higher than 4 of the previous 5 pay increases which he felt to be prudent given the current rate of inflation. He further noted that whilst the issue of outstanding enforcement cases had been addressed, a good deal of those cases had been addressed during the previous administration but due to a system issue had not been correctly recorded as closed. He echoed Councillor Gray’s comments that the opinion of the Section 151 Officer should be respected but did not have to be adhered to, as the Council had previously demonstrated in December 2025, he felt that today’s decision should be a political decision based upon the best interests of residents and the balance of information, including the opinion of the Section 151 Officer.

 

Following debate the amendment in accordance with the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 the following Members voted for, against or abstained from the Motion – To provide one hour free parking in all council short term car parks, to reduce the garden waste subscription, to provide additional funding for planning enforcement and handyman services, whilst freezing council tax and increasing the future financial stability reserve over the course of the MTFS.

 

For the Motion (18) – Councillors Alban, Beuttell, Butler, Bywater, Cawley, Clarke, Corney, Costello, Criswell, Gardener, Gray, Gulson, Hodgson-Jones, Jennings, Keane, Lowe, Martin, Neish

 

Against the Motion (32) – Councillors Banks, Blackwell, Burke, Catmur, Chapman, Conboy, Davenport-Ray, Dew, Ferguson, Gleadow, Harvey, Hassall, Howell, Hunt, Jordan, Kadewere M, Kadewere P, Kerr, McAdam, Mickelburgh B, Mickelburgh D, Mokbul, Pickering, Pitt, Sanderson, Shaw, Slade, Taylor I, Terry, Tevlin, Wakeford, Wells

 

Abstentions (0) – None

 

Following the conclusion of the recorded vote, the amendment was declared to be LOST.

 

In returning to the debate and discussion to the substantive motion, the Leader of the Opposition addressed the Council again. In doing so, Councillor Martin reflected that residents put a huge amount of trust in their Councillors when making decisions on the budget. He commented that the budget was not simply a balancing of accounts but a statement of intent and that the money discussed in the report represented the hard earned money of the district’s residents and businesses. He reflected on the increase in expenditure over the past six years and queried whether the same increase in value for residents was being returned. In conclusion he stated that the proposed budget was lacking ambition with no roadmap to the future of a leaner more agile authority.

 

Councillor Alban reflected upon his time as a District Councillor and the budgets of the previous Conservative administrations, the prudency of which had allowed for the good things which the Council were able to implement now.

 

In addressing the chamber, Councillor Hunt stated that he was proud to support the proposed budget, he reflected on the term of the administration and the improvements which had been made to the Council’s finances over that period and was proud of the difference which the administration had been able to make to those living and working within the district.

 

The Executive Councillor for Governance and Democratic Services, Councillor J E Harvey, also reflected upon the positive improvements made by the administration over it’s four years and the work undertaken to improve the Council’s internal audit system and scrutiny processes that has since taken place. She concluded that by supporting the proposed budget would allow for further robustness and improvements by Officers in governance and democratic processes.

 

Councillor S A Howell, the Executive Councillor for Leisure and Health, reflected on the improvements made by the Leisure service over the previous four years and that by supporting the proposed budget would allow for further growth and improvements in that area.

 

Councillor I P Taylor was in support of the proposed budget in particular noting that there was no increase to carparking charges and that the proposals would allow for further improvement works to pathways in parks.

 

The Executive Councillor for Parks and Countryside, Waste and Street Scene, Councillor J E Kerr reflected on the positive improvements within the Countryside and Waste services and how the proposed budget would support sustainability in these areas.

 

Councillor Gray stated, that in his opinion, there were still questions to be addressed in relation to the internal audit of the accounts and that he did not feel the proposed budget highlighted any additional projects to justify the additional income therefore he would be unable to support it.

 

Councillor Ferguson reflected on the business as usual work undertaken by council Officers on a daily basis and the real positive impact that this made to the lives of residents and in particular the reintroduction of full Council Tax Support. 

 

Councillor Hodgson-Jones observed that more money did not necessarily mean better quality services, but that that would come with good policies and planning. He further questioned why more money was being put into reserves without an obvious purpose as well as questioning the value for money which would be provided in the future.

 

In addressing the chamber, Councillor Sanderson reflected upon the improvements and achievements made within the planning service during the tenure of the current joint administration in particular the distribution of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding.

 

Councillor B Pitt reflected upon his personal experiences as a District Councillor and the notable achievements of the current joint administration, concluding that he was in support of the proposed budget.

 

Councillor Wakeford addressed the Chamber noting that with the proposed budget, the future administration would be able to tackle employment and housing within the district and would reinforce the economic development work to support residents and local businesses.

 

Councillor Jennings spoke to the chamber and noted that he was somewhat disappointed that Councillors had not taken full advantage of opportunities to scrutinise the proposed budget through the Council’s Scrutiny process. He further noted that he could not support the proposed budget most notably due to the increase in costs without any obvious project or spend associated to it particularly in light of the forthcoming LGR.

 

The Executive Leader then addressed the chamber, reflecting upon budgets from the previous administration and also upon the budgets from the current administration which had addressed deficits from previous years. She thanked the Section 151 Officer and her predecessors for their support over the tenure of the current administration and was pleased to support and present a balanced budget to the Council for it’s approval. 

 

Finally, in drawing the debate to a close, the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources took the opportunity to respond to several points which had been made earlier in the debate concerning the reasonableness of the Council Tax increase and the value for money that the proposed budget would provide.

 

In accordance with the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 the following Members voted for, against or abstained from the Motion as contained within the report now submitted -

 

For the Motion (32) – Councillors Banks, Blackwell, Burke, Catmur, Chapman, Conboy, Davenport-Ray, Dew, Ferguson, Gleadow, Harvey, Hassall, Howell, Hunt, Jordan, Kadewere M, Kadewere P, Kerr, McAdam, Mickelburgh B, Mickelburgh D, Mokbul, Pickering, Pitt, Sanderson, Shaw, Slade, Taylor I, Terry, Tevlin, Wakeford, Wells

 

Against the Motion (18) – Alban, Beuttell, Butler, Bywater, Cawley, Clarke, Corney, Costello, Criswell, Gardener, Gray, Gulson, Hodgson-Jones, Jennings, Keane, Lowe, Martin, Neish

 

Abstentions (0) - None

 

It having, been previously moved and seconded, and upon having being put to a recorded vote, it was

 

RESOLVED

 

that the overall budget 2026/27 as set out within the report be approved,

 

that the 2026/27 – 2029/30 Capital Programme as set out in Appendix 2b be approved,

 

that the Band D Council Tax rate for Huntingdonshire be set at £170.86 representing a £5 (3.01%) increase to the current charge,

 

that the Medium-Term Financial Strategy 2027/28 – 2029/30, Capital Strategy, Investment Strategy and Treasury Management Strategy be approved,

 

that the Council Tax Resolution as set out in Appendix B be approved,

 

that the statement of the Section 151 Officer on the robustness of the budget and the adequacy of the Council’s reserves as set out in Appendix 9 be endorsed,

 

that the fees and charges 2026/27 as set out in Annexe B1 and B2 be noted; and

 

that the proposals for the setting of future parking charges and proposals within the main body of the report now submitted be noted.