Agenda item

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

 

v  The 2025/26 Budget and Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) for the period 2026/27 to 2029/30

v  The Fees and Charges Schedule for 2025/26

v  The Treasury Management Strategy, the Capital Strategy and the Investment Strategy including the annual prudential indicators for 2025/26

v  The Annual Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) Statement 2025/26

v  The Formal Resolution to determine the Council Tax for 2025/26

 

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 11th February 2025 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 2025/26 Budget, the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) for the period 2026/27 to 2029/30, the Fees and Charges Schedule for 2025/26, the Treasury Management Strategy, the Capital Strategy, the Investment Strategy, the Annual Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) Statement for 2025/26 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 2025/26 for various parts of Huntingdonshire District.

 

By way of introduction, the Executive Councillor explained that the Treasury Management Strategy was largely structured by government regulation and was very similar to the previous year. Although, there had been several small amendments in response to requirements of the Treasury Management Code and changes to the way in which Minimum Revenue Provision must be calculated. Council was informed that Counter Party limits remained unchanged from the previous year and that as Government Debt Management Office rates had remained in line with general interest rates it had been decided not to diversify into Environmental, Social and Governance Investments.

 

In terms of the Council Tax resolution, Members attention was drawn to the proposed increase of 3.11% or £5 a year in Council for a Band D property for 2025/26. In doing so, attention was drawn to changes to the rates of inflation over the course of the previous 10 years and the resulting impact on the need for Council Tax collection. 

 

With regards to the proposed Budget and Medium-Term Financial Strategy, Councillor Mickelburgh explained that circumstances over the course of the last year had changed to tighten the Council’s finances and create a level of greater uncertainty. Members attention was drawn to the significant increase in Employers National Insurance Contributions, the increased cost of the Materials Recycling Facility Contract and the uncertainty surrounding forthcoming local government review. In respect of the latter, Members of the Council were informed that a £1m fund had been established from Council reserves should the need arise.

 

The Council’s attention was then drawn to some of the successes achieved by the Administration’s responsible management of the Budget. Members were advised that the Council’s One Leisure Service was making a surplus for the first time and that work was planned to drive further budgetary improvements.  Attention was also drawn to the success of the Council’s Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil trial and the inhouse recruitment of the new Chief Digital Information Officer for 3C ICT which had generated financial savings.

 

With the assistance of PowerPoint Slides, the Council were then acquainted with some of the detailed figures within the budget. An explanation of turnover which was budgeted at just over £84.3m was also provided including expenditure, fees, business rates, grants, Council tax and contribution to reserves.

 

In terms of the Local Government Finance Settlement, Council was advised that this had been at the lower end at what had been anticipated and a two-year settlement had been promised going forward which would be welcomed for planning purposes. Progress continued to be made towards self-sufficiency, with the higher than anticipated uptake of the garden waste subscription service, alongside progressive optimisation across the Council.

 

Members were also advised that the Council continues to face several financial uncertainties, including the future of new homes bonus, fairer funding, national non-domestic rates and local government reorganisation which would all have an impact on the ability of the Council to plan financially.

 

In concluding the presentation, Councillor Mickelburgh reiterated that the foundations of the Council’s finances were solid, and the Budget provided the confidence to continue to take positive steps and apply forward thinking to meet the concerns Huntingdonshire residents for the year ahead.

 

Councillor Mickelburgh then moved the recommendations which were duly seconded by Councillor S J Conboy who reserved her right to speak.

 

In response and on behalf of the Conservative Group, the Leader of the Principal Opposition Group, Councillor R Martin then moved the following amendment which was duly seconded by Councillor A Jennings who also reserved his right to speak –

 

‘To provide one hours free parking in all Council short term car parks and to not proceed with the planned increase in market pitch fees, whilst all reducing the burden on reserves across the MTFS’

 

In introducing the amendment, the Leader of the Principal Opposition Group Councillor Martin explained that the amendment was designed to support the market towns and local businesses with the District and keep Council finances in check by reversing the increase in market traders fees and offering an hours free parking in short stay car parks. In addressing the Council, he also set out his proposals to fund these suggestions, whilst at the same time reducing the Council’s requirements to draw on reserves. These included proposals to not accept specific budget bids for the forthcoming financial year, to eliminate the use of consultants proposed for assistance with the Climate Strategy, Place Strategy and the Local Plan, small budget adjustments relating to staffing proposals for food waste collection, proposals for One Leisure pricing and changes to the assumptions for the estimation of income from interest rates.

 

In terms of the costs associated with the proposals, the Council were advised that the cost of choosing not to increase market trader pitch fees would be £9k per annum, whilst the proposal for one hour’s free car parking would cost £295k in the first year rising to £590k thereafter due to planned price increases. The proposals would also reduce the reliance on reserves by £806k over the MTFS period.

 

Members were urged to support the amendment which put residents first, gave them a reason to shop locally, supported the market towns and local businesses and kept Council finances in check.

 

In debating the matter, several councillors spoke against the proposed amendment and indicated that they would not be supporting it. Whilst a number of Councillors made reference to the short notice at which they had been provided with the proposals, Councillor S Wakeford and M Hassall reiterated that the budgetary proposal should have been submitted through the overview and scrutiny process to enable it to have received proper consideration as part of the budgetary process. Whilst the Executive Councillors for Planning and Resident Services and Corporate Performance made the case for the retention of the need for future budgetary provision to employ consultants for the Climate Change Strategy and the Local Plan and a Licensing Officer to fulfil the Council’s statutory responsibilities.

 

Also speaking against the proposed amendment, Councillor N Hunt drew attention to the negative impact of the proposed amendment upon the delivery of the Council’s Climate Change Strategy, at a time when it was delivering several successes. In addition to the negative impact of deleting the proposal to establish a team to deliver and promote visual improvements to the state of the District, a matter which had been raised by the Opposition on a number of occasions. He also referred to the fact that the proposed amendment would in his opinion cut wide scale Council services to benefit a small few and reiterated that the Council’s short stay car parking services were already well utilised.

 

Councillor S Taylor also indicated her surprise that the Opposition were willing to remove the proposal for an established Pride of Place Team from the Budget given their previous comments regarding the State of the District. In doing so, she outlined the areas that the proposed new team were intended to address in conjunction with Town and Parish Councils and Community Litter Groups. With regards to Market Pitch fees, the Council were reminded that these had not been increased since the pre Covid period and the proposed increase would help the Council achieve a breakeven point for the service.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources Councillor Mickelburgh commented on the savings which would be achieved by individual car drivers from an hour’s free car parking compared to the cost of £2.6m in Council funds over the course of the Medium-Term Financial Strategy period. However rather than simply cutting charges, he outlined the need for a more wide-reaching data driven Car Parking Strategy for the District, taking into account a variety of factors including the implications of Civil Parking Enforcement (CPE) which was expected to come into effect in August 2025. Council was advised that the Cabinet had indicated their intention to produce a revised Strategy once the impact of CPE was known in the Autumn.

 

Speaking in support of the amendment and the proposal to fund it through a reduction in the use of consultants, Councillor T D Alban reiterated that many of the issues for which consultants were currently employed could be achieved through proactive and creative working by Officers and Councillors. Councillor Bywater also expressed the view that significant sums of money were spent on consultants and quangos which would be better spent on front line services. He drew attention to the budget bid proposals which he suggested should not be accepted namely embedding Huntingdonshire Futures, Digital Communications, Let’s Talk Huntingdonshire and the future employment of Consultants to support the Climate Change Strategy, Place Strategy and the Local Plan and his reasons for this. Instead, he reiterated the need to drive economic growth within the market towns by making them more accessible.  The introduction of a free first hour parking would increase footfall, support the traders and revive the high street. Whilst maintaining market pitch fees would also make a difference to certain members of the community.

 

Also speaking in support of the amendment, Councillor J A Gray reiterated that the proposals which were being made by the Conservative Group were not being funded from cuts but from a reduction in proposals that were not currently in existence. He also took the opportunity to clarify that his previous comments concerning the state of the District had related to the state of the highways, a responsibility of the National Highways Agency. In addition, there were in the region of 180,000 residents within Huntingdonshire who had a responsibility for keeping the region clear and tidy. In terms of the provision of free parking, Councillor Gray reiterated that a number of Councillors on both sides had made reference to this within their election pledges and here was a credible option presented which would address an area that received a number of complaints regarding expense. He also expressed his delight that a new Parking Strategy may be forthcoming in the near future, whether as a potential consequence of this amendment or not.

 

Finally in drawing the discussion on the amendment to a close, Councillor A Jennings addressed the Council in support of the amendment. He emphasised the need to take action in recognition of the declining high street. To encourage, those who had to pop to the chemist, or the building society not to park in loading bays or double yellow lines but to park in the car parks which may then encourage them to lengthen their stay and spend further sums of money. He urged members to show support for the market traders and the local businesses within the market towns and suggested that the amendment set out a proposed path to do this. In responding to the comments which had been made regarding the late presentation of the amendment, Councillor Jennings reiterated that the Conservative Group were operating within the parameters of the Council’s Constitution and that it was difficult to make observations through the overview and scrutiny process when their first sight of the proposals was on the publication of that agenda. In drawing the discussion to a close he reminded the Council that the amendment would make a significant contribution back into general reserves.

 

Following debate and being put to the vote, the amendment was declared to be LOST.

 

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

 

For the Motion (15) – Councillors Alban, Beuttell, Brereton, Bywater, Cawley, Clarke, Corney, Costello, Gray, Gulson, Jennings, Keane, Lowe, Martin, Neish

 

Against the Motion (30) – Councillors Banks, Blackwell, Burke, Catmur, Chapman, Conboy, Dew, Gleadow, Harvey, Hassall, Howell, Hunt, Jordan, Kadewere M, Kadewere P, Kerr, McAdam, Mickelburgh B, Mickelburgh D, Mokbul, Pickering, Pitt, Sanderson, Shaw, Taylor I, Taylor S, Terry, Tevlin, Wakeford, Wells

 

Abstentions (1) – Councillor Ferguson

 

In returning the debate and discussion to the substantive motion, the Leader of the Opposition addressed the Council again. In doing so, Councillor R Martin made claims that the budget left a £6.5m deficit, despite the introduction of the green waste subscription service and a greater than expected return from interest rates. He also drew attention to the underspends over the course of the previous three years and made reference to the fact that in the previous year the Administration had criticised the Opposition’s amendment for utilising reserves.

 

With reference to the proposed increase in Council tax, Councillor Martin explained that the opposition had felt unable to propose a Council Tax freeze for the current year due to the potential negative impact that this might have on the funding settlement from central government. However, he reiterated his Group’s belief that the Administration had been overly conservative with their assumptions, which might have provided an opportunity to ease the tax burden on residents, reduce car parking charges and provide relief for residents. He also took the opportunity to outline concerns at the proposals for increased expenditure within the Budget and MTFS than in the current year.

 

In the ensuing debate, the Executive Councillor for Governance and Democratic Services Councillor J E Harvey spoke in support of the proposed Budget and Medium-Term Financial Strategy. In doing so, she reiterated that she was pleased at a time when many authorities were struggling, the Council was able to present a balanced budget particularly in light of the significant risks which had been faced arising from the change in national government, higher than anticipated interest rates, the continuing cost of living crisis and the impending local government review. She further reiterated that she was proud to be part of a Joint Administration which took tough decisions as needed, whilst also supporting the District’s most vulnerable residents.

 

In addressing the Council on the proposed Budget, the Executive Leader explained that over the course of the previous two years the Joint Administration had taken a series of difficult but prudent decisions to tackle the budget deficit which they had inherited on entering office, which would continue going forward.

 

In referring to the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, the Executive Leader also reminded Council that the issue of car parking had been discussed recently by the Overview and Scrutiny Panel and it was unfortunate that the matter had not been raised at that stage. She reiterated that the Joint Administration had committed to producing a new holistic Car Parking Strategy for the District, which would seek contributions from all Members of the Council.

 

In terms of the proposed Budget, Members were advised that this reflected the Council’s agreed budget principles and continued to demonstrate that the Council was delivering for its residents. Councillor Conboy also took the opportunity to reiterate the importance of including additional budget bids within the Budget for embedding the Place Strategy and developing digital communications.

 

Councillor J A Gray spoke against the proposed Budget and the suggestion that it was the activities of the Joint Administration that made any difference to the Budget deficit. In doing so, he reasserted the assertion of his Group Leader that expenditure was increasing at a significant rate, compared to income and expressed concern at the inclusion of a number of items which were not current expenditure and whether they were actually affordable.

 

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 budget deficit, the new budget bids, the uncertainties the Council may face and the reasonableness of the Council tax increase.

 

It having, been previously moved and seconded, upon being to the vote, it was

 

RESOLVED

 

a)  that the proposed overall Budget 2025/26 and Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2026/27 to 2029/30 (Appendix 1) to include the Revenue Budgets at Section 2, the Capital Programme at Section 3 and the 2025/26 Fees and Charges at Section 7, Annex A be approved;

 

b)  that an increase of 3.11% Council Tax for 2025/26 be approved, i.e., the Band D Charge will increase to £165.86;

 

c)  that the Council note the Council Tax Base for the whole Council area and individual Towns and Parishes (para 6.2) as approved by Chair of Corporate Governance Committee and Section 151 Officer on the 19th December 2024 (and subsequent publication as a key decision);

The tax base (T) which is the amount anticipated from a District Council Tax of £1 is £66,638.00

 

d)  that the following amounts calculated by the Council for 2025/26 in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 as amended by the Localism Act 2011 (the Act), the Local Government Finance Act 2012 and associated regulations: -

 

i.  the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(2) (a) to (f) of the Act Gross revenue expenditure including benefits, Town/Parish Precepts -  £94,379,079

 

ii.  the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A (3) (a) to (d) of the Act

Revenue income including reimbursement of benefits, specific and general grants, use of reserves and any transfers from the collection fund - £73,295,187

 

iii.  the amount by which the aggregate at (i) above exceeds the aggregate at (ii) above in accordance with Section 31A (4) of the Act

This is the “Council Tax Requirement” including Parish / Town Precepts (item i minus item ii). It is the cash sum to be funded from District, Town and Parish Council Taxes - £21,083,892

 

iv.  the Council Tax requirement for 2025/26 divided by the tax base (T) in accordance with Section 31B (1) of the Act

District plus average Town/Parish Council Tax (item iii divided by District tax base) - £316.39

 

v.  the aggregate of all “Special items” referred to in Section 34 (1) of the Act.

The total value of Parish/Town precepts included in (i) and (iii) above - £10,031,601

 

vi.  the Basic Amount of Council Tax for 2025/26 being item iii less item v divided by the tax base (T) in accordance with Section 34(2) of the Act.

The District Council’s Band D Tax for 2025/26 - £165.86

 

vii.  the basic amounts of Council Tax for 2025/26 for those parts of the District to which one or more special items (Parish/Town precepts) relate in accordance with Section 34 (3) of the Act are shown by adding the Huntingdonshire District Council amount to the appropriate Parish Council amount in column “band D” set out in Table 1 attached.

 

viii.the amounts to be taken into account for 2025/26 in respect of categories of dwellings listed in particular valuation bands in accordance with Section 36 (1) of the Act are shown by adding the Huntingdonshire District Council amount to the Parish Council amount for each of the valuation bands in the columns “bands A to H” set out in Table 1 attached.

 

e)  that the amounts of the precept issued to the Council by Cambridgeshire County Council, Cambridgeshire Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Fire Authority, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority and for each Parish Council for each of the categories of dwellings listed in different valuation bands in accordance with Section 40 of the Act shown in para 6.3 attached be noted;

 

f)  that having regard to the calculations above, the Council, in accordance with Section 30 (2) of the Act, hereby sets the figures shown in para 6.4 as the amounts of Council Tax for 2025/26 for each of the categories of dwelling shown; This is the total Council Tax to be collected, incorporating the requirements of all of the relevant bodies, for each town or parish area.

 

g)  The Council notes that, in accordance with Section 52ZB of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, the basic amount of Council Tax for 2025/26 is not excessive. The basic amount at b(vi) above is not excessive as defined by the Government.

 

Tax Base 2025/26

 

Abbotsley	269.6
Abbots Ripton	141.8
Alconbury	549.5
Alconbury Weston	300.1
Alwalton	120.0
Barham & Woolley	29.4
Bluntisham	782.6
Brampton	2,537.6
Brington & Molesworth	191.2
Broughton	104.3
Buckden	1,339.8
Buckworth	55.4
Bury	784.9
Bythorn & Keyston	156.9
Catworth	162.4
Chesterton	69.0
Colne	394.7
Conington	74.9
Covington	48.0
Denton & Caldecote	29.3
Earith	604.0
Easton	82.5
Ellington	237.6
Elton	298.3
Farcet	544.0
Fenstanton	1,336.9
Folksworth & Washingley	355.7
Glatton	136.9
Godmanchester	3,161.1
Grafham	235.9
Great & Little Gidding	126.4
Great Gransden	494.9
Great Paxton	367.4
Great Staughton	335.6
Haddon	23.7
Hail Weston	245.4
Hamerton & Steeple Gidding	53.5
Hemingford Abbots	340.7
Hemingford Grey	1,298.3
Hilton	453.3
Holme	250.0
Holywell-cum-Needingworth	1,101.6
Houghton & Wyton	843.8
Huntingdon	7,726.5
Kimbolton & Stonely	617.8
Kings Ripton	81.5
Leighton Bromswold	79.4
Little Paxton	1,738.5
Morborne	12.2
Offord Cluny & Offord D’Arcy	538.8
Old Weston	106.5
Oldhurst	103.7
Perry	256.8
Pidley-cum-Fenton	204.7
Ramsey	3,247.8
Sawtry	2,092.6
Sibson-cum-Stibbington	234.2
Somersham	1,425.4
Southoe & Midloe	158.9
Spaldwick	260.8
St Ives	6,070.8
St Neots	11,694.4
Stilton	822.3
Stow Longa	73.6
The Stukeleys	1,448.4
Tilbrook	129.0
Toseland	35.9
Upton & Coppingford	91.3
Upwood & The Raveleys	460.0
Warboys	1,592.8
Waresley-cum-Tetworth	149.3
Water Newton	41.2
Winwick	54.0
Wistow	231.2
Woodhurst	155.3
Woodwalton	82.5
Wyton-on-the-Hill	454.9
Yaxley	2,945.9
Yelling	150.3
Total	66,638.0

 

 

h)  that the 2025/26 Treasury Management, Capital and Investment Strategies, MRP Statement and Flexible Use of Capital Receipts Strategy be approved (Appendix 2).

 

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

 

For the Motion (31) – Councillors Banks, Blackwell, Burke, Catmur, Chapman, Conboy, Dew, Ferguson, Gleadow, Harvey, Hassall, Howell, Hunt, Jordan, Kadewere M, Kadewere P, Kerr, McAdam, Mickelburgh B, Mickelburgh D, Mokbul, Pickering, Pitt, Sanderson, Shaw, Taylor I, Taylor S, Terry, Tevlin, Wakeford, Wells

 

Against the Motion (15) – Councillors Alban, Beuttell, Brereton, Bywater, Cawley, Clarke, Corney, Costello, Gray, Gulson, Jennings, Keane, Lowe, Martin, Neish

 

Abstentions (0) - None