Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the last meeting of the Council held on 19 January 2016 be approved as a correct record for signature by the Mayor.

Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any pecuniary interest in respect of matters contained in this agenda.

If you have a pecuniary interest you must withdraw from the meeting. Normally you should leave the room before the business starts to be discussed. You do, however, have the same right to speak as a member of the public and may remain in the room to enable you to exercise that right and then leave immediately. In either case you must not seek to improperly influence a decision on the matter.

There were no declarations of interest received.

The Mayor gave an update on her fundraising activities, thanking all those who had attended her Charity Ball and Burns Night Supper and seeking support for her remaining two events, a Quiz Night on 5 March and a Murder Mystery Night on 31 March.

Members of the public who have requested the opportunity to ask question(s) on any item(s) on the agenda will have three minutes to put their question(s) to the relevant Councillor. Members of the public will be allowed to ask one short supplementary question.

There were no public questions for consideration.

To seek approval to recommendations from the Executive contained in a report of the Chief Executive and within the appendices listed below.

Members are reminded that there is now a requirement under the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) Regulations 2014 to record how all councillors have voted on decisions at budget setting meetings, including any proposed amendments.

Councillor Peter Wilson, Executive Member for Resources presented the Executive’s General Fund Revenue and Capital Budget and Council Tax proposals for 2016/17.

Councillor Wilson thanked the finance team for their assistance in putting together the budget which would enable the delivery of the priorities contained in the Corporate Strategy. Significant budget efficiencies had been achieved and this would enable the delivery of a balanced budget in 2016/17; would enable Council tax to be frozen for a further year; and allow investment of £1.4m in projects to meet corporate priorities.

In summary, the report put forward by the Executive:

·         Freezes Council Tax for a fourth year in 2016/17

·         Addresses the previously forecasted budget deficit position for 2016/17 in advance of the year, delivering £1.167m worth of budget efficiencies.

·         Does not contain cuts to front line services.

·         Delivers Revenue and Capital New Investments totalling £3.167m.

·         Brings the total committed to New Investments since 2013/14 to £12.330m.

·         Is consistent with the Corporate Priorities and aims to bring income into the Council.

·         Seeks to bridge the forecasted budget gap by generating additional income, in particular through expanding the business rates tax base and invest-to-earn projects.

·         Is consistent with the Medium Term Financial Strategy.

·         Minimises the revenue impact of the Council’s borrowing commitment to fund the Capital Programme.

·         Enhances the financial resilience of the Council’s budget by increasing the level of working balances from £3.0m to £4.0m by the end of 2018/19.

The following appendices were included in the main report on the General Fund Revenue and Capital Budget and Council Tax for 2016/17, providing supporting information to the budget proposals:

In presenting the report, Councillor Wilson referred to the major financial challenges facing local government, in particular the phasing out of Revenue Support Grant to local authorities from 2020 and changes to the New Homes Bonus. He referred to the need to be bold; the Council was investing heavily in front line services, and also in revenue sources which could increase income in order to help make the Council self-sufficient for the future. There was still a need to continue with efficiency savings but the outcomes from the budget consultation were very positive.

Executive Leader Councillor Alistair Bradley seconded the proposals, stating that despite the cuts, the Council would still be striving to get the best for its residents. Chorley was bucking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.C.316

Report of the Conservative Group.

Councillor Greg Morgan, Shadow Executive Member for Resources presented the Conservative Group’s Alternative Budget. The focus of the proposals was:

·                Proposals to address the financial risk and uncertainty for the future by setting aside over £5.3 million over the next three years into general balances.

In presenting the report, Councillor Morgan referred to his Group’s proposal to set aside funding for PCSOs for the next 3 years.

In debating the proposals put forward by the opposition, Members raised issued around the longer term funding of PCSOs; challenged the ability to increase productivity to save £1.5m; and the viability of a consultancy and further shared services.

AMENDMENT

The adoption of the Alternative Budget as set out in the report, was moved as an amendment by Councillor Greg Morgan, Shadow Executive Member for Resources and seconded by Councillor Paul Leadbetter, Leader of the Conservative Group.

This was put to the vote, recorded as follows:

FOR:  E Bell, A Cullens, J Dalton, David Dickinson, Doreen Dickinson,

K Iddon, P Leadbetter, G Morgan, M Muncaster, M Perks, D Platt, J Walker.

AGAINST: A Beaver, J Berry, A Bradley, C Bromilow, T Brown, P Clark, J Cronshaw, G Dunn, R Finnamore, C France, G France, M France, A Gee, D Gee, T Gray, M Jarnell, H Khan, M Lees, R Lees, A Lowe, M Lowe, M Lynch, J Molyneaux, A Morwood, S Murfitt, B Murray, J Snape, K Snape, R Snape, R Toon, P Walmsley, A Whittaker, P Wilson.

The vote was LOST

SUBSTANTIVE MOTION (the Executive’s budget proposals) moved by Councillor Peter Wilson, seconded by Councillor Alistair Bradley.

FOR:  A Beaver, J Berry, A Bradley, C Bromilow, T Brown, P Clark, J Cronshaw, G Dunn, R Finnamore, C France, G France, M France, A Gee, D Gee, T Gray, M Jarnell, H Khan, M Lees, R Lees, A Lowe, M Lowe, M Lynch, J Molyneaux, A Morwood, S Murfitt, B Murray, J Snape, K Snape, R Snape, R Toon, P Walmsley, A Whittaker, P Wilson.

AGAINST:  E Bell, A Cullens, J Dalton, David Dickinson, Doreen Dickinson,

K Iddon, P Leadbetter, G Morgan, M Muncaster, M Perks, D Platt, J Walker.

The vote was CARRIED and it was RESOLVED -

To consider the attached notice of motion submitted by Councillor Alistair Bradley.

Councillor Alistair Bradley submitted the following motion on School Surface Water and Highways Drainage Charges, for debate under Council Procedure Rule 10 (supported with data contained within the agenda papers).

“Chorley Council notes:

1.  That United Utilities is the body responsible for charging for drainage and surface water in Chorley and across the North West region from Cheshire to Cumbria.

2.  United Utilities charging system for E15 Surface Water and Highways Drainage uses an area based calculation for School Water and Sewage charges.

3.  The E15 water and sewage charges made to schools cover all water and sewerage from schools but excludes repairs or maintenance costs.

4.  Sefton Metropolitan Council produced a breakdown of charges comparing Regions and Local Education Authorities (LEAs) using Department of Education (DfE) information. The same data source also contains figures for Lancashire and Chorley. The combined results are in the tables attached.

5.  The North West is one of 10 Regions in England but pays over 29% of Schools Water and Sewage charges.

6.  The South East region is the most similar to the North West both in terms of number of schools and number of pupils. The North West pays 2.4 times as much as the South East.

7.  The LEAs most similar to Lancashire in numbers of schools are Kent, Hampshire and Essex. Lancashire pays between 1.7 and 2.8 times as much per school as the others.

8.  The most similar LEAs to Lancashire in numbers of pupils are Kent, Birmingham and Hampshire. The Lancashire E15 Schools Water and Sewage charges per pupil is £34.63. This is twice the figure for Kent and 2.9 times the cost per pupil in Hampshire.

Chorley Council believes:

1.  That data from Pupil Premium spending shows that increasing the spend per pupil has clear and measurable effects on children’s development and future life chances

2.  By removing money from the schools in Chorley to the extent of approximately £5,000 p.a. compared to comparable LEAs is proving a disadvantage to all children in the Borough and damaging to their futures.

Chorley Council resolves that:

The Chief Executive writes to the Chair of United Utilities, the Water Regulator (OFWAT), the Secretary of State for Education, and the two Members of Parliament covering the Borough to express our complete dismay at the disadvantages being placed on the children in Chorley because public funds aimed at their education are being diverted to United Utilities’ balance sheet.”

In debating this motion, proposed by Councillor Alistair Bradley and seconded by Councillor Chris France, there was unanimous support and it was RESOLVED that the motion be agreed.