Agenda item

Councillor Roberts, Portfolio Holder for Finance, introduced the recommendations of the Executive in respect of the General Fund Budget for the coming year which identified service savings of £8.4m.  In doing so, the Portfolio Holder drew attention to an amendment by Councillor Forster which had been published on the previous day.

It was noted that, despite the savings, the Council still had a deficit on its business-as-usual services, even before the debt issue was taken into account.  The deficit in the coming year was £12.4m, though most of this could be attributed to interest on debt and the deficit on the commercial estate. 

Further savings would have to be identified for the remainder of the five-year Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) period and significant work had been undertaken with the Government on how the Council could set a legal budget given the scale of its debt problem.  Without the support of the Government, the Council’s budget deficit could reach up to £785million.  The size and complexity of the debt was such that the Council would have to push back its final decisions on setting the budget and Council Tax to an Extraordinary meeting of Council on 4 March 2024. Details of the Government’s support, which would include capitalisation and the treatment of the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP), would be presented to the Council at the Extraordinary meeting.

Following the introduction by the Portfolio Holder, Members discussed the implications of the proposals, noting that the scale of the debt was such that all services of the Council had to be reviewed.  The measures proposed would however take the Council to a position where it was able to operate within its means.  The Leader of the Council referred to the funding proposal for Citizens Advice Woking which would provide support going forward, and to Woking Community Transport which would continue to provide a transport service to the community centres and a reduced dial-a-ride service.  It was further confirmed that the Pool in the Park and the Lightbox would remain open.

Councillor Will Forster moved and Councillor Barker seconded an amendment, details of which had been published on the previous day.  The amendment proposed the addition of two new recommendations as set out below:

“(iv)   in accordance with paragraph 12.4, a hardship co-ordinator post is proposed. Subject to final agreement with Citizens Advice Woking the role will be employed by them.  This post would be employed by CAW and funded by the Council.  It would support the transition of CAW’s business model and create a network of support and advice, utilising the voluntary capacity in other charities and voluntary organisations across the borough.  This will be funded to the value of £50,000 for 2024/25 from the provision made for hardship as a result of the level of Council Tax increase proposed.

(v)     this Council agrees to ask residents to voluntarily contribute to the Woking Community Fund to support the Borough’s voluntary sector.  The Woking Community Fund is managed independently by the Community Foundation for Surrey and works closely with the Council to understand resident needs.  Residents will be asked to indicate whether their donation should go to particular priorities such as hardship advice, transport for the vulnerable or more general priorities.”

Councillor Forster spoke in support of his amendment, highlighting the importance of the role of hardship co-ordinator and the opportunity for residents to contribute to the Woking Community Fund which provided financial support for the Borough’s voluntary sector.  The amendment had been discussed with both Officers and Citizens Advice Woking before being submitted.

The amendment was debated by the Council and it was noted that, whilst the proposals would not solve all the issues faced by Citizens Advice Woking, it was an innovative approach which would help both the Charity and residents.

The ambition to support the Charity was welcomed although it was noted that no funding provision had been identified for other key charities such as the York Road Project.  Concern was expressed that Members had not been given sufficient notice of the amendment to fully consider the implications and reach a decision.  The funding for the post of hardship co-ordinator would be ringfenced and would be provided through the UK Shared Prosperity Fund.  As part of the debate, it was suggested that the use of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund should be reviewed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. 

The Mayor advised that, in accordance with Standing Orders, a vote would need to be taken on whether the meeting should continue beyond 10.30pm.  Accordingly, the Mayor invited Members to indicate whether they supported the extension and the names of Members voting were recorded as follows:

In favour:                                Councillors H Akberali, T Aziz, A-M Barker, G Cosnahan, S Dorsett, W Forster, P Graves, S Greentree, S Hussain, A Kirby, L Lyons, C Martin, L Morales, J Morley, S Mukherjee, E Nicholson, L Rice, D Roberts, T Spenser and M Sullivan.

Total in favour:                       20

Against:                                  Councillors A Boote, J Brown, K Davis, A Javaid and D Jordan.

Total against:                          5

Present not voting:                 The Mayor and Councillors R Leach and S Oades.

Total present not voting:        3

The proposal to extend the meeting beyond 10.30pm was therefore carried by 20 votes in favour and 5 votes against.

Before returning to the debate on the amendment, the Mayor advised that a five minute adjournment would be held.

On returning to the debate, the Leader of the Council outlined the background to the amendment and the different options which had been considered.  Councillor Forster was offered the right of reply and responded to the many points raised during the debate, highlighting the benefits of the amendment and recognising the role Citizens Advice Woking had in supporting vulnerable residents of Woking. 

Following the right of reply, the Mayor advised that, in accordance with Standing Order 10.8, the amendment – to include two additional resolutions (iv) and (v) – would be put to a vote.  The names of Members voting for and against the amendment were recorded as follows:

In favour:                                Councillors T Aziz, A-M Barker, G Cosnahan, W Forster, P Graves, S Greentree, A Javaid, A Kirby, R Leach, L Lyons, C Martin, L Morales, J Morley, S Mukherjee, E Nicholson, L Rice, D Roberts, T Spenser and M Sullivan.

Total in favour:                       19

Against:                                  Councillors H Akberali, J Brown, K Davis, S Dorsett and S Hussain.

Total against:                          5

Present not voting:                 The Mayor and Councillors A Boote, D Jordan and S Oades.

Total present not voting:        4

The amendment was therefore carried by 19 votes in favour and 5 votes against. 

The Councillors returned to the debate on the substantive recommendations before the Council.  Further concerns over the extent of the service cuts were raised, highlighting the impact on the most vulnerable residents of the Borough.  Reference was also made to the extent of cuts within the Authority, noting that in region of sixty staff were being made redundant.

The Portfolio Holder responded to the points raised during the debate and explained the background to the position the Council found itself in.  The proposals before the Council would be a step towards the recovery of the Authority, recognising that substantial ongoing support from the Government would be required for many years.

In accordance with Standing Order 10.8, the substantive recommendations, including the two additional recommendations, were put to a vote.  The names of Members voting for and against the recommendations were recorded as follows:

In favour:                                Councillors A-M Barker, G Cosnahan, W Forster, P Graves, S Greentree, A Kirby, R Leach, L Lyons, C Martin, L Morales, J Morley, S Mukherjee, E Nicholson, S Oades, L Rice, D Roberts, T Spenser and M Sullivan.

Total in favour:                       18

Against:                                  Councillors T Aziz, J Brown, K Davis, S Dorsett, S Hussain and A Javaid.

Total against:                          6

Present not voting:                 The Mayor and Councillors H Akberali, A Boote and D Jordan.

Total present not voting:        4

The recommendations were therefore carried by 18 votes in favour and 6 votes against. 

RESOLVED

That  (i)    the £8.4m of savings set out in Appendix 3b to the report be agreed;

          (ii)   the Equality Impact Assessment and public consultation processes on the savings proposals that are summarised in Appendix 5 to the report, with detailed reports on each resident facing saving proposal, be noted as part of the decision-making process;

          (iii)  it be noted a further report to Full Council on 4 March 2024 will receive a final report from the Director of Finance to finalise the treatment of the Council’s debt and Council Tax in 2024/25;

          (iv)  in accordance with paragraph 12.4, a hardship co-ordinator post is proposed. Subject to final agreement with Citizens Advice Woking the role will be employed by them.  This post would be employed by CAW and funded by the Council.  It would support the transition of CAW’s business model and create a network of support and advice, utilising the voluntary capacity in other charities and voluntary organisations across the borough.  This will be funded to the value of £50,000 for 2024/25 from the provision made for hardship as a result of the level of Council Tax increase proposed; and

          (v)   this Council agrees to ask residents to voluntarily contribute to the Woking Community Fund to support the Borough’s voluntary sector.  The Woking Community Fund is managed independently by the Community Foundation for Surrey and works closely with the Council to understand resident needs.  Residents will be asked to indicate whether their donation should go to particular priorities such as hardship advice, transport for the vulnerable or more general priorities.