Agenda item

To consider and set the Council Tax for 2022/23.

 

A separate budget pack, produced by the Director for Digital, Sustainability and Resources, shall be circulated as item 9, and the recommendation from the Executive, at item 7C, will also be considered as part of this item.

 

The Leader of the Council introduced the budget and setting of the council tax to members and made the following speech which is summarised as follows:

 

·       The Leader thanked officers, members, businesses and residents of Adur and NHS workers during a difficult year;

·       The Leader noted the goodbye to the previous Chief Executive and welcomed the new one;

·       There were Global Challenges including war in Ukraine and the Covid Pandemic. The Leader also noted the cost of living pressures on businesses and families;

·       The Leader stated that the economy was recovering siting an increase in the number of people in work, an increase in the rates of pay and there was a decrease in the number of people claiming out of work benefits;

·       Adur’s economy was stronger due to plans put in place to protect families and businesses;

·       The Council sought to support economic growth, job security and helping residents where needed, the Conservatives had a track record of success;

·       The opposition’s amendments accounted for a tiny percentage of the total budget and did not show a vision;

·       The importance of housing remained central to plans for the district, especially for Adur Homes tenants;

·       Care for the planet remained central, prosperity and security were only possible with sustainability;

 

Investing and delivering high quality public services

 

·       The budget presented a number of savings that, where possible, were offset by income, service modernisation and the use of digital technology;

·       The proposed increase of 1.99% will ensure the authority was able to resource plans for investment, this amounted to 12p a week per household;

 

Protecting Jobs and Creating Opportunity

 

·       Investment of over 1.7m would be made into the regeneration budget;

·       During the previous year Covid grants had been distributed to 2058 applications sharing over £19.5m of cash support;

·       The development of the Good Work Programme that assisting people back into work whilst also helping to address wider wellbeing issues such as mental health, domestic violence vulnerable housing and addiction;

·       A Youth hub had been opened with Worthing focussing on helping young people secure employment opportunities;

·       Work had gone on to support local markets;

·       A project called Fabric had been established offering community, charity and small business space;

·       There was continued development of the Citizen Wifi programme;

·       There were proposed public realm improvements for Southwick Square.

 

Building New Homes and Improving Housing

 

·       A priority was to improve quality and quantity of housing provision;

·       The first social housing to be built in Adur for 30 years was completed in Cecil Norris House which replace a 1970’s block of retirement flats;

·       A further 100 new affordable homes were planned including 55 new homes in Albion Street which had changed from 30% affordable to 100% affordable;

·       Adur homes was a key priority and there were plans for a significant programme of  fire safety works, external works programmes to a number of blocks, a rolling programme of home improvement works and works to support tenants with disabilities. There was a further new homes programme which panned a number of years and the overall investment was £33m

·       There were a significant number of other developments which included the former Civic Centre site, Ashcroft, Southwick Estate, Free wharf, New Monks Farm, Kingston Wharf and West Sompting.

 

Sustainability and Protecting our Environment

 

·       The Leader expressed an intention to be a good and responsible caretaker for this world;

·       Overall expenditure in the environmental services budget was set to increase including a particular focus on green spaces and biodiversity;

·       The Council’s decision to buy two large areas of land at Pad Farm and New Salts Farm would promote the return of biodiversity and bolster natural flood defences;

·       A further £94k had been awarded from DEFRA to fund studies about the restoration of vital salt marsh and wetland habitats could be funded;

·       The Carbon reduction team would continue to drive a programme of works to decarbonise buildings and fleet to help meet 2030 targets;

·       Work included ground source heat pumps at  Shadwells Court, Tollbridge House and air source heat pumps at the Shoreham Centre;

·       The creation of a local marine and estuarine reserve called Sussex Bay was going from strength to strength restoring the kelp forest and improving local fishing stock. This had received another DEFRA grant fund. The project was the only marine project funded by the scheme in the UK;

·       Work was continuing with Greater Brighton, Hydrogen Sussex and Shoreham Harbour to establish Adur as a future provider of low carbon hydrogen;

·       The New Environment Act would require the development of changes to some of the Authority’s waste services and the budget included a new post to support the important work including planning for food waste collection.

 

Supporting our Communities

 

·       From the beginning of the pandemic, communities in Adur leapt into action, checking on neighbours, in partnership with the council people organised help for people in need;

·       In 2022/23 there is a desire to build on this and help to support and encourage communities to thrive;

·       The budget for 2022/23 saw an overall increase in the Health and Wellbeing budget

 

The Leader of the opposition made a representation and introduced the Labour Groups’ amendments which are summarised as follows:

 

·       Members were told that there was a gap regarding the engagement and representation of anxious communities;

·       There was an increase in the cost of living and inflation was soon to hit 7%;

·       Residents were in for a tough year;

·       There had been a 60% reduction in local government over the last years and the government in Westminster seemed happy to let local authorities bare the brunt of the cuts;

·       The Labour group recognised the council’s retention of the Council Tax support scheme without restriction;

·       With the end of Covid support grants there was a concern that the budget in the following year would be difficult and an additional £674k would need to be found beyond savings already identified;

·       The Government needed to support councils more sustainability rather than by grant. This should be based on ‘what we need’ rather than ‘what we can deliver’

·       The Labour group questioned the creation of business sites in Shoreham when there were already other empty units in the town;

·       IKEA pulling out of the town was a clear failure of the Council. The original application was supported by the Executive and resources were expended by the Planning Department in getting the application through. It purportedly was not the correct place for such an application;

·       The Opposition Leader wanted to know what the plans for the site were now and what the Council planned to do with it. The Labour group would not have allowed this to happen and instead supported a high tech business park to compliment businesses already operating out of the airport site;

·       The Fabric programme in Lancing was working well and it was a good social enterprise scheme that benefitted Lancing;

·       Residents did not feel part of the discussion about the planning and development of Lancing;

·       Shoreham was a town in transition but it could not become a dormitory town;

·       Tower blocks under-supplying parking was not a real world solution;

·       Travel plans were of no use unless they were enforced;

·       Installation of Gas Boilers did not comply with sustainability objectives;

·       Unrealistic Housing targets set by central government were designed to fail so that unfettered planning decisions could happen and appeals were more likely to be successful;

·       New developments were being proposed without a single affordable home such as the Frost Site - this was due to apparent construction costs;

·       A robust local plan would not have allowed the application to come forward and it was questioned as to whether developers saw the Authority as a soft touch;

·       The main opposition would consult on workplace parking levies and would consult and communicate better overall; 

·       Council Officers should be present at the Shoreham Farmers Market talking to residents;

·       The Government grant to fund the flagship heat network did not happen and it was hoped that a bid could be put together in the future to secure some money;

·       The climate emergency should be the thread that weaves its way through everything that the Authority did an carbon accounting should become an associated cost in internal Audits if the council was to become carbon neutral in the delivery of its services by 2030;

·       It was regrettable that Adur did not receive any money from levelling up grants. The government had made statements about improving infrastructure and it was asked why the Council had made an application on hydrocarbon development that did not meet the criteria;

·       The Council had not received money from funds unlike other neighbouring coastal communities, this was due to a lack of prepared proposals;

·       The Opposition Leader noted that there deep systematic problems within Adur homes and welcomed the appointment of a transformation manager to deal with maintenance backlogs and the restructure of the service;

·       The Adur Homes Management board was not transparent;

·       Voids were costing the Council £226k and turnaround time was poor in relation to other local authorities this was due to the poor quality of the housing stock;

·       Build at Cecil Norris house and Albion Street were welcomed and the garage programme was a good exercise in public consultation;

·       The Council was losing homes to right to buy without these homes being replaced;

·       Community lead models of housing should be embraced such as community land trusts;

·       A Council should be rooted in the community and civic pride issues should be promoted. This was the reason for the first amendment which was modest and the expectation would be that this grew into something bigger;

 

The second amendment was introduced by an opposition group member and is summarised as follows

 

·       The money was coming from the Covid contingency fund which was to reimburse for lost fees, charges and plans. A lot of these losses came through a loss of business rates and the creation of a visitors guide would help local businesses;

·       The budget amendment was in relation to a visitor guide created by local businesses and was ready to use and could be extended to include all of the towns of Adur.

 

Councillor Crisp (Councillor who is not in a group) made a speech which is summarised as follows:

 

·       As a Green the philosophy was for people and planet first;

·       Food security was being worked on hard by all members of the council;

·       Members should reflect on how to work together;

·       Social Housing was welcomed, however affordable housing was a difficult term. The Council should be pressing for more social housing;

·       Developers of the Waterfront were providing disappointing service to the residents. There had been problems with the development from the start and it represented an ‘urban desert’ there was no green space;

·       High winds had caused rooves to be lifted off of blocks of flats and the Council should not be prepared to work with operators putting up poor buildings;

·       Cllr Crisp pressed the Council to think carefully about how housing was developed;

·       Social housing must come first and good quality developments should be built;

·       The climate emergency would exacerbate risks such as pandemics and the cost of living;

·       Adur did have some very good ground breaking policies, however the climate was not mentioned until later on in the budget. The Climate must be the core of everything the Councils did;

·       The Council could decarbonise but the rest of Adur needed attention. The Council should lead by example and inspire other to adopt change;

·       There were missed opportunities within the budget such as the assumption regarding income levels associated with car park usage. There needed to be the creation of a new normal with a resilient green economy;

·       Cllr Crisp stated support for enforcement of travel plans and new ways of getting around. It was disappointing to see how little of the LCWIP had been brought about and how little emphasis there was on this.

·       A tweak to the business rate could help to develop green jobs;

·       A suggestion for a tech park on the New Monks Farm was much more appropriate than an out of town superstore;

·       High targets for environmental sustainability should be set for new developments in the District. High quality builds could be created that were future proof;

·       Reference was made to the vulnerability of the reserved in light of inflation and it was suggested that that monitoring be focused in this area;

·       With regards to the amendments Cllr Crisp strongly supported community based funds and community lead decision making. The pilot was a good idea and it was an affordable amendment. Ward Councillors should be working with communities to come up with plans for what the people within their wards wanted;

·       Cllr Crisp supported the idea of an Adur Visitor Guide and was a useful way to expend a small amount of money.

 

The Council debated the budget and amendments and the budget in general.

 

In relation to the amendments those members against sited the statement in support of the amendment that money could be spent on picnic tables,art and hanging baskets. It was proffered that this would be taking money away from those in the District who needed it the most. The proposals were not specific enough and did not explain who and how money would be distributed among the community.The proposals were poor value for money given the amount required to administer the scheme In relation to the visitors guide members sited the funding already in place in other schemes and there were better ways to promote the district other than the production of paper leaflets there ‘needed to be a proper communication strategy’

 

Those in favour of the amendments sited that the concept was a way for communities to make decisions to affect their places and was a pilot scheme which could be expanded to help the community become more involved in local decision making. This could include any number of items which would be determined by local communities . A visitors guide was a good way to support the local economy and had been compiled by local businesses.

 

Following the budget and amendments being proposed seconded and debated the council voted on the amendments and the budget as follows:-

 

Amendment 1

 

Community budget per ward

 

We’re proposing an idea to improve resident participation in local democracy.

 

Resident engagement is crucial to the success of the council’s new priorities.

We currently operate our amenities capital budget through executive member sign off and devolved officer decision making. This hasn’t been equitable across our wards in Adur.

 

Our residents often ask who makes decisions about how their money is spent. They are often left feeling excluded.

 

We would like to empower our local communities by giving them a budget to spend in their ward, on an item or service of their choice. It could be a picnic table, a piece of art or a spend on hanging baskets.

 

Each ward would have its own allocation ensuring there is a fair distribution of resources across wards, handing over decisions to hyper-local communities. Ward councillors could pull together community groups into a forum and deliberate on how the allocation could be spent. It could be used alongside match funding.

 

This would be a modest shift to community-led decision making.

 

Our suggested budget would be an allocation of £1,500 per ward which amounts to a total of £21,000. It would also require the time of the participation officers at a cost of £10k. So a total budget of £31,000. This would be funded through the Covid contingency budget.

 

It would be a 12 month pilot for 2022/23. After the pilot is up, the council can review the scheme, and if successful seek to mainstream this provision in 2023/24 if resources allow.

 

For Cllrs Arnold, Baine, Cowen, Crisp, Gardner, O’Neal

 

Against Cllrs Carol Albury, Carson Albury, Barton, Boggis, Boram, Bridges, Buxton, Chipp, Dunn, Edwards, Evans, Funnell, Loader, Mansfield, McGregor, Neocleous, Pannell, Parkin, Williams

 

Abstain – nil

 

Amendment 2

 

Adur Visitor Guide

 

Adur District has much to offer visitors from the beaches to the South Downs. Whilst Worthing has a Time for Worthing Campaign, Seafront Investment Plan and a Tourism Guide, Adur isn’t well showcased or promoted in the same way.

 

By creating a visitor’s guide for Adur, we can put our beautiful towns and villages on the map.

Shoreham Trader’s Group has produced an illustrative map of Shoreham town which can be developed and expanded to incorporate Fishersgate & Southwick, Lancing & Sompting.

 

This guide would raise awareness of the cultural, leisure and business opportunities to our residents and people further afield.

 

For Cllrs Arnold, Baine, Cowen, Crisp, Gardner, O’Neal

 

Against Cllrs Carol Albury, Carson Albury, Barton, Boggis, Boram, Bridges, Buxton, Chipp, Dunn, Edwards, Evans, Funnell, Loader, Mansfield, McGregor, Neocleous, Pannell, Parkin, Williams

 

Abstain – nil

 

Substantive budget

 

For Cllrs Carol Albury, Carson Albury, Barton, Boggis, Boram, Bridges, Buxton, Chipp, Crisp, Dunn, Edwards, Evans, Funnell, Loader, Mansfield, McGregor, Neocleous, Pannell, Parkin, Williams

 

Abstain Cllrs Arnold, Baine, Cowen, Gardner, O’Neal

 

Against - nil

 

At 9:07pm the meeting was adjourned and was reconvened at 7:00pm on the 3 March 2022 in the QE2 room

 

Members present at the reconvened meeting were:

 

Cllrs Carson Albury, Arnold, Boggis, Boram, Chipp, Cowen, Crisp, Dunn, Evans, Loader,Parkin

 

The Chairman made the following announcement

 

As you are aware, the County Council was forced to rearrange their budget setting meeting to the 28th February due to storm Eunice.

 

As a consequence, Adur District Council was unable to set the overall Council Tax for the District, including the tax related to West Sussex County Council, at its meeting held on the 24nd February. 

 

We have therefore reconvened this evening to determine the matters referred to in Appendix B, a copy of which is tabled before you.

 

I should confirm that prior to our adjournment last week, the substantive motion (including Appendix B) was proposed by the Leader, seconded by Councillor Dunn and debated by the Council.  I can also confirm that the figures included in Appendix B of the agenda pack have not changed.

 

For Cllrs Carson Albury, Boggis, Boram, Chipp, Crisp, Dunn, Evans, Loader, Parkin

 

Abstain Cllr Arnold, Cowen

 

Against Nil

 

Resolved:

 

1.     It is noted that on 1st February 2022, the Executive calculated the Council Tax Base for 2022/23.

 

a.     for the whole Council area as 21,699.70 [Item T in the formula in Section 31B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended (the “Act”)]; and

b.     for dwellings in those parts of its area to which a Parish precept relates as set out below:

 

 

 

Lancing Parish Council                                    6,415.30

 

Sompting Parish Council                                2,759.90

 

All other areas including Shoreham,

Southwick and Coombes                                12,524.50

 

 

2.     That the Council Tax requirement for the Council’s own purposes for 2022/23 (excluding Parish precepts) is £6,892,040.

 

 

3.     That the following amounts be calculated by the Council for the year 2022/23 in accordance with Sections 31 to 36 of the Act:

 

 

a)    £56,041,882		being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(2) of the Act taking into account all precepts issued to it by Parish Councils
b)    £48,709,505		being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(3) of the Act.
c)    £7,332,377		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. (Item R), in the formula in Section 31B of the Act).
d)    £337.90		being the amount at 3(c) above (Item R), all divided by Item T (1(a) above), calculated by the Council in accordance with Section 31B of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year (including Parish precepts).
e)    £440,337		being the aggregate amount of all special items (Parish precepts) referred to in Section 34(1) of the Act as set out in paragraph 3.6.
f)      £317.61		being the amount at 3(d) above less the result given by dividing the amount at 3(e) above by Item T (1(a) above), calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 34(2) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year.
g)    £386,140		being the aggregate amount of all special expenses (not applicable in the Lancing Parish area)
h)    £299.79		being the amount at 3(d) above less the result given by dividing the amount at 3(e) and 3(g) above by Item T (1a above), calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 34(2) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which no Parish precept or Special Expense relates.

4.    That it be noted that for the year 2022/23 the West Sussex County Council and The  Police and Crime Commissioner for Sussex have issued precepts to the Council in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 for each category of dwellings in the Council’s area as indicated in the appendix attached (marked item 4).

 

5.    That the Council, in accordance with Sections 30 and 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, hereby sets the amounts shown below as the amounts of Council Tax for the year 2022/23 for each part of its area and for each of the categories of dwellings (see appendix item 5).