Agenda item

To consider the Council’s financial position and agree the budget for 2025/26. This item will be considered in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 17

The Chair reminded the meeting of the requirements of Council procedure rule 17 and called on the Leader to introduce the administration’s budget proposal.

Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst proposed the Liberal Democrat group budget, and that due to sound financial management, his group budget would not require cuts to services, redundancies or reduced operations. He set out what he believed to be some of the key positive elements of the budgets including funding for local transport, leisure services, parking, housing, council tax support and carbon reduction measures. He noted that the budget included funding to support the local plan delivery and local government reorganisation.

During his presentation, Councillor Giles-Medhurst set out the financial implications including the level of council tax proposed and the level of reserves. He thanked officers for their support and members of the Labour and Green Groups for their suggestions.

Addressing the conservative budget proposals, Councillor Giles-Medhurst raised concern that the full revenue impact of proposals had not been considered; a lower increase in council tax would result in a permanent reduction in the revenue available to the Council and the use of reserves as proposed in their budget would not be sustainable.

The proposed budget was seconded by Councillor Sarah-Nelmes.

Councillor Oliver Cooper was invited to present the Conservative budget proposals. In doing so, he outlined what he considered to be a clear distinction in the position between the two parties and proposals and the policy ideas within their budget which he felt delivered a greener environment, made the council more efficient and helped preserve the built environment. This included additional CCTV cameras and funding to support initiatives that could reduce burglaries and environmental crime, and proposals to invest in conservation areas and specific car parking schemes alongside other initiatives he felt would make the district cleaner and safer.

Councillor Cooper set out proposals to improve Council service efficiency, most notably through the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI); he noted his concern that the Council may be spending disproportionately in areas such as communications. He felt that the Liberal Democrat budget proposals represented a position to charge tax and spend money, rather than to invest in service efficiency.

The proposed budget was seconded by Councillor Philip Hearn.

The Chair invited members to debate the budgets.

Councillor Chris Mitchell thanked the Conservative group for putting forward an alternative, and noted that many of the ideas were worthy of consideration. He expressed concern regarding the sustainability impact of AI, which could impact on the Council’s net zero ambition, and raised concern regarding the potential of the fair funding review negatively impacting on the council’s financial position.

Councillor Stephen Cox focused on the disabled facilities at Three Rivers House, and noted that neither budget included proposals for improving these. Other members expressed support for improving the facilities even though that had not been included in the present budget proposals.

Several members discussed the proposals within the Conservative budget to help fund community safety initiatives including CCTV. On the one hand, some members considered that Three Rivers was generally considered a safe community, with low levels of crime, that the council should not fund safety equipment for those individuals who could afford it and the revenue implications of CCTV had to be considered. On the other hand, some members felt that there were specific areas with burglary and crime and initiatives should be supported to reduce this.

Members also considered the Conservative proposals related to environmental crime. The potential benefits of an environmental crime task force were considered, which could be self-funding to reduce issues such as persistent fly-tipping. On the other hand, the council had a good track record of dealing with fly-tipping where it occurred.

Discussion took place regarding the proposals for AI. Some members noted the merits of this proposal, in that it could create service efficiencies, but on the other hand some members were concerned the proposals and not been fully developed, for example whether potential redundancy costs had been considered.

Consideration was given to the environmental considerations in both budgets; to what extent the budgets had factored in biodiversity and how the £500k included in the Liberal Democrat budget for carbon net zero projects would be spent.

During the debate, a wide range other points were also considered including (but not limited to) how car park utilization could be improved; the funding of conservation areas; the impact of Hertfordshire County Council proposals on the Three Rivers Council budget.

At the conclusion of her speech, Councillor Louise Price called for the question to be put. Whilst the Chair indicated he felt sufficient debate had occurred, members generally dissented with the proposal and the debate continued.

During the debate, the meeting adjourned from 8:50 to 9:01 to provide members a comfort break.

Once debate had concluded, the Chair called on Councillor Cooper to summarize the debate from the perspective of his budget proposals. Councillor Cooper recognised the budget would utilise reserves, but this would be done with the intention of transforming the organisation, making it fit for the long term. He welcomed supportive comments made to the Conservative budget and ideas within it but raised concern that there was not sufficient recognition of some of the issues within the community which his groups budget sought to address. 

The Chair then called on Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst to give his reply to the budget debate. He recognised that some of the Conservative proposals had merit, but they needed fully costing. He contradicted information provided regarding communications budgets, and provided a number of examples where he believed that the proposals within the Conservative budget could not be achieved within the costings provided or did not accord with the current service performance.

The Chair called for a recorded vote on the budget proposals.

Conservative budget proposals:

For: Councillors Cooper, Edwards, fraser, Hearn, Merali, Ranger, Reed (7)

Against: Councillors Davies, Drury, Gazzard, Giles-Medhurst, Humphreys, Hussain, Khiroya, Lloyd, Major, Martin, Mitchell, Nelmes, Price, Raeburn, Scarth, Smith, Tankard, Whately-Smith, Winter (19)

Abstentions: Councillors Cox, J King, S King, Sian, Stungo (5)

The Conservative budget fell.

The Chair called for the recorded vote on the Liberal Democrat Budget:

For: Councillors Cox, Davies, Drury, Gazzard, Giles-Medhurst, Humphreys, Hussain, Khiroya, J King, S King, Lloyd, Major, Martin, Mitchell, Nelmes, Price, Raeburn, Scarth, Sian, Smith, Stungo, Tankard, Whately-Smith, Winter (24)

Against: Councillors Cooper, Edwards, Fraser, Hearn, Merali, Ranger, Reed (7)

The Liberal Democrat budget was carried.