Agenda item

That:

·         Council confirms that it will apply the following resolution for special and general expenses for 2026/27:-

a.    that the following functions being either those provided equally across the district or incurring minimal expenditure be declared general expenses:-

·         allotments;

·         litter, salt and dog bins;

·         highways, trees and roadside verges;

·         seats and shelters;

·         youth centres;

·         crime prevention;

·         land drainage;

·         footpath maintenance;

·         footpath lighting;

·         community arts;

·         off-street car park maintenance;

·         street naming;

·         Dial-A-Ride;

·         play-schemes

·         cemeteries

·         YMCA Woodlands building in Abbots Langley

·         The Centre, South

b.    that the following functions are declared special expenses:-

·         Woodlands (apportioned on the basis of acreage) including the ranger at Leavesden Open Space and 50% of the Arboriculture and Landscape Officers’ costs

·         Community halls (including apportionment of Oxhey Hall);

·         Playing fields and open spaces (excluding water-based activities and maintenance met from commuted sums); based on the Grounds Maintenance contract.

·         Aquadrome Treated as 50% general expense and 50% special expense apportioned to the Batchworth Community Council.

·         Watersmeet (all costs except the pantomime charged to the unparished area and Batchworth Community Council as a community hall. The pantomime is treated as a general expense).

Councillor Price introduced the item and moved the recommendations in relation to Special Expenses, which were seconded by Councillor Giles-Medhurst.

In introducing the report, it was explained that Special Expenses were levied in accordance with the statutory framework to reflect the services provided in particular parts of the District and not elsewhere, and that the calculations had been undertaken in line with established methodology. It was noted that parishes declare the services they provide and that the District Council determines its Special Expenses accordingly.

During the debate, Members raised a number of issues concerning the allocation and transparency of Special Expenses.

Concerns were expressed regarding the continued inclusion of Watersmeet within the Special Expenses calculation. It was suggested that Watersmeet did not operate in the same way as other community facilities and that its inclusion disproportionately impacted residents in Rickmansworth. Reference was also made to business rates paid in respect of Watersmeet and whether alternative governance arrangements, such as a charitable trust model, might be explored in the future.

Members also debated the position of the Aquadrome. It was argued by some Members that the Aquadrome represented a key asset for Rickmansworth residents and that the condition and management of certain areas had given rise to concern. Questions were raised regarding whether expenditure allocated through Special Expenses was sufficiently transparent and whether residents could clearly see how the funds were being applied. Particular reference was made to car park conditions and long term management plans.

Other Members spoke in support of the existing arrangements, stating that land owned and maintained by the District Council necessarily required appropriate funding and that the methodology for apportionment had been consistently applied. It was emphasized that the budget itself had already been approved and that the Special Expenses decision concerned the allocation of costs rather than the overall level of expenditure.

A further issue raised during debate was the relationship between parish precepts and Special Expenses, and whether the two should be presented more distinctly in future documentation to assist clarity for residents.

Councillor Cooper moved an amendment which was seconded by Councillor Fraser

“To remove Watersmeet from the Special Expenses Calculation”

The Monitoring Officer advised that if the amendment were carried, the council would not be able to set the Council Tax at this meeting and an extraordinary meeting would be required. It was further advised that while the overall budget would not change, there would be implications for Council Tax billing and cashflow timing, particularly in relation to payments due to Hertfordshire County Council.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared LOST by the Chair with the voting being

For Councillors, Alley, Campbell, Edwards, Fraser, Hearn, Merali, D Morris, Ranger, Reed, Sian and Stungo (12)

Against Councillors, Davies, Drury, Gazzard, Giles-Medhurst, Humphreys, Khiroya, J King, S King, Lloyd, Major, Martin, Nelmes, Price, Raeburn, Rainbow, Scarth, Smith, Tankard, Whatley-Smith and Winter. (20)

Abstention Councillors, Mitchell. (1)

The substantive motion was put to a recorded vote and declared CARRIED by the Chair, with the voting being

For Councillors, Davies, Drury, Gazzard, Giles-Medhurst, Humphreys, Khiroya, J King, S King, Lloyd, Major, Martin, Mitchell, Nelmes, Price, Raeburn, Rainbow, Scarth, Sian, Smith, Stungo, Tankard, Whatley-Smith and Winter. (23)

Against Councillors, Alley, Campbell, Cooper, Edwards, Fraser, Hearn, Merali, D Morris, Ranger and Reed. (10)