The Chair invited the Group Head of Law & Governance and Monitoring Officer to provide advice to the meeting and to confirm the procedure that would be followed.

 

            The Monitoring Officer reconfirmed that the Special Meeting of the Council held on 1 March 2023 had been adjourned to allow Officers to seek professional external advice. It was confirmed that all Councillors had been sent that advice during the course of the week. 

 

            There had been several questions that had been left with Officers at the point of adjourning the last meeting. The Monitoring Officer provided a response to these and summarised the advice that had been received:

 

·         The amendment that had been carried to freeze Council Tax was a valid amendment.

·         Once a Motion had been amended, the motion as amended could not be withdrawn by the original proposer. This meant that Full Council would now move into debating the substantive recommendations, as amended.

·         The mover of the original Motion, Councillor Gunner, might feel that he was no longer able to support the motion, as amended, and so could vote against it.

·         The motion, as amended, was now in the hands of the mover of the amendment [Councillor Bennett].

·         In debating the substantive recommendations, further  amendments could be moved

·         An amendment seeking to alter the now amended [Recommendations d) and e) could not be moved.

·          Upon voting on the recommendations as amended, if passed the Budget would be set and confirmed.

·         If the recommendations, as amended, were voted down, provided the meeting had not closed - under the urgency provisions outlined in Council Procedure Rule 4.2 (vii), the original budget report could be reconsidered at this meeting provided the Chair, in consultation with the Chief Executive, considered that the business was of such urgency that it required Council’s immediate attention.  The Monitoring Officer advised that in needing to set the Council’s Budget for 2023/24 that requirement would, in his view, be fulfilled. 

·         There was no statutory provision or reported case law that would enable the Council to extend the budget setting deadline of 11 March 2023.

·         If a budget were to be set after that date, then there would be serious financial implications for the Council in terms of the ability of the Council to issue bills or arrange direct debits for collection.

·         There was also a risk of Judicial Review challenge should the Council not set a budget by 11 March 2023.

 

            The Chair returned to the substantive recommendations as amended as displayed to the meeting and invited debate. The amendments carried from 1 March 2023 in relation to all of the recommendations are set out below:

           

1.1.It is recommended that the Council:

 

(a)  Notes that the Interim Group Head of Finance, in consultation with the Leader of the Council has approved a tax base of 64,159 for 2023/2024;

 

(b)  Notes the submission of the Council’s NNDR1 return (the estimate of the Council’s Business Rate income for 2023/24) to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC).

 

(c)  That the General Fund Budget as set out in Appendix 1 is approved;

 

(d)  Arun’s Band D Council Tax for 2023/24 is set at £196.47 a freeze over 2022/23;

 

(e)  Arun’s Council Tax Requirement for 2023/24, based on a Band D Council tax of £196.47is set at £12.605.32m, plus parish precepts as demanded, to be transferred to the General Fund in accordance with statutory requirements;

 

(f)   The Council’s General Fund Balance minimum balance continues to be set at £5m;

 

(g)  The HRA budget as set out in Appendix 2 is approved;

 

(h)  HRA rents be increased by 7% in accordance with the provisions of the rent standard;

 

(i)    HRA garage rents bee increased by 7% to give an average rent of £14.50 per week (excluding VAT) and heating and water/sewerage charges be increased on a scheme by scheme basis, with the aim of balancing costs with income;

 

(j)    The HRA Balance to remain below the minimum level of £2m for the period 2023/24 to 2026/27 to enable the realisation of savings in Repairs and Supervision & Management expenditure to deliver a sustainable HRA; and

 

(k)  The capital programme as set out appendix C is approved.

 

 

 

 

 

1.2.         Resolve that for 2023/24 any expenses incurred by the Authority in performing in part of its area a function performed elsewhere in its area by a Parish/Town Council or the Chairman of a Parish Meeting shall not be treated as special expenses for the purposes of Section 35 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

 

            The first Councillor to speak confirmed that they could not support the budget as amended. Although he agreed with the amendment to freeze  Council Tax, this only party addressed the need for the Council to assist its vulnerable residents more. The primary concern was the proposed 7% increase in Housing Revenue Account (HRA) rents which would impose a further financial burden for residents already struggling with fuel and food poverty. This increase would add substantial weekly costs for families and the elderly. 

 

            Councillor Roberts then raised a Point of Order and proposed a Motion without Notice in accordance with the Council’s Constitution at Council Procedure Rule 17 that the question be now put.  Councillor English seconded this motion.

 

            The Chair responded confirming that she did not believe that the substantive recommendations, as amended, had been sufficiently debated and so confirmed that she would not accept this motion. 

 

            Debate on the recommendations continued and support for the amended budget was outlined. A budget needed to be passed and it was acknowledged that any new administration could modify what was seen as a weak and risky budget using £5m of reserves to balance it. The amendment was welcomed as it would assist hard pressed residents but would allow for the budget to be corrected later by administering much needed cuts in services. It was outlined that the budget contained limited information in terms of the proposed £2m set aside for transformation work which would produce cost savings and cuts later affecting the services provided to residents.

 

            It was felt that the amendment would make the most significant difference for all residents across the entire district. Despite this, further concern was expressed over the 7% rise in council tenant rents. In response, it was stated that the amendment, in freezing council tax across the board, provided for greater tax breaks for those in higher council tax bands than it did for those in lower bands.  How was this fair?

 

            Councillor Cooper then raised a Point of Order and proposed a Motion without Notice in accordance with the Council’s Constitution at Council Procedure Rule 17 that the question be now put. This was seconded by Councillor Dendle.

 

            The Chair agreed that this motion should be put to the vote. On the procedural motion being put to the vote it was declared CARRIED.

 

            The Chair then invited Councillor Pendleton, as seconder of the recommendations, as amended, to speak.  She confirmed that she could not support the budget, as amended, as it did not benefit those most in need, being vulnerable residents, in the same way that it benefited wealthier residents. Support for those most in need could be given in other ways such as the hardship fund which protected those in hardship. The amended freeze in Council Tax did not achieve this.

 

            Councillor Gunner, as the proposer of the recommendations, responded to some of the points raised in the debate and made a statement. He confirmed that he could not support the recommendations as amended.

 

            In line with Council Procedure Rule Vote 20.6, a recorded was required on the voting of the amended recommendations.

 

            Those voting for the recommendations were Councillors Bennett, Blanchard-Cooper, Brooks, Buckland, Coster, Dixon, Goodheart, Haywood, Huntley, Jones, Lury, McAuliffe, Needs, Oppler, Purchese, Seex, Smith, Stanley, Wallsgrove, Walsh, Warr, Worne and Yeates (23). Those against were Councillors Bicknell, Bower, Caffyn, Chace, Chapman, Clayden, Mrs Cooper, Cooper, Daniells, Dendle, Elkins, Mrs English, English, Gunner, Hughes, Kelly, Madeley, Oliver-Redgate, Pendleton, Rhodes, Roberts and Stainton (22). Councillors Northeast and Thurston abstained from voting (2).

 

            The voting on the amended recommendations a) to k) were therefore declared CARRIED.

 

            The Chair then stated that Councillor Goodheart had indicated that he wished to speak during the proceedings of the recorded vote. It was confirmed that he had voted incorrectly. The Chair invited Councillor Goodheart to speak. Councillor Goodheart confirmed that he had voted incorrectly and wished to correct his error.

 

            The Chair confirmed that Councillor Goodheart had raised his hand to speak as soon as he had realised that he had voted incorrectly. This had been made clear to her as Chair before the results of the vote had been declared. The Chair’s view was that the result of the vote should now be changed and she asked for advice from the Monitoring Officer.  He confirmed that Councillor Goodheart had read out his vote and that as this had been recorded it should remain as recorded.

 

            A councillor confirmed that this situation had occurred before at Council, and it was suggested that the recording of that previous meeting be played to the meeting and advice sought on how to proceed.

 

            The Chair confirmed that she wished to take further advice and proposed a 15 minute adjournment.

 

            The voting on the proposal to adjourn the meeting was undertaken.  This was not carried. The Chair confirmed that she still wished to receive advice from the Monitoring Officer. This would be taken now in the meeting instead of adjourning.

 

            The Monitoring Officer left the Chamber to research the position and on returning was invited to provide his advice. He confirmed that the Chair was not comfortable with Councillor Goodheart not being able to correct his vote given the circumstances. When the vote was being recorded, Councillor Goodheart had indicated very quickly after announcing his vote that he had an issue with the way he had voted and that he had made a mistake.  He had indicated this swiftly.  The Monitoring Officer confirmed that he had taken advice from Counsel, and he confirmed that his view was that given these circumstances, a Member should be allowed to correct their vote. Counsel had provided the detail of a recent High Court case where a Planning Committee had needed to vote four times on the same item as it had become very confused as to what they were voting for and in those circumstances, Councillors had altered their votes. It was therefore reasonable for Councillor Goodheart to be allowed to correct his vote as he had indicated promptly that he had made an error. In recognition of the fact that the budget was one of the most important items of business for an authority to consider in its council year, it was important for the vote on that item to be correct. Councillor Goodheart would be permitted to correct his vote. It would be for the Chair to confirm how she wished to proceed.

 

             The Chair asked the Committee Manager to amend the recorded vote sheet for the voting on the substantive recommendations and asked if the results could be declared to the meeting.

 

            Following a Point of Order, which was in protest of the advice received, and a question raised asking if the vote on the substantive recommendations would be taken again in its entirety, the Chair confirmed that as this was one error relating to one Councillor which had swiftly been alerted to the meeting, she confirmed that she was comfortable in proceeding with the recorded vote being corrected for Councillor Goodheart and not for all Members to vote again.

 

 

            The Committee Manager confirmed that the result of the recorded vote on the substantive recommendations having corrected Councillor Goodheart’s error, was 22 Councillors voting for, 23 voting against with two Councillors abstaining.  The vote on the substantive recommendations was therefore LOST.

 

            The Monitoring Officer confirmed that as the recommendations had been voted down, under the urgency provisions of Council Procedure Rule 4.2 (vii), the original budget report could be reconsidered at this meeting provided that the Chair, in consultation with the Chief Executive, believed that the business was so urgent to require immediate attention. The Chair and the Chief Executive confirmed this to be the case. The Chair therefore proposed to adjourn for a period of ten minutes to allow the original budget papers to be made available to Members. On the proposal to adjourn being put to the vote, this was declared CARRIED.

 

            Following the adjournment, Councillor Goodheart was invited to verbalise that he had wished for his vote to be corrected, which he then did. 

 

            The Chair then referred Members back to the original budget papers as presented in the agenda pack for 1 March 2023 under Item 8 and she invited Councillor Gunner, as the Leader of the Council, to introduce and propose the recommendations.

 

            Councillor Gunner then proposed the recommendations a) to k) as set out in the agenda. These recommendations were seconded by Councillor Pendleton.

 

            The Chair invited debate.  The first Councillor to speak was Councillor Thurston who confirmed that she wished to propose the following amendment and that this would form a new recommendation l).  The wording of this amendment has been set out below:

 

            l)          £200k to be taken from reserves; £100k additional funding for the council tax hardship fund and £100k extra money for the climate change budget, the detail of which will be decided in forthcoming Committees;

 

            Councillor Thurston saw this as a socially just and environmentally friendly addition to the budget. This amendment was seconded by Councillor Wallsgrove.

 

            The Chair invited debate on the amendment. This saw solid support from most Members as it would support residents who were most in need. 

            The additional money for climate change was also welcomed and it was hoped that the Council’s action plan would highlight proposals in terms of how this additional money would be spent quickly. 

 

            Following further support from Members, and questions, Councillors Gunner and Pendleton as the proposer and seconder of the recommendations confirmed that they would be happy to support the amendment from Councillor Thurston.

 

            Councillor Cooper then proposed a Motion without Notice in accordance with the Council’s Constitution at Council Procedure Rule 17 that the question be now put. This was seconded by Councillor Bower. The Chair in response confirmed that she would allow further debate on the amendment as there had been Councillors who had already indicated that they wished to speak.

 

            Following further support and statements made, the Chair confirmed that she would now return to the substantive recommendations a) to l). In line with Council Procedure Rule 20.6, a recorded vote was undertaken.

 

            Those voting for the recommendations were Councillors Bennett, Bicknell, Blanchard-Cooper, Bower, Brooks, Buckland, Caffyn, Chace, Chapman, Clayden, Mrs Cooper, Cooper, Dendle, Elkins, Mrs English, English, Goodheart, Gunner, Hughes, Jones, Kelly, Lury, Madeley, McAuliffe, Needs, Oliver-Redgate, Pendleton, Purchese, Rhodes, Roberts, Smith, Stainton, Thurston, Wallsgrove, Walsh, Worne and Yeates (37). Those voting against were Councillors Coster, Daniells, Dixon, Haywood (4). Councillors Huntley, Northeast, Oppler, Stanley and Warr abstained from voting (5).  The recommendations were therefore declared CARRIED.

 

            The Council

 

                        RESOLVED – that it

 

(a)  Notes that the Interim Group Head of Finance, in consultation with the Leader of the Council has approved a tax base of 64,159 for 2023/2024;

 

(b)  Notes the submission of the Council’s NNDR1 return (the estimate of the Council’s Business Rate income for 2023/24) to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC).

 

(c)  That the General Fund Budget as set out in Appendix 1 is approved;

 

 

(d)  Arun’s Band D Council Tax for 2023/24 is set at £202.34, an increase of 2.99% over 2022/23;

 

(e)  Arun’s Council Tax Requirement for 2023/24, based on a Band D Council tax of £202.34, is set at £12.982m, plus parish precepts as demanded, to be transferred to the General Fund in accordance with statutory requirements;

 

(f)   The Council’s General Fund Balance minimum balance continues to be set at £5m;

 

(g)  The HRA budget as set out in Appendix 2 is approved;

 

(h)  HRA rents be increased by 7% in accordance with the provisions of the rent standard;

 

(i)    HRA garage rents bee increased by 7% to give an average rent of £14.50 per week (excluding VAT) and heating and water/sewerage charges be increased on a scheme by scheme basis, with the aim of balancing costs with income;

 

(j)    The HRA Balance to remain below the minimum level of £2m for the period 2023/24 to 2026/27 to enable the realisation of savings in Repairs and Supervision & Management expenditure to deliver a sustainable HRA; and

 

(k)  The capital programme as set out appendix C is approved.

 

(l)    £200k to be taken from reserves.  £100k additional funding for the Council Tax Hardship Fund and £100k extra money for the climate change budget, the detail of which will be decided in forthcoming Committees.

 

(2)  Resolve that for 2023/24 any expenses incurred by the Authority in performing in part of its area a function performed elsewhere in its area by a Parish/Town Council or the Chairman of a Parish Meeting shall not be treated as special expenses for the purposes of Section 35 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(The meeting was concluded at 8.12 pm)