Council tax bills to rise in Redcar & Cleveland
Households in Redcar and Cleveland will be hit by a 3.99% rise in their council tax bill in the next financial year after the local authority agreed a “necessary, prudent and common sense” budget.
Redcar and Cleveland Council said it had put forward a balanced budget for 2023/24, while more than £9m worth of cuts will also be made over future years.
The tax rise incorporates 1.99% in council tax and a 2% increase in the adult social care precept councils are able to additionally levy, and will add £69 a year to the bill of a full council taxpayer living in a band D property.
Meanwhile, the council’s reserves will be used to cover a £2.5m deficit, with the council expecting to spend more than £304m in 2023/24 and draw in funding worth £301m.
The budget proposals from the independent/Liberal Democrat coalition, which also include a £22.8m investment in services and an “affordable” medium term capital investment programme amounting to £163m over the next five years, were put to the vote at a special council meeting with 30 members voting in favour, ten against and 14 councillors abstaining.
The council had warned of a £9.5m shortfall after provisional local Government finance settlements were revealed at the end of last year and said national funding had not kept pace with cost pressures, being driven by inflation and increasing demand particularly for social care for adults and children.
Councillor Glyn Nightingale, the council’s cabinet member for resources, said it was a “necessary, prudent and common sense” budget.
Cllr Nightingale said the current administration regretted increasing council tax, but the blame rested with the Government which he also said had provided grant funding which in no way matched the council’s costs.
The Lib Dem cabinet member said what was proposed was “totally justifiable for now and the future” and in the interests of residents and the services they relied on.
Later, responding to remarks from opposition councillors, he said he “refused to be painted into a corner of being a right winger and someone who wants to make cuts to services”.
He said there were events outside of the control of the council – which is also having to fork out for higher than anticipated increases in staff pay – that dictated its financial situation.
Council leader Mary Lanigan said: “This is not the fault of Redcar and Cleveland Council, this is the fault of the Government.
“We are not getting the money we need this year, or next year, and we have got to manage with what we have got.
“If we don’t put 1.99% on council tax, which other services are we going to cut?
“Nobody wants to put council tax up.”
Cllr Lanigan said the council could not cut statutory services which looked after the most vulnerable such as the elderly or children in care, and which accounted for more than 50% of its budget.
Several council members said they could not support the proposals, or intended to abstain, with a weight of criticism being directed at central Government.
Councillor Chris Massey, for Labour, who chairs the resources scrutiny committee, said the council faced a “number of impossible choices” with more than £100m in savings having to be found since 2010.
Councillor Bill Clarke said: “This Government has let us all down, councils, national institutions and particularly the residents.”
Councillor Philip Thomson said: “We could continue for the rest of this afternoon criticising the central Government, but they are not listening.”
He said members had to make a “highly unpalatable” decision on council tax, but no stone should be left unturned in terms of seeking out residents that needed help and giving them financial support where possible.
‘Nasty cuts’
Councillor Sue Jeffrey, the council’s former leader, described “nasty cuts” imposed by the Government with the rich being made richer and the poor made poorer.
She said: “But I am not going to let this administration off the hook because as far as I am concerned your four-year tenure has been about chaos and incompetence.
“The reason we have this budget in front of us today is the combination of Tory cuts and the work you have failed to do.
“Councillor Nightingale talks about a balanced budget, but we haven’t got a balanced budget, we are currently forecasting a £6m deficit for this year (2022/23).
“Despite the council tax increase and cuts of £6.5m we will still be left with a deficit of £2.5m next year (2023/24) which will have to be plugged by reserves and deficits in each of the next four years following that.”
Labour’s Cllr Jeffrey highlighted planned cuts in youth services “already on their knees”, which she said “took children off streets and made the difference”.
She added: “This budget impacts on key services in real and important ways, which don’t appear to have any real understanding of the hit taken by local people.”
Councillor Anne Watts, an independent, said: “We are presented with a budget described as balanced and sustainable, but in my view it is not.
“It is the same old, same old, fees and charges, council tax and more from reserves.”
Cllr Watts also criticised the use by the local authority of outside consultants “costing thousands of pounds who are brought in for every decision we make”.
Councillor Billy Wells said: “Before imposing even more financial pressure on our residents we need to put our own house in order and run the council as a business.
“When a business is unable to meet its budget requirement it has to adjust, it cannot just raise prices, it has to examine how it runs and then cut out waste and unnecessary spending.
“Each year some departments come back to this council with an overspend and when this occurs the answer seems to be to put up the council tax.”
Councillor Andrea Turner, who leads the Conservative group on the council, said officers deserved credit for coming up with a budget which proposed a smaller increase in council tax than it could have done.
Cllr Turner claimed there were still a number of areas at the council that needed to be looked at differently to ensure best value for money was delivered for every resident.
She said: “Longer term we believe we must look at our whole staffing model and structure to see if there are opportunities for us to share services across local council areas to realise savings in similar ways that we do with public health.”
Cabinet member Councillor Alison Barnes, who has the children’s services portfolio, said the number of people seeking help from the council was growing exponentially, but there were some non-statutory areas able to be looked at with a view to saving money.
She said: “I agree youth services are really important – if you put money into those, people get that early help and it hopefully saves more in the future.
“But it’s not statutory and it is an area we need to look at, we are doing a review and it is a distinct possibility that some youth centres may be amalgamated with family hubs to try and cut down on costs.”
Where are savings being made?
The council – which has more than £240m worth of long-term debt – intends to make savings of £9.2m through to 2027/28 “front loaded” into next year to help address significant pressures, having sought suggestions from both councillors and staff.
It divided these into those that have minimal or no impact on front line services and require no further consultation and those that do, which will be subject to further consultation prior to implementation.
Planned savings include
:: Review of youth and community centres = £197,000
:: Review library service provision = £400,000
:: Cease local authority licence and provision for Duke of Edinburgh Awards = £48,000
:: Reduce the number of buildings used for delivering family hubs services and apply alternative funding sources to support delivery = £110,000
:: Reduce contribution to support joint arrangements for South Tees Youth Justice Service = £65,000
:: Review council-led after school short breaks provision for children with disabilities = £50,000
:: Review of potential changes to current policy on non-statutory SEN transport for early years children and post 16 young people = £66,000
:: Review school crossing patrol service = £126,000
:: Reduction in some public health initiatives = £75,000
:: Salary savings from review of economic growth and environment services = £525,000
:: Reducing office and service accommodation requirements through hybrid working and developing multi-use assets = £970,000
:: Developing more in-house provision in order to make efficiencies in children in care placements = £897,000
:: Mitigating energy costs through climate change invest to save activities = £300,000
:: Savings on strategic contracts = £100,000
:: Reviewing contributions to voluntary community sector = £40,000
:: Removal of some vacancies across children’s, public health, economic growth, environment and education services = £765,000
:: Reducing costs for home to school transport by reducing out of borough placement numbers and single pupil taxi routes = £132,000
:: Various small funding efficiencies = £34,000
:: Three days voluntary unpaid leave, dependent on takeup by staff = £100,000
:: Adult social care funding efficiencies = £617,000
:: Reduction in events budget = £70,000
:: Remove funding for a trade union post = £46,000
:: Remove council tax support subsidy paid to parish councils = £100,000
:: Reduce elected member ward allowance allocations from 2023/24 = £59,000.
A report said the pressures the council was facing, if left unmitigated, would leave it in an “unsustainable financial position.”
It said: “We, along with the rest of the local government sector, have lobbied the Government on the need for additional funding to protect services and address the extraordinary inflationary impact being experienced.
“The Chancellor’s autumn statement and the subsequent draft local government finance settlement have recognised to some extent the pressures being experienced, providing some extra funding, but have not addressed the full breadth and scale of the financial challenges facing councils.
“It has therefore been necessary to develop an extensive savings programme to ensure essential services can be maintained and the council’s financial position remains as sustainable and resilient as possible across the medium term.”
The report said the Government had announced additional funding for local councils to support economically vulnerable households with council tax payments.
This meant the increases in council tax and the adult social care precept would add £8.10 a year to the bill of someone living in the cheapest band A property with the proviso that they are receiving full council tax support.
It said the Government had made it clear that council tax rises were expected to be a key feature in councils’ achieving balanced budgets.
Fees and charges
Earlier, the council’s cabinet approved a raft of changes to fees and charges for 2023/24, which will raise an additional £855,000.
The council said increases to existing charges were capped at the level of inflation.
The proposals originally included planned new car parking charges in the borough, but these were dropped after widespread opposition from local politicians and members of the public, along with increases in the cost of residents’ parking permits, bulky waste disposals and replacement household bins.
A permit option to park at Guisborough Forest and Walkway will still, however, be removed due to the low level of take up and the council is to also remove the current two hours maximum parking in Redcar short stay car parks and replace it with a two hour and additional hourly fee option.
A petition had been received by the council after it proposed to double the cost of car parking at the walkway, while the Kirkleatham Owl Centre wrote to council managing director John Sampson directly to protest over planned car parking charges at the Kirkleatham Museum and Grounds which it said would have a “monumentally adverse effect on our ability to operate”.
The changes will introduce a means test for discretionary adult social services currently provided free of charge, which could raise £500,000.
Other changes will see a pilot scheme which provided a free recycling bin to residents cease at the end of March and a pest control service for residents ditched since the council believes private contractors can offer more cost effective treatments.
Charges for allotment use, as well as ceremonies organised by the council’s registration services are also being revised and simplified.
Introducing the proposals, Mr Sampson said fees and charges were an important income stream.
Nonetheless, he said a ‘financial resilience index’ showed the council raised the third lowest level of income of any unitary authority from these as a proportion of what is spent on services.
Mr Sampson also remarked on high levels of inflation causing significant pressures on the council with increases in energy, fuel, labour and construction costs.
He said a “fundamental review” had been required of fees charged in order to maintain various services at sustainable levels.
Mr Sampson described how the level of engagement with a public consultation had been “really encouraging” with the number of responses received by the council much higher than previous years.
He said: “The vast majority of responses were opposed to the proposed fees and charges, in particular the new car parking charges.”
Concerns included cost-of living challenges, opinion that the council should seek to reduce costs and a desire to see investment spread more around the borough