By Councillor Mrs Temperton to Councillor Paul Bettison, Leader of Bracknell Forest Council.
On December 18 the Government notified the Council that it was reducing its Revenue Support Grant to Bracknell Forest by £5.4m - a cut of 32%. The budget out for consultation had assumed, following indicators from the Government, a cut of £3m. The Council now has just about 6 weeks to adjust all of its financial plans.
Does the Leader of the Council think this is effective Government and that the arguments given for the extra Bracknell Forest cuts are justified? Will there now have to be service cuts that were not expected before the announcement?
Minutes:
Councillor Mrs Temperton asked Councillor Bettison, Leader of the Council the following published question:
On December 18 the Government notified the Council that it was reducing its Revenue Support Grant to Bracknell Forest by £5.4m - a cut of 32%. The budget out for consultation had assumed, following indicators from the Government, a cut of £3m. The Council now has just about 6 weeks to adjust all of its financial plans.
Does the Leader of the Council think this is effective Government and that the arguments given for the extra Bracknell Forest cuts are justified? Will there now have to be service cuts that were not expected before the announcement?
In response Councillor Bettison stated one of the key pledges made by the new Conservative Government was to eliminate the national deficit by 2019/20. He stated that this was a continuation of the work started by the Coalition in response to the enormous debt that the country had been left with following the previous Labour Government. He reflected that the country had been living beyond its means, that this was unsustainable and that it was taking a significant amount of time to repair the damage that has been caused. He noted that within the overall settlement a number of key services were being protected, notably the NHS, defence and the police. As a consequence local government was having to bear a larger share of the cuts in public expenditure that were needed to eliminate the deficit. He stated that was effective government.
He added that he was neither happy or complacent with the settlement and had led a delegation of Berkshire Leaders to see the Minister to make strong and compelling arguments for treating Berkshire more favourably. It would not be known until February whether they had been effective.
He stated that the settlement, if confirmed, would cause the Council to be faced with some difficult choices and due to the magnitude of the grant reduction he feared residents would notice a difference in the services provided by the Council. He added that the Council would be consulting extensively on a package of measures to enable the Council to balance its budget over the medium term and he expected to be able to announce these proposals at the meeting of the Executive on 9 February 2016.
Councillor Mrs Temperton asked a supplementary question about how the Council could be expected to build and release 950 houses during the following year to be able to yield the resulting Council Tax when a good yearly release was 360 houses. Councillor Bettiosn agreed with her concern and acknowledged that neighbouring authorities had also forcefully raised this with the Minister. He reported that there was a proposal by the Local Government Association to penalise developers through a levy compensating local authorities for a proportion of the potential Council Tax income. The proposed scheme was aimed to incentivise progress on development works but was a long term plan and not an immediate solution.
Councillor Bettison confirmed that no single area in the borough would be singled out in response to Councillor Mrs Temperton’s second supplementary question regarding the anticipated impact on her own ward, Great Hollands North. He added that everyone was in this together so he expected that unfortunately all residents would feel the difference to services following the grant reduction.