Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts

Tuesday 6 February 2024

Brent budget for 2024/25 agreed: Council Tax +4.99%, council rents +7.7%, communal heating +90% and £8m in savings

 The Brent Cabinet yesterday approved the Council budget for 2024-25 with Deputy Leader Cllr Shama Tatler saying it was the worse situation they had encountered yet: 'We didn't come into politics to make these sorts of decisions.'  Cllr Butt stressed that they had to be honest with residents about they decisions they had been forced to make.

The budget includes a council tax rise of 4.99% (2% ring-fenced for Adult Social Care), 7.7% increase in council rents and £8m in 'savings'.

Cllr Anton Georgiou addressing the Cabinet said that the Liberal Democrats would come forward with a 10 point alternative budget. 

Council Tax Bands including GLA Precept

Council rent rises will be at the maximum (CPI+1%=7.7%)
 
Council Service charges including 90% rise for  communal heating and hot water
 
Council garage rents will also rise by 7.7%


 





Sunday 21 January 2024

A 'community impact' levy on Wembley Stadium tickets and a 'green budget' to align climate emergency measure are among 11 recommendations from Brent Budget Task Force

 

 

There is likely to be little change in Brent Council's final budget compared with earlier drafts. Wednesday's meeting of Scrutiny Committee will hear a presentation on the Budget Task Group's recommendations.

A concern repeated from previous years is around accessibility, transparency and clarity. You may recall that they had argued for calling a cut a cut, rather than a saving last year.

In all there are 11 recommendations.  ACE Brent (Action on climate and ecological emergency Brent who have been advocating for more joined up cross-department work on the climate emergency will be pleased with Recommendation 3 on a 'green budget'.  Voluntary organisations will welcome Recommendation 4 that recognises if the Council signposts the sector to mitigate the impact of cuts it should first discuss with them how the mitigations will be delivered in practice.

There is similar common-sense in Recommendation 5 that advocates a strategic approach to income generation while warning of the dangers of over-commercialisation. It  emphasises the importance of complicance with current policies on empty properties and business rates. Recommendation 6 suggests the renting out of Council meeting rooms for external use. There is still a shortage of such spaces to hire in Brent.

Campaigners for the retention of the New Millenium Day Care Centre will be disappointed that  Reccommendation 9 advocates the retention of the building for community use but not as a Day Centre.

An imaginative flourish is Recommendation 10 that suggests a Community Impact Levy on Wembley Stadium tickets.

 FULL REPORT

The Budget Scrutiny Task Group makes the following recommendations to Cabinet. Budget Presentation and Communications

 

Recommendation 1 – Improvements to budget communications:

 

The Task Group acknowledge the improvements that have been made to the consultation and engagement process following the Budget Scrutiny Task Group Review 2023/24, but believes further work is still needed to better communicate to residents what the vision, mission, aims and priority protection areas of the upcoming Budget are. This also includes ensuring communications meet agreed accessibility standards, such as writing documents in plain English in line with the average Brent reading age. These revisions will help build a greater understanding of the priority areas safeguarded in the proposals and enable residents to provide more meaningful/influential consultation feedback. As an example the Task Group received evidence that there was only one proposal from the Housing portfolio as the Council had made a concerted effort to protect housing services and the most vulnerable; Although it could be assumed that an area not featured in the proposals would be protected, such information should be made clearer in the draft Budget for the lay person. The Task Group recommend that the Council includes a concise, summary page in the Budget (and in future budgets), adopting more accessible language which makes it clear what its vision, aims, and priority protection areas are.

 

Recommendation 2 – Developing clearer and concise proposals:

 

Some of the proposals are generally vague and lack clarity around the possible impact(s) on residents and partners (e.g. 2024-25 CR02, 2024-25 FR02, 2024-25 RS21, 2024-25 CHW03, 2025-26 CHW02 etc.) The Task Group recommend that the Council review the proposals ahead of publication of the final Budget to ensure that the final proposals and their possible impact(s) can be clearly understood and are accessible to all Brent residents. This review could be actioned collaboratively with a lay-panel (e.g. resident focus group) and in future years by including additional questions in the consultation. These suggestions could also help achieve recommendation 1.

 

Recommendation 3 - Alignment with climate action commitments in Borough Plan 2023-27:

 

Building on the recommendation made as part of the Budget Scrutiny Task Group Review 2023/24, there still needs to be greater alignment between the draft Budget and the Borough Plan 2023-27, particularly in relation to climate action. The Task Group appreciates changes being made to the corporate reporting template to include a ‘Climate Change and Environmental Considerations’ section - this good practice should also be applied in the budget setting process. The Task Group recommend that the Council adopt a ‘green budget’ which clearly outlines the climate and environment implications of each proposal. This will assist the Council in its urgent climate commitments, including  the goal to become Carbon Net Zero by 2030.

 

Stronger Partnership Working with the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS)

 

Recommendation 4 - Shared Outcomes Framework:

 

Although the Council has understandably prioritised protecting the VCS and frontline services over other areas in its proposed budget, there is scope for stronger partnership working with the sector. During the Stakeholder Session (please see section 3), VCS partners expressed concerns that mitigations proposed in the draft Budget were centred around signposting to the VCS, however there had been no discussion or collaboration around how these mitigations would be delivered or achieved in practice.

 

The Task Group recommend that the Council explores a shared-outcomes framework with the voluntary sector for the benefit of residents/service users. As part of this work, the Council should urgently discuss and collaborate with the VCS in relation to budget proposals that involve them and/or may have an impact on their service provision.

 

This discussion could build on the Task Group’s recommendation from the Budget Scrutiny Task Group Review 2023/24 which suggested a collaborative strategy with the VCS to enable these organisations to identify and secure new income streams.

 

A shared-outcomes approach could avoid future service cuts, avoid service duplication and save the Council money long-term. Additionally, it would ensure that a consistent dialogue is maintained with the VCS throughout each financial year around issues like council budgets rather than the current approach which has meant budget discussions with the sector take place after proposals have already been drafted.

 

 

Income Generation

 

Recommendation 5 – Establishing a strategic approach to income generation:

 

The Task Group commend the Council’s creativity/efforts to generate additional income to bolster its finances, and particularly welcomes proposals such as 2024-25 FR01, 2024-25 RS13, and 2024-25 RS14. However, more could be done to generate even more income.

 

The Task Group recommend that the Council develops a longer-term, strategic approach to income generation (accompanied with yearly action plans) rather than focusing on piecemeal proposals year to year. The strategy should include a robust monitoring process that enables holistic working across all departments to create synergies for income generation. Specifically, allocating a dedicated, cross-  departmental resource to work across the Council to investigate and identify additional opportunities for income generation e.g. compliance with mandatory HMO licensing, compliance with council tax on empty properties, and business rates evasion.

 

Establishing a longer-term approach will help the Council to be more resourceful and self-sufficient in the absence of large central government funding pots. Strategic interventionscould enable the Council to address areas of improvement in its operations and recoup income that would have been otherwise due, as well as identify new creative ways of generating income. The Task Group however recognise a balanced approach must be adopted that ensures the Council does not become over-commercialised and learns from local authorities that have experienced financial difficulties (i.e. entered s114 territory2) due to certain commercial choices.

 

Recommendation 6 – Renting out Civic Centre meeting rooms:

 

The Task Group acknowledge the efforts the Council has made to rent out spaces in the Civic Centre to generate additional income, however believes there are additional opportunities that can be realised. The Task Group recommend that additional space, specifically meeting rooms, in the Civic Centre are made available for external hire given that staff no longer work 5 days per week in the office. To complement this suggestion, some council meetings could be moved outside of the Civic Centre to be held in other community assets in the borough.

 

Not only could this recommendation generate additional income, but it could provide residents and businesses with office space and workspace solutions in the heart of the borough. It could also encourage members/officers to increase their use of other community facilities in the borough and spread the Council’s visibility more equally throughout the borough.

 

Recommendation 7 – Implementing additional shared service arrangements:

 

The Council’s efforts to generate additional income by offering shared services to other local authorities are welcomed. Notable examples include proposal 2025-26 CYP04 which intends to sell additional respite bed nights to other local authorities at the Ade Adepitan Short Break Centre. Another instance is the formation of the Shared Technology Services (STS), an IT shared service for the councils of Brent, Lewisham and Southwark, whereby Brent is the host borough for the service. The Task Group recommend that the Council explores further opportunities for shared service arrangements, learning lessons from its current arrangements and from good practice of the shared service models that already exist across the country.

 

It is acknowledged that there is not a single model that suits all councils, localities, or types of service provision, and that this recommendation will take time to scope out. However, if delivered effectively, the Council would be able to generate additional income, reduce duplication, potentially increase investment in services, and reimagine services to better meet the needs of residents.

 

Lobbying and Advocacy

 

Recommendation 8 - Housing Subsidy Loss:

 

Although the Task Group welcomes the increase to Local Housing Allowance rates via the Autumn Statement 2023, further pro-active work could still be carried out with neighbouring local authorities, London Councils, and the Local Government Association (LGA) to seek reform to the Housing Benefit Subsidy rules. The Task Group recommend that the Council works with the above mentioned associations to lobby for positive change to the Housing Benefit subsidy rules which currently caps the amount the Council can claim back from the Department of Work & Pensions (DWP) to 90% of the 2011 LHA rates per household for TA provided, and which places financially onerous restrictions on the types of TA the Council can provide to be eligible for housing benefit subsidy. Such reform would enable Brent to significantly reduce its overspends, and to have access to a wider pool of affordable temporary accommodation to deal with increased demand in homelessness.

 

Recommendation 9 – Retaining use of New Millennium Day Centre

 

The Task Group accept that alternative provision will be put in place to mitigate the impacts of ceasing use of the New Millennium Day Centre. It would nevertheless be disappointing to lose a vital space in the borough that brings local communities together and which allows the Council to achieve its 'Borough of Culture' legacy ambitions. The Task Group recommend that the Council explores options to retain the building for community use.

 

Recommendation 10 – Wembley Stadium: 'Community Impact' Ticket Levy:

 

The Task Group welcome the financial contributions made by Wembley Stadium towards the Council’s event day management costs (e.g. cleansing and waste management, highways management, enforcement etc.), however recognise that these contributions do not cover the full extent of the costs incurred by the Council for its operations on event days.

The Task group recommend that the Council explores options with the Stadium for a ticket levy, whereby the Council receives a proportion of each ticket sale in order to fully recover costs incurred or to provide for further enhancement of the Council’s event day operations.

 

Recommendation 11 - Delegation of budgets and decision making to Brent Integrated Care Partnership (ICP):

 

The Task Group note that the success of many of the proposals are dependent on effective partnership working with health partners (e.g. 2024-25 CHW01, 2024-25 CHW03, 2025-26 CHW03, 2025-26 CYP06 etc). It was heard that the established working arrangements and governance in the Brent ICP provide opportunities for closer working between the Council and NHS partners. These working arrangements have enabled health funding to be transferred to Adult Social Care to support residents and the local health and care system.

However, the Task Group understand that the centralisation of decisions on NHS budgets away from the borough to North West London Integrated Care Board (NWL ICB) has reduced the ability of the Brent ICP to address local needs and may have increased future demand on the system. For example, in accordance with ICB processes, the ICP has submitted robust business cases for paediatric continence services, nursing provision for children in special schools, and to manage pressures on CYP and adult mental health services. All of these business cases are still awaiting a decision after many months, while need continues to increase.

 

The Task Group recommend that the Council continues to advocate and make the case to NWL ICB for both a better alignment of NHS resources to population need and for an increased delegation of budgets and decision making to Brent ICP.

 

Not only would devolution to place allow for more effective collaboration between the Council and local health partners but it would also allow for implementation of service change at greater pace. Additionally, the Task Group is of the view that the ICP is better able than NWL to tailor services to the needs of Brent’s diverse communities with greater flexibility to respond to changing needs or circumstances.


Monday 6 November 2023

Brent Consultation on Adult Social Care opens - reduction in minimum income guarantee and increased charges. Will safeguards be enough?

 

Cllr Neil Nerva, Brent Cabinet Member for Public Health and Adult Social Care

 

Brent Council opened consultation on changes in Adult Social Care charges on Thursday that propose a reduction in the minimum income guarantee support and increased charges for service users.  This will reduce Brent Council spending on Adult Social Care overall. Adult Social Care is the biggest area of Council spending.

 


Attempting to put a positive gloss on the proposals, Councillor Neil Nerva, Cabinet Member for Public Health & Adult Social Care, said:

These proposals for the charging policy are essential to ensure that we can continue to deliver a high-quality Adult Social Care service for years to come. If adopted Brent’s Adult Social Care charging policy would still be one of the most generous in London but it would be more consistent and sustainable for future years.

The Council said:

The proposed changes to the charging policy are essential to ensure the council can continue to provide the Adult Social Care services thousands of residents rely on in a sustainable way for years to come.

The proposals include:

  • Changes to the minimum income guarantee – There is a minimum level of income which a person must be left with after charges are taken. This changes according to a person’s circumstances. Currently, Brent tops this up by 25%. It is proposed to reduce this to 10%. This change only affects the half of service users that contribute towards the cost of their homecare and these people will still receive 10% more than the minimum level of income they need to live, which would be one of the most generous schemes in London. The consultation will ask whether this should be implemented in full in April 2024, or phased over time.
  • Increasing the amount charged to service users if they do not participate or cooperate with their financial assessment – The vast majority of service users take part in the financial assessment process, but if after four weeks they do not, it is proposed they are charged the full cost of their care. The average care cost will also be raised for financial assessments that take longer than expected to complete. The consultation will ask whether residents agree with this proposal.
  • Increasing the hourly rate charged for homecare from £12.97, which will increase annually – This will impact self-funders (people who pay the total cost of their care) and some people on low incomes who have a small care package, however everyone will be re-assessed to ensure they can afford to pay. The consultation will ask what steps the council should take to support those affected.
  • Charges during admissions to hospital – Proposals include not reimbursing service users for the cost of their adult social care while they are in hospital, for up to seven days if they receive homecare, or 28 days if they are in a residential or nursing home

 

In only the second proposal are residents given the opportunity to reject it outright. Public consultation meetings will be arranged to discuss the proposals.

 

More information is available on the Consultation website LINK . This includes a Powerpoint presentation from which I have extracted some case studies below:

 


 




The Council seek to reassure service users:


Share your thoughts on the consultation by Sunday 17 December. The council will then review all feedback and present the final proposals to Brent’s Cabinet in January. The earliest that any changes will take effect is April 2024.

Thursday 12 October 2023

Brent Finance Chief issues grim warning on Council finances

 The Brent Corporate Director of Finance and Resources has issued a grim warning on the Council's financial situation following a significant over-spend on the housing service caused by a high level of demand due to increased homelessness, reduced supply of suitable temporary accommodation and subsequent higher costs. The forecast spend of £16.3m is nearly five times the original budget.

The Director informs the Cabinet that the 'seriousness of the Council's financial position cannot be understated' and stresses the need for more measures than had been planned in order to control expenditure to address the underlying issue that 'the  Council's net expenditure is significanty greater than the available sources of in-year funding'. 


Extracts from the report (Full Report that is available HERE)

The Council’s revised General Fund revenue budget for 2023/24 is £291.2m. The revised budget includes planned revenue savings in-year of £13.5m and the status of these are set out in Appendix A. There is a forecast overspend of £13.4m against the revised revenue budget at Quarter 2. If sustained until the year end, this would require a transfer from unallocated reserves.

 

Equally, any overspending not dealt with in 2023/24 would, potentially, carry over into 2024/25 thereby increasing the requirement for further savings in that year whilst at the same time providing reduced scope to draw on the Council’s reserves.

 

The seriousness of the Council’s financial position cannot be understated.

 

The scale of the financial challenge for 2023/24 and 2024/25 is such that, in addition to work currently underway to implement savings in 2023/24 and to identify new savings proposals for 2024/25 and 2025/26, the Council will need to implement further measures to control expenditure in order to address the underlying issue that the Council’s net expenditure is significantly greater than available sources of in year funding. Further details on these measures are set out below.

 

Local government is facing the most challenging financial environment for many decades. Many councils are overspending and depleting their reserves; most are experiencing the adverse effects of high inflation, high interest rates and significant increases in demand due to demographic changes. Some are even declaring bankruptcy by issuing s114 notices. Concerns about future levels of government funding are widespread. Against this backdrop, Brent has maintained a strong position in terms of financial resilience and sustainability with a good track record of delivering savings and balancing the overall budget. However, the position for 2023/24 has worsened significantly and the current forecast will require the Council to take urgent actions in the short and medium term to maintain financial control.

 

The main cause of the forecast overspend is within the Housing Service, where high levels of demand due to a rise in homelessness and reduction in supply of suitable accommodation are expected to result in an overspend of over £13m. Section 3.8 of this reports sets out the Council’s strategy in dealing with the  significant increase in costs of providing temporary accommodation for those homeless people to whom the Council owe a legal duty. While Brent is not in the financial situation of those Council’s that have recently issued, or threatened to issue, a Section 114 notice (legally required when the council cannot balance its budget, unlike the NHS and other parts of the public sector councils are not allowed to carry a deficit) all efforts must be focussed on positively changing the financial position.

 

In addition to these actions and the additional oversight provided by the Budget Assurance Panel, further measures are considered necessary to prevent the situation worsening. These will include, but are not limited to, controls on new spending decisions, limits on new recruitment, reduction in the use of agency workers, bringing forward in year savings and other mitigations to reduce expenditure. These sensible, proactive and prudent measures will provide more assurance over the Council’s spending decisions and reduce the risk that the budget position deteriorates further. These measures will remain in place until the end of the financial year, and updates provided to the Cabinet in future forecast reports and budget reports.

 

The report also includes updates on the viability of two major projects:

 

The Wembley Housing Zones project is expected to experience a viability pressure when updating the project plans to meet potential fire safety regulations. Work is already underway with the contractor, Wates, to reduce the impact of any changes required. The Morland Garden project is experiencing significant viability challenges whilst also being subject to a significant delay in the project delivery timescales dependent on the outcome of the public inquiry in relation to the stopping up order.

 

Link to 3.8 on action on Temporary Accommodation

Friday 24 February 2023

Brent Budget and Council Tax rise approved by Full Council

 

The Mayor bids farewell at the end of the Council Budget Setting Meeting

Last night's Full Council that set next year's budget and council tax proceeded along familiar lines and of course the Labour Group budget and the rise in Council Tax were approved and opposition amendments to the budget defeated.

So many councillors wanted to make their well-rehearsed speeches that the session had to be extended and other items, including the rise in Councillor Allowances and the Borough Plan, were disposed of without debate.

Some Labour members managed to simultaneously argue that the Council's financial base had been devastated by cuts in funding but that the budget was the best thing since sliced bread and would be welcomed by flag waving Brent citizens.  Many seemed to have missed the memo from the Budget Scrutiny Group that when the Council had to make service cuts that these should be acknowledged as such.

Others did not seem able to differentiate between budget amendments, that left most of the proposed Labour budget intact, and a comprehensive alternative budget. The latter was not proposed in the Liberal Democrat amendment but somehow the Lib Dem involvement in the 2010 Coalition meant that their proposals (supported by Budget Scrutiny) on street and road repairs could be dismissed without serious consideration.

The opposition were blamed for not not making their proposals early in the budget making process although one of the main issues, the £2m allocated for the Civic Centre update, was only announced recently.

Speeches were peppered with tributes to outgoing Brent CEO Carolyn Downs who as usual performed her role of whispering guidance to the Mayor over proceedings with quiet skill.

 

 


Monday 20 February 2023

Brent Tories propose 2% Council Tax, deletion of 2 Cabinet members, ending of Landlord Incentive Scheme and Abolition of Resident Support Fund,

 The budget proposal from Labour Brent Council have previously been covered on Wembley Matters and last week I reported the Liberal Democrat Group's proposed amendment.

Today it is the turn of the Conservative Group with a considerable shorter document and a comment by Brent's Finance Director.

Their main proposals are to limit the rise in Council Tax to the ring-fenced Adult Social Care portion, delete 2 Cabinet positions, end the Landlord Incentive Scheme used to help landlords provide homes to homeless people and abolish the Resident Support Fund that is used to help people facing financial problems due to the cost of living crisis. They do not attempt to justify the latter.


Conservative Group Amendment to the Council’s Budget Proposals 2023/24

The Council is asked to consider the following alternative budget for 2023/24:
Propose to increase Council tax by 2% only, with the full amount ring fenced for Adult Social Care.

This proposal will generate income of £146.6m, compared to £150.8m generated with the planned increase of 4.99%, leaving a shortfall of £4.2m

The proposal means a Brent Council Tax of £1,447.83 at Band D for 2023/24
compared to the Labour proposal for £1,490.31.


The Council notes the following:


· The Conservatives have always been and still are the party of lower rates of
taxation through responsible policies and budgeting, meaning that people will
have more money in their pockets to spend and save as they wish.

 
· The Conservative have always proposed to tax the residents less leaving more
money in their pockets to spend and save as they wish.

 
· Council tax increased by 3.99% in 2016/17, 3.99% in 2017/18, 4.99% in 2018/19, 4.99% in 2019/20, 3.99% in 2020/21, 3.99% in 2021/22 and 2.99% in 2022/23.


Prior to this council tax was frozen. Therefore, since 2016, council tax has increased by over 40% (£431.37) overall.

Propose to remove the landlord incentive and save £1.1m.

The Council’s Landlords Incentive Scheme is designed to give money to Landlords as an incentive to rent their properties to people who have been evicted from their homes and who cannot ordinarily afford to live in the borough. There are many people who work hard, pay their bills and taxes but have to live outside Brent because they cannot afford to live in the borough. We feel that it is wrong to subsidise private landlords in this way. It also acts as an incentive to keep rents artificially high. It is therefore our proposal to scrap this scheme.


Propose to delete two Cabinet members, forego an annual increase in allowance
of 4.04% and save £0.08m.


It is proposed to delete two Cabinet members and re-distribute portfolios to existing Cabinet members. In addition it is proposed to not take forward a planned increase in members allowance of 4.04%. This would save approximately £0.08m.

Propose to discontinue the Resident Support Fund and save £3m.

Councillor Suresh Kansagra


Leader of the Conservative Group

 

Advice from the Director of Finance


Senior finance support has been provided to assist the Conservative Group to
formulate an alternative budget that reflects their policy priorities.

The Alternative Budget proposed by the Conservative Group would be a legal,
balanced budget for 2023/24, although it is recognised that this carries financial risk.


The potential implications for 2024/25 and beyond have not been considered as part of these proposals.

 

The table below sets out the proposed changes to the 2023/24 budget

 

 



The proposals that are considered material relate to Council Tax, landlord incentives and the Resident Support Fund.


It is proposed to increase Council Tax by 2% only in 2023/24, reflecting the Adult Social Care precept where the funding would be ring fenced for Adult Social Care.

Given the current Administration is proposing to increase Council Tax by the maximum amount allowed by the Government of 4.99%, this proposal would create a budget gap of £4.2m.

In order to close this gap, it is proposed to reduce expenditure planned in 2023/24 by removing the landlord incentives budget and discontinuing the Resident Support Fund.

The council currently spends approximately £1.1m per annum on landlord incentives.

The budget is used to procure properties to end the homeless duty, and so move
people out of temporary accommodation which is typically more expensive. It is also used to procure properties to prevent homelessness and therefore stop people going into temporary accommodation in the first instance. Consequently, reducing this budget may result in higher temporary accommodation costs if alternative housing cannot be secured outside of the borough. Therefore, this proposal carries some risk with regards to additional spend elsewhere in the Council’s budget and may require a short term use of reserves to contain additional spend on temporary accommodation.

 

The draft 2023/24 budget allocated a further £3m to continue the current Resident Support Fund. It is proposed to remove this budget and discontinue the scheme to save £3m. While this scheme is discretionary, it may have unintended consequences for residents who experience financial hardship under the current economic environment and cost of living crisis.


Minesh Patel


Director of Finance

 

Friday 17 February 2023

Lib Dem budget proposals include review of Brent Civic Centre as possible mixed development including housing

 A Full Meeting of Brent Council on Wednesday will be asked to set the budget for 2023-24 that includes a 5.99% rise on Council Tax and cuts to services.

This year the Liberal Democrat opposition have worked with council finance officers to produce an alternative budget. The budget is much more detailed than previous efforts by the Conservative opposition.

As editor I have to note that the 'brief history' omits  the period of austerity from 2010 to 2015 under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition (Cameron & Clegg);


https://www.britannica.com/place/United-Kingdom/Conservative-Liberal-Democrat-coalition-rule-2010-15

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme


The Budget Amendment below is followed by advice from Minesh Patel, Brent Director of Finance.


Council Meeting 23 February 2023

 

Liberal Democrat Group Amendment to the Council’s Budget Proposals 2023/24

 

INTRODUCTION

As a service-based organisation Brent Council should be putting residents’ needs and concerns at the forefront of all that we do.

 

The Council’s finances are volatile and impacted by events outside of its direct control. Local Government is frequently impacted by the actions of others – including Central Government and the Mayor of London – who have readily placed additional burdens on Brent without providing the necessary resources.

 

 

A brief history -

·      Devaluation of the sterling during the Wilson Labour Government in the 1960s.

·      The ‘Winter of Discontent’ during the Callaghan Labour Government in late 1970s.

·      The Thatcher Government’s policy to sell Council Housing in the 1980s.

·      Collapse of sterling during the ERM crash under John Major’s Conservative Government in 1992.

·      Tony Blair’s Labour Government health reforms which shifted the cost of Adult Social Care onto local authorities.

·      Gordon Brown’s Labour Government £850 billion bailout of the banking sector in 2008 and Alistair Darling’s promise of “cuts worse than Thatcher”.

·      The current Conservative Government’s Brexit fiasco and continuing to make Council taxpayers pay for Adult Social Care through enforced Council Tax hikes.

·      The policy of successive Governments to shift resources away from London.

·       The Financial Crisis at the GLA forcing the Labour Mayor of London to raise his share of the Council Tax by a cumulative 30% in just 3 years and to cut his contribution towards road and pavement repairs.

 

These events have all over the years created greater burdens and passed on additional cost pressures to Brent Council.

 

Despite all of this, successive Brent Council Administrations, of different political persuasions, have tried to manage the situation as best as they could.

 

It is the responsibility of the current Labour Administration to present a Budget and for the Full Council and Councillors of all political parties in this place to scrutinise their proposals and to provide amendments and suggestions for improvement.

 

Brent Council provides many statutory services but also has discretion on some services it provides and the level of funding.

 

Council finance is complex and neither well explained to the general public.

 

Brent residents do have justified concerns on many issues and would like to see improvements especially as their Council Tax is going up by 6% this year (the highest amount for some years).

 

As we know 95% of the Budget is unchanged from the previous financial year and any changes proposed by the Administration make marginal adjustments. The reasons for this – inflation, change in Government funding, additional burdens – are all set out in the Administration proposals.

 

The best approach in putting forward additional ideas for consideration by all Councillors, not just the Cabinet, is therefore through considered amendments.

 

The Liberal Democrat Group have discussed the financial situation with senior Officers of the Council and reviewed the existing Budget as a whole. This is a complex process as most Council Reports only provide top level information. In our view the Budget Scrutiny Process should start much earlier than it does and concentrate next year on reviewing all areas of expenditure and income in much greater detail.

 

One area worth exploring for example is whether it is still appropriate for the Council to occupy the Civic Centre. While the Civic Centre approach may have been appropriate 15 years ago when the Council occupied a number of scattered and old buildings – many of them on short life leases – and where consolidation brought about both costs savings and greater efficiency, subsequent events, including the pandemic, has changed the situation and possibly the need for the Council to continue to occupy such a large building, large parts of which are currently empty and underused.

 

Expansion of home working and loss of some sitting tenants confirm that change may be needed.

 

The Council should therefore review its future accommodation needs and consider whether the Civic Centre site could be better used for a mixed development including additional housing. The need for such a review is clearly needed as the Cabinet have just decided to spend a staggering £1.96 million to reconfigure part of the Civic Centre. Compared to other pressing needs for Council funding this cannot possibly be a top priority.

 

In view of this, the recent decision by the Cabinet to spend the £1.96 million should be out on hold.

 

In relation to other proposals the Liberal Democrat group have listened to local residents and groups active across Brent. Our amendments to the Administration’s Budget aim to enhance the offer and respond to local needs.

 

THE STATE OF ROADS AND PAVEMENTS

Prior to the 2022 local elections the Administration allocated £20 million for pavement works in one year. Much of the work was not well planned and many pavements were ripped up which were in perfect condition and when much cheaper remedial work would have been sufficient.

 

For example, the pavement work in Wembley High Road is not complete while the road surface itself is in an appalling state.

 

Due to financial problems at City Hall the Mayor of London has CUT his contribution to Brent for capital works.

 

The current ‘Capital Budget’ includes £13 million spread over 3 years.

 

This is clearly inadequate in dealing with the backlog of works and will disappoint residents across all wards in Brent.

 

Part of the problem with our roads is lack of effective preventative maintenance. A simple look will confirm that many potholes appear in the middle of the road where two halves (most resurfacing is done on basis of half in one direction first and then then the 2nd half) are joined. After a while the seal between the two halves wears off and a split appears through which water seeps through. In many cases regular maintenance to reseal the joints will prevent large scale potholes arising and prevent more extensive and costly works being necessary.

 

Many of our main roads (and pavements) are damaged by the ever-increasing construction traffic using Brent roads – these are usually the main ‘A roads’ but often residential roads are also used as short cuts from the North Circular – Beresford Avenue, Mount Pleasant, Stanley Avenue and Ealing Road in Alperton, for example.

 

PROPOSAL

 

We propose:

1.     

To increase the Capital Budget for road and pavement upgrading to £20 million and instruct officers to prepare a 3-year program of works, recommending as high spend in the 1st year as the construction industry can cope with. There are many roads and pavements in Brent that cannot wait another 3 years for the essential work to be carried out. £2 million of the £20 million Budget to be allocated to regular preventative maintenance works over the 3 years to extend the life of existing road surfaces.

 

 

2.    To allocate £10 million of the £20m to be spent on repairing or resurfacing major roads in Brent damaged by construction traffic. Part of this is to be specifically used to repair crumbling and cratered bus lanes and bus stops across Brent, this is essential as we need to have efficient and unobstructed public transport to meet the Council’s challenge to persuade new residents moving into new development to abandon cars and use public transport instead. This will also assist in persuading people to cycle as the poor condition of bus lanes and bus stops is currently extremely dangerous for cyclists.

 

3.    To allocate an additional £2 million to develop further safe cycle routes across Brent.

 

FUNDING

 

Cabinet approved an additional £15m investment in principal roads and footways from 2022/23-2025/26 of which £2m has been utilised in 2022/23. Therefore, there is £13m remaining.  A further £7m will be required to reach the £20m target. Assuming a contribution of £2m can be justified from CIL, the total capital budget will be £22m. Overall, £7m of new borrowing will required to fund these proposals. Total borrowing of £7m will incur an ongoing revenue cost of £0.7m. It is proposed to fund this revenue cost by reducing the growth that has been added to the budget since the draft budget was agreed by Cabinet. Growth has been added to the 2023/24 budget, mainly to cover the inflationary pressures expected in that year. However, given the Council is setting up an inflation risk reserve to manage additional one-off pressures, we feel that reducing growth for inflation by just £0.7m carries the least amount of risk, as the base budget already includes a reasonable level of allowance for inflation. It is a risk, but one that could be mitigated if, for example, the Bank of England’s rising interest rates have the effect of reducing inflationary pressures faster than currently assumed.

 

POST COVID RECOVERY

 

Our community continues to suffer the impact of the pandemic, which as we know was felt disproportionately in our borough. The health inequalities that have been exposed and highlighted by Covid-19 will take many years to address.

 

One group of vulnerable people, for whom Covid infection was more dangerous were regular smokers and those regarded as clinically overweight.

 

As part of post Covid recovery the Council should provide a 3-year programme of support, advice and direct activities to assist people to follow healthier lifestyles through giving up smoking and taking part in healthy activities.

 

The Council Reserves include £8m from the Public Health grant, which is currently not committed and is intended to fund various Public Health initiatives, such as tackling health inequalities.  We propose that £1m of this reserve is utilised to fund our priorities.

 

PROPOSAL

We propose: 

 

1.    To develop programs for:

a.    Assisting smokers to give up smoking

b.    Providing additional sporting related activities for adults with weight or other health issues.

 

2.    Create a new Grant Fund of £250,000 per year for 3 years to encourage local community organisations to bid for health/ sport related activities for children and young people together with advice about smoking prevention, healthy eating and healthy lifestyles.

 

All of the above being intended to make people of all ages more active and thus resilient to infections such as Covid.

 

A campaign to persuade local people to give up smoking has financial benefits too, at a time of massive squeeze on family incomes. Smoking is an expensive habit and the people who benefit most from this are Tobacco Company executives.  The overall pay package for the BAT (British & American Tobacco) Chief Executive. is around £4 million a year – over 20 times the amount paid to the Prime Minister.

 

Smokers need to be reminded that their unhealthy habit is making others very rich!

 

A NEW YOUTH OFFER

 

We know that in recent years young people have had it tough. Where previously the Council has been able to provide certain targeted services through the Children and Young People Service, at present this is limited, and often relies on community organisations to obtain grant funding, often through NCIL, where there is no guarantee of success.

 

We are principally concerned about young people in our community from economically deprived backgrounds who often need the most support early in their lives.

 

The isolation caused by the pandemic and other factors has made matters even more difficult for young people. Direct Council services providing support and activities for young people, as well as targeted support, needs to be enhanced to assist in their positive development.

 

PROPOSAL

We propose: 

 

1.    Allocate and transfer £1.5 million from the unspecified £10 million inflation provision to a new ring-fenced provision for a new ‘Youth Offer’ provision of £1.5 million to be spent over the next 3 years.

 

2.    The £1.5 million to be supplemented by the Brent Grant Unit applying (or assisting community groups to apply) for specific grants supporting young people activities with the aim of enhancing the fund beyond its initial 3 years.

  

FUNDING

 

As part of the 2023/24 budget the Council has set up a £10m inflation risk reserve ‘to smooth out the effects of high and volatile inflation on the Council's budgets. The reserve will be used to offset additional pressures on service budgets which arise as a result of inflation exceeding what was forecast at budget setting, thereby reducing the requirement for savings in order to balance budgets in the short term.’

 

We believe that this reserve is excessive and could be reduced by £3m to fund the initiatives suggested above. This commitment is one off and after three years the services are expected to be self-financing or otherwise discontinued.

 

MAKING BRENT GREENER

 

The Council does not currently have a specific main program budget for new trees relying on Section 106 agreements or one-off ad-hoc funds.

 

The pandemic highlighted the importance of our open green spaces, the value of trees and access to nature. 

 

PROPOSAL

 

1.    Allocate and transfer £500,000 from the unspecified £10 million inflation provision to a new ring-fenced Tree Fund which will be used to plant new or replacement trees and improve planting n our open spaces. The aim is to spend the £500,000 over the next 4 years at a rate of £125,000 pa.

 

The £500,000 to be supplemented by the Council Grants Unit applying (or assisting local community groups to apply) for specific grants for new trees or improvements to Parks and Open spaces with the aim of enhancing the fund beyond its initial 4 years.

 

FUNDING

 

As per the new youth offer, this expenditure is considered one-off and could be funded from reserves. It is proposed to further reduce the inflation risk reserve to fund this service.

 

STREET CLEANING AND BINS

 

The Cabinet recently approved the new Contract for Street Cleansing, Waste Collections and Winter Maintenance Services. The contract includes both changes and reduction in certain services. 

 

Brent faces a serious problem with litter and rubbish dumping.

 

These new changes come on top of past changes, including a reduction in refuse collections to once a fortnight instead of weekly, reducing street cleaning from three times per week to just once, the removal of litter bins from residential streets and changes to the recycling service. 

 

The so called ‘intelligence led street cleaning’ approach places an additional burden on residents and Councillors to report problems before cleaning takes place creating both delays and additional bureaucracy. The reduction in cleaning side streets close to Town Centres and busy shopping areas will likely create dirtier streets in these locations and more complaints for the Council to deal with.

 

The few remaining dual rubbish and recycling bins in the borough are hardly ever cleaned and a health hazard.

 

PROPOSAL

 

The Council has received a substantial windfall from a New Homes Bonus. The ever-growing population adds extra pressures on already stretched services.

 

In response to the concerns raised by the Public Realm and Resources Scrutiny Committee on the issue of bins versus sacks for paper and cardboard, the Cabinet agreed to place around £1.5 million from the Capital budget for new wheelie bins.

 

We propose that as part of the revised service the Council confirms that residents will be given a clear choice of either an additional bin for paper and cardboard (suitably colour coded with a different colour lid and clear instructions) or sack(s) and the service will be configured in such a way that the contractor can collect the material either from the bins or sacks.

 

In addition, we propose taking £1.5 million from the New Homes Bonus and allocate it to a new 3-year fund:

1.   

 To re-establish weekly cleaning to 50 metres from a junction with shopping areas

 

2.    Provision of more dual litter/ recycling bins in areas requested by Councillors and residents

 

3.    Establish a monthly cleaning service for all street bins (existing and new) in our streets and parks to ensure that they are safe to use

 

FUNDING

 

The Council received £3.1m of NHB last year and due to receive £7.9m next year, an increase of £4.8m. This is a non-ring-fenced grant that is currently recorded as a reserve and used to finance the capital programme. We are not proposing a change to this approach, rather allocating a proportion of the additional amount to fund this proposal. This is considered a one-off investment in order to establish the additional services and after 3 years a review will be conducted on its effectiveness.  If no new funding is available to continue these services, they will be scaled back accordingly.

 

COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND EDUCATION

 

Major challenges remain in seeking to keep our local area clean and free of illegal dumping and littering.

 

The Council is struggling to keep on top of this issue, and often is left having to pay out significant sums in clearing up once dumping has taken place.

 

There needs to be greater preventative measures put in place and a focus on taking effective action to both educate residents and warn persistent offenders.

 

PROPOSAL

We propose:

1.     

The Council employ 12 apprentices, two assigned to each of the six Neighbourhood Managers, to assist with the required work in our communities, be proactive on local streets, support Neighbourhood Managers and engage with members of the community, businesses and other stakeholders. This would require a total of £480,000 pa, on the basis that each apprentice would cost the Council £30,000, salary including on costs.

 

FUNDING

 

It is understood that this would incur ongoing revenue funding of c£0.5m per annum.  Similar to the roads and pavement proposal, we propose to further reduce the growth built into the budget for inflation.  We understand that this adds risk to the budget, however there is still sufficient amounts left in the inflation risk reserve to manage in year pressures as they arise.

 

NEW ADAPTED HOMES

 

The Council has a significant backlog/ waiting list for accommodation suitable for disabled people – mostly in need of accommodation on the ground floor and built or adapted to a standard suitable for wheelchairs and disabled people.

 

The Council has already agreed to purchase a number of properties from various developers in Brent.

 

PROPOSAL

1.    The Council will confirm the current need and waiting list for suitably accessible and adapted accommodation for people with mobility disabilities and identify suitable properties in the current and future build programme.

 

2.    We will allocate £2 million from this year’s New Homes Bonus to meet the required cost of specific adaptation of newly built or existing properties and/ or the acquisition of new ones with a view to eliminating or reducing the current waiting list.

 

FUNDING

As per the street cleaning proposal, NHB is a non-ring-fenced grant that could be used to fund this proposal. We are mindful of the impact on the financing of the capital programme, however, the total overall cost (£2m and £1.5m, total £3.5m) is still more than the additional amount received compared to last year and therefore the impact is expected to be minimal.

 

SUPPORTING DIVERSITY

 

Brent is one of the most diverse parts of the UK. We believe our diversity is our greatest strength.

 

In recent times, it has been difficult for many community groups in our borough to get together, to celebrate cultural events. The pandemic had a huge impact, as has increasing costs associated with renting venues and space for events to take place.

PROPOSAL

 

 

We propose:

1.     To support and assist Brent based groups in being able to hold and celebrate community events. We resolve to allocate £150,000 pa over 4 years to a special Grant Fund aimed at supporting local groups with the cost of hall, room hire and facilities.

2.     The maximum grant in each financial year will be £5,000 per organisation. The organisations will be encouraged to raise match funding and the Grants Unit will provide advice on this. There will be one round of funding in each year and the Council will give 2 months’ notice for applications.

3.     Assessment of the applications will include consideration of the organisation’s ability and willingness to raise additional funding and the effort they plan to put into involving people from other communities in their event/ celebration.

 

FUNDING

 

It is understood that these proposals can be by NCIL, provided they demonstrate a link to development in the local area of each project. Appropriate due diligence will need to be undertaken to ensure conditions of NCIL can be met.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Brent Council must offer hope and improvements in services to local people – especially when proposing another significant Council Tax rise.

 

Any new spend should provide something for as many local people across the whole of Brent as possible.

 

We believe that the Liberal Democrat Group’s proposals achieve that objective. They address:

 

1.    The State of Roads and Pavements

 

2.    Post Covid Recovery

 

3.    A New Youth Offer

 

4.    Making Brent Greener

 

5.    More Street Cleaning and Bins

 

6.    Environmental Outreach and Education

 

7.    New Adapted Homes

 

8.    Supporting Diversity

 

Our reasonable and costed proposals represent a positive contribution to delivering a Council Budget, which by no means perfect, is vastly improved by showing that this Council is both prepared to listen to local people and to take positive action on the suggestions made.

 

 

Advice from the Director of Finance

 

Senior finance support has been provided to assist the Liberal Democrat Group to formulate an alternative budget that reflects their policy priorities.

 

The Alternative Budget proposed by the Liberal Democrat Group would be a legal, balanced budget for 2023/24, although it is recognised that this carries financial risk.  The potential implications for 2024/25 and beyond have not been considered as part of these proposals.

 

The table below sets out a summary of the proposals and the sources of funding.

 

SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS AND SOURCES OF FUNDING

Liberal Democrat Group - Alternative budget proposals

Impact on 2023/24 budget

£m

Roads and Pavements – additional £9m for the capital programme - £7m funded from borrowing and £2m funded from CIL. Borrowing adds £0.7m of growth to the revenue budget

0.7

Above funded by a reduction in part of the growth allocated to the revenue budget to manage inflationary pressures

(0.7)

Post Covid recovery – Total one off commitment of £1m, of which £0.5m to be spent in 2023/24

0.5

Above funded by use of earmarked Public Health reserves

(0.5)

New Youth Offer – adds £3m of one off spend to the budget

3.0

Above funded by a reduction in inflation risk earmarked reserve

(3.0)

Making Brent Greener – adds £0.5m of one off spend to the budget, of which £0.1m will be spent in 2023/24

0.1

Above funded by a further reduction to the inflation risk earmarked reserve

(0.1)

Street Cleaning and Bins – adds £3m of one off spend to the budget, of which £0.5m will be spent in 2023/24

0.5

Above funded by use of the New Homes Bonus grant

(0.5)

Environmental outreach – adds £0.5m of recurring revenue expenditure to the 2023/24 budget

0.5

Above funded by a further reduction in part of the growth allocated to the revenue budget to manage inflationary pressures

(0.5)

New Adapted Homes – adds £2m of capital expenditure to the capital programme

2.0

Above funded by use of the New Homes Bonus grant

(2.0)

Supporting Diversity – adds £0.15m of one off expenditure to the revenue budget in 2023/24

0.15

Above funded by use of NCIL

(0.15)

Total

0.0

 

 

Overall these proposals introduce £19m of new spending commitments.  The Roads and Pavements proposal is funded by borrowing £7m, which will add £0.7m of recurring expenditure to the revenue budget and £2m from CIL. Furthermore, the Keeping our Area Clean proposal also adds £0.5m of recurring expenditure to the revenue budget, a total of £1.2m.  To fund this, it is proposed to reduce part of the growth allocated to the budget to fund additional inflationary pressures expected in 2023/24.

 

As part of the Council’s budget setting process financial modelling and scenario analyses are conducted on all areas of expenditure to understand the exposure to inflationary pressures. This has been used to inform the budget for 2023/24 by taking the central case of expected outcomes. Therefore, any reduction to this provision could put the budget at risk of overspend if inflationary pressures cannot be contained within the existing budget.

 

Related to this is the Youth Offer and proposals on trees, both of which are to be funded by reducing the Inflation Risk reserve from £10m to £6.9m. This reserve was specifically set up to smooth out the effects of high and volatile inflation on the Council's budgets. The reserve will be used to offset additional pressures on service budgets which arise as a result of inflation exceeding what was forecast at budget setting, thereby reducing the requirement for savings in order to balance budgets in the short term.

 

Taking a risk that inflation will fall faster than currently expected introduces risk to the overall budget.  This can be evidenced with the latest forecast for 2022/23, where, since the budget was set, inflation has risen unexpectedly during the year resulting in the use of reserves and contingencies to manage large spikes in costs, such as energy costs, pay inflation and provision of social care. The 2023/24 forecast of the state of the national economy remains volatile.

 

Reducing the overall provision for inflation would therefore add further risk to the budget and its resilience to manage the impact of short term spikes in inflation. Positioning the budget in this way would move the budget from a prudent central case to a less prudent best case scenario, the outcome of which cannot be currently determined. That being the case, while these proposals add risk to the budget, they are not unlawful. If the best case scenario assumed here does not transpire which, in-year mitigations will need to be considered to bring the budget back into balance.

 

Finally, part of the capital spending commitments assume the use of CIL.  The levy can be spent on 'the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure'. It can be used to increase the capacity of existing infrastructure or to repair failing infrastructure if that is necessary to support development. The application of CIL should relate to what infrastructure Brent need to deliver their relevant plan (the Development Plan and the London Plan in London) and growth.

 

CIL must be used on infrastructure required to support development and we would expect that there are only certain roads within the Borough that we are able to legitimately show is needed to support development (Take heavy traffic to and from developments). Therefore, any commitments on the use of CIL must be subject to the necessary due diligence to ensure compliance with relevant conditions. Where this could be demonstrated, CIL could be used to fund specific highways projects. However, if this is not qualified, the £2m proposal would not be undertaken in 2023/24.

 

The Post Covid Recovery proposal seeks to utilise £1m of Public Health earmarked reserves.  The Public Health grant is ringfenced for use on public health initiatives as well has health challenges arising from Covid. Therefore, any commitments against this grant would be subject to appropriate due diligence in checking grant conditions by the Director of Public Health.

 

Likewise, the Supporting Diversity proposal assumes the use of NCIL. It is important to note that NCIL can only be used where it could be demonstrated that there is a link to development in the local area. Therefore, appropriate legal due diligence in compliance with relevant conditions would be necessary.  If the relevant legal conditions cannot be met, both in relation to use of Public Health reserves and NCIL, the proposals would need to be withdrawn or alternative sources of funding found.

 

The Street Cleaning and New Adapted Homes proposals seek to utilise the New Homes Bonus Grant. The Council received £3.1m of NHB last year and due to receive £7.9m next year, an increase of £4.8m. This is an non ring-fenced grant that is currently recorded as a reserve and used to finance the capital programme. Allocating a proportion of the grant into the Council’s revenue budget is allowed under the current grant conditions, however this would have an impact on the financing of the capital programme such that projects would need to be either scaled back or reconsidered.

 

On a final note, reserves have been used to fund certain proposals with ongoing revenue implications into future years.  The proposals make clear that when the reserve has been exhausted the commitments will end, however there is a risk that new services become embedded into Council services making it more difficult to cease. Recurring expenditure requires either sustainable funding sources or savings found elsewhere in the budget.  This has not been offered as part of these proposals, which would impact the financial sustainability of these services.

 

Overall, while the proposals add an element of risk to the 2023/24 budget, particularly higher inflation uncertainty and use of one-off reserves for potentially recurring commitments, the budget can be considered balanced.  This is also subject to appropriate due diligence on the use of CIL, NCIL and the Public Health grant.

 

 

Minesh Patel

Director of Finance