a)     Budget: Council Tax Support Funding for Town and Parish Councils

The background to the report was that at the Council meeting on 18 February 2014 it was resolved that “no Council Tax Support funding for Town and Parish Councils be issued as no money had been ring-fenced for this purpose in the Government Grant Settlement, and the approach be agreed and adopted”.  This was also recommended by Cabinet on 6 February 2014.  Westerham Town Council supported by Sevenoaks Town Council and Dunton Green Parish Council had said they intended to seek a judicial review of the decision as they believed that the decision was not as clear as it could have been.  The Council Leader, Chief Finance Officer and Legal Services Manager had met their representatives on 3 April 2014 and it had been agreed that a report would be taken to Council on 13 May 2014 to give Members the opportunity to reconsider passing Council Tax Support funding to Town and Parish Councils.

Before consideration of the item the Chairman advised that she had received a request from Mr Alan Wesley, Chairman of Westerham Town Council to address the meeting.  As there was no provision for this to happen within the rules set out in the Council’s Constitution she had agreed to use her discretion as Chairman and allow him to speak for no more than three minutes.  She invited Mr. Wesley to step forward and address the meeting. 

Mr. Wesley addressed the meeting reiterating points made in the letter from Westerham Town Council dated 10 March 2014 (Appendix A to the report) pointing out that the Council had been called a ‘rogue’ local authority in the Sunday Times on 20 April 2014 and that the Council could afford to pass on the support funding if it used the stabilisation fund. He commented on the minutes of Cabinet held on 8 May 2014, stating that it was not double taxation as the Parish and Town Council’s had taken on liability and that the reference to not knowing what to do with the money was condescending.  He also stated that the 24 dual hatted members should not vote but if they did and voted againstpassing on the money they should resign.  He advised that it was his 70^th birthday but had agreed to attend this meeting to be heard.

Cllr. Fleming proposed and Cllr. Ramsay seconded the recommendations from Cabinet which did not set out a preferred option but recommended that Council consider all three options being proposed.  In proposing the motion, Cllr. Fleming wished Mr Wesley a happy birthday and was pleased the Chairman had used her discretion to allow him the opportunity to address the meeting on a matter he felt so strongly about.

The Chairman advised Council that the motion with all three options would be debated as a whole, and then each option voted on individually.

The Leader stated that he had sympathy with the parishes however unfortunately the Government had continued to make promises around levels of funding the Council believed had not been passed on.  Commenting on the letters received from Brandon Lewis MP, it was stated that it was impossible to work out how much to give yet it had been managed the year before when it had been ring-fenced.  It had been pointed out at an early stage that the funding may not continue, this had been heard before for example over the funding of bus passes which had been ring-fenced then disappeared.  Therefore Officers had advised Town and Parish Councils straight away that it could not be certain that this funding would be paid in future years in order to help them prepare.  Referring to the minutes of Cabinet, if the Council considered paying the money from reserves he would have an expectation that the parishes and towns pay the raised precept amount back to the the residents of the parish.  

Members debated the item.  A Member who was not dual hatted had spoken to her Parish Clerk with a financial background, who had said it had been very clear what was going to happen which is why they had raised their precept.  Another Member spoke against the previous decision as he had before, concerned as to the impact on the poorer sections of the District.  He also commented that it seemed to go against all endeavours by local government to have localised power.  Parishes were required, legally, to balance their budgets.  He thanked Mr Wesley for pursuing the matter and offered the support of Swanley Town Council.  Another Member said the Council should be concerned that it had been called a ‘rogue’ Council.  It was clear that if other authorities could pass on the money so could this one.   She commented on poor procedures and called for a legally qualified Cabinet Member.

A Member referred to the letter from Michael Fallon MP, and the expectation that the money would be passed down.  She also felt that the Council was ‘morally’ bound to pass on this money.  Other Members pointed out that there had been constant communication with the Town and Parishes and many had taken heed of the warnings given.  One Member pointed out that when he entered the Chamber it was as a District Councillor and his decision would be for the benefit of the District.  Some Members thought that a compromise maybe in order.  Another Member who did not sit on a Parish or Town Council advised that she had spoken to her Parish Council and been told that it had been clear from the outset that the money was not guaranteed and had been treated as a windfall.  They had not expected to receive anything this year and would not support an expensive judicial review.  Other Members stated that it was clear that there had been an intention to support local government in better localisation, and that the relationship with Parishes and Town Councils needed consideration along with the Council’s reputation.

In response to comments and questions raised during the debate, the Leader advised that the purpose of the Council’s stabilisation fund was not just to balance each year but the 10 year budget, and any payment would affect and cause an overall shortfall to the 10 year budget.  The Council, Officers and lead Members had done everything possible to engage in an open process, initial tax base figures had been estimates and the final ones had been confirmed as soon as they were known.  Central Government continued to claim there was specific funding but were still unable to identify an amount.  As previously stated if a figure had been identified the Council would have passed on 100% of that identified amount as before.  Not all Councils had passed on 100% of the money the previous year.  Many other Councils were only passing on 50% with the caveat of nothing in future years.  If options (a) or (b) were chosen the Council would be funding a scheme the government was not.  The decision had been taken by Full Council on 18 February 2014 and had followed due democratic process.   Many parishes had followed the advice given.  He urged Members to vote for option (c).

Public Sector Equality Duty

Members noted that consideration had been given to impacts under the Public Sector Equality Duty.

The Chairman put each individual option to the vote:

Option (a) -  ‘An amount of funding is passed to Town and Parish Councils for Council Tax Support in 2014/15 equivalent to the amount passed on in 2013/14 less 24% (the Council’s reduction in Revenue Support Grant)’ this was put to the vote and was lost.

Option (b) – ‘A different amount is passed to Town and Parish Councils for Council Tax Support in 2014/15’ this was put to the vote and was lost.

Option (c) – ‘No funding is passed to Town and Parish Councils for Council Tax Support in 2014/15’ this was put to the vote and it was

Resolved:  That no funding be passed to Town and Parish Councils for Council Tax Support in 2014/15.

*Minutes agreed at meeting held on 22 July 2014 subjecttothis amendment