a)    12 Otford Road, Sevenoaks Business Park Development Project

 

Cllr Thornton moved and Cllr Maskell seconded the recommendation from Cabinet, which sought the approval of £3,635,004 in the Capital Programme for the Otford Road development scheme. It also noted that the scheme would only progress subject to financial viability and planning consent.

 

Cllr Thornton spoke to the motion stating that this was a regeneration opportunity for a Council owed site for a mixed scheme which would provide economic development which was a key policy objective. The scheme was affordable and viable, although further viability testing would be needed as detailed design works were undertaken. The funding would be from internal and external borrowing and met from future rents to meet loan terms. Close monitoring of the finances would continue to be undertaken, noting that financing was at least 12 months away, and the market was indicating that interest rates would be lower. Early occupier interest had been made and was a positive sign. Concerns previously raised had been taken into consideration and necessary design solutions would be applied during the detailed design stages. Subject to the necessary approval officers would commence the appointment of a project team for detailed designs for a planning application for submission in September 2024, determination by December 2024, work starting in spring 2025 and being completed by 2026.

 

The Finance & Investment Advisory Committee considered and discussed and endorsed the scheme which was considered further at Cabinet. It was a unique opportunity for the Council to promote business and job opportunities within the district in an underused challenging site.

 

Members debated the motion. Members were advised that the report had been heavily discussed at the Finance & Investment Advisory Committee with active questioning and debate from Members. The Committee thought it was a good use of the site, with some issues raised that had since been addressed and further checks and balances would continue for due diligence on the project. Other Members raised points concerning economical conditions and contingency allowances, as well as the impact on local housing, air quality and the Sevenoaks Town Neighbourhood Plan.

 

In her right of reply, Cllr Thornton advised that under the 2019 Local Plan, the site had been marked as a previously developed site, and was underused. The report requested for funds to be secured, and during the detailed design works, formal consultation would be undertaken.

 

The motion was put to the vote and it was

 

Resolved: That the provision of £3,635,004 in the capital programme for the Otford Road development scheme and notes that the scheme will only progress subject to financial viability and planning consent being received, be approved.

 

 

b)    Treasury Management Strategy 2024/25

 

Cllr Maskell moved and Cllr Thornton seconded the recommendation from Cabinet to approve the Treasury Management Strategy 2024/25.

 

Cllr Maskell spoke to the motion stating that the report had been considered in detail at the Finance & Investment Advisory Committee in January, and prior training had been provided by Link, the treasury advisors to assist discussions. The increased borrowing requirement was detailed in paragraph 48 and a clarification of the exposure to unrated organisations within treasury portfolio detailed in paragraph 47. The report continued to emphasise the importance of training on Treasury Management to ensure due diligence was maintained to ensure sound management of the financial resources within the level of appetite for risk that Members were comfortable with.

 

Members debated the motion, stating concern had been expressed regarding where the investments were being made and the cumulative risk on debt and the level of debt the Council would face by the end of 2027.

 

Cllr Maskell exercised his right of reply.

 

The motion was put to the vote.

 

Resolved: That the Treasury Management Strategy 2024/25, be approved.

 

c)     Property Investment Strategy Update

 

Cllr Maskell moved, and Cllr Thornton seconded the recommendation from Cabinet that the Property Investment Strategy criteria be agreed.

 

Cllr. Maskell spoke to the motion advising that the document looked at the future direction of the strategy. It helped to support self sufficiency as central government funding had reduced over the years. The report had also been considered the Finance & Investment Advisory Committee who had been advised of the limitations now in place. The report advised on the acquisitions previously made.

 

Members debated the motion. Some Members expressed concern that interest rates had gone up and where some sites were not making money. It was suggested that the focus should not be on property investments. In debate it was raised that the strategy was generating over £1m a year to deliver essential services to customers. Good investments had been made but it was government who had removed the ability to purchase just for yield, but it was important to keep an eye on what investments the council did still have to make sure they were still delivering.

 

Cllr Maskell gave his right of reply.

 

The motion was put to the vote and it was

 

Resolved: That the property investment strategy criteria, be agreed.

 

At 8.16pm the Chairman adjourned the meeting for the comfort of Members and Officers

 

At 8.28pm the meeting resumed.

 

d) Budget and Council Tax Setting 2024/25

 

Councillor Thornton moved and Cllr Maskell seconded the recommendation from Cabinet. The report sought approval of the proposed budget and required level of Council Tax for 2024/25, and proposed a net expenditure of £19.445m with the District Council Tax increasing by 2.97% resulting in Band D Council Tax being £243.72. It also sought the one-off funding of £165,000 to be placed into the budget stabilisation reserve.

 

Cllr Thornton spoke to the motion stating that “when setting the current years budget one year ago and when new councillors joined us in May, we were all made very aware that future years budgets would be considerably more challenging and we're not alone. Councils across the country find themselves in turbulent financial positions. Since 2021, some local authorities have declared themselves effectively bankrupt, and recent research by the Local Government Association revealed that almost one in five council leaders and chief executives think that it is very or fairly likely that they will need to issue a section 114 notices in the next two years. Due to funding shortfalls, thankfully, and largely due to the fiscally responsible approach that this Council has historically and proudly taken, we are a long way from being one of those.

 

However, with high inflation, escalating utility costs and demand for some of our most important services being at record levels, the difficulty in proposing a balanced 10 year budget as we do tonight should not be underestimated here. At Sevenoaks, we have a huge amount to be proud of. This is a high performing productive council with some of the highest rates of resident satisfaction in the county. We are one of only two local authorities in the country to hold investor in people's platinum, whilst budgets have been squeezed again beyond all recognition over the past decade, we are 24% more productive than pre pandemic. That's 78,000 extra units of work every year with the same or less staff resource. We process more planning applications than any Council. Our housing waiting list has the lowest number of households applying for a home in Kent, and through our Hero service, we give extra support to around 250 residents every year. With debt income, energy efficiency, housing and benefits advice.

 

We've delivered a brand new leisure centre for Swanley and we're building new affordable housing. In doing all of this and so much more, we have the lowest employee and running costs per head of population in Kent and through our capital programme, this Council is continuing to invest in the future of our district, providing homes, jobs and the infrastructure that we need. Well, there have been some difficult decisions to make.

 

The sound financial management of Council taxpayers money is a long standing priority and one that continues in the budget before you tonight, a budget that continues to protect those services that are most important to our residents and businesses within the sensible and sustainable financial. Limits that we must work within a budget that is focused on delivering value for money to every single household in the district with a lower than inflation rise in Council tax, making necessary savings and embracing new ways of working to balance our books. When I became leader back in May, our annual budget gap forecast stood at £1.7 million. After some early interventions, we reduced this gap to £1.3m by September. By December it was £650,000 and today that budget gap is £0.

 

Our financial pressures have been openly shared throughout our budget setting process and these have included staff pay awards agreed at a national level and critical to retaining our very best staff homelessness pressures and the costs associated with the provision of temporary accommodation. The significant increase in domestic waste and recycling levels post pandemic, with many more people working from home as a normal part of their working week, use of home delivery services with all the outer packaging that comes with it and working at breakneck speed to keep the leisure centres open following the sudden demise of Sencio last spring. Addressing these pressures and removing the budget gap has been achieved.

Portfolio Holders initially reviewing their services and making proposals for change, which have been included as SCIAs. Despite the increased demand for our services and the pressure being placed on our staff, we asked officers if they could review every single line of their budgets to make savings with minimum impacts on services. A reduction in staff has been unavoidable, but thankfully limited in number and predominantly within back office services and where we have been able, officers have been redeployed and vacant posts have simply gone unfilled. Stopping some loss making discretionary services is also part of this, where alternative commercial providers can meet the needs of our residents and businesses just as effectively. Providing recycling bags for life and asking residents to acquire black refuse sacks with an eye on improving recycling rates and our Environment. A review of fees and charges, including a nationally agreed increase for those that use the planning service and at the last minute, a limited amount of additional funding from government for just one year.

 

Members have at every turn been given the opportunity to engage productively and proactively in this budget setting and full training was provided. Members were regularly invited to submit their budget, saving ideas, and to engage in the Advisory Committee process to ensure saving options could be considered in detail and in full before being included in the budget presented tonight. I am grateful to those Members. Although few in number, and entirely from this side of the House that chose to engage in the process and support our endeavours to balance our budget and minimise the impact on our residents. A balanced budget is exactly that, carefully balanced. To maximise efficiencies, savings and increased revenue, it has to be looked at as a whole rather than as a sum of its individual parts. Rather like a house of cards, removing one single card from the deck could cause the collapse of the whole lot.

 

A proposal to change any one single line of the budget would only result in another area of savings being required elsewhere. And that brings me directly to our grants to the Citizens Advice. The proposed saving was brought to everyone's attention in early January and discussed at Cabinet meeting on the 18th of January, which incidentally was attended by 9 guest councillors that night, including six from our opposition colleagues. But not one single question was raised by these members about this particular proposed saving that night, despite there being ample time left during question times from members for them to do so. In fact, no question was raised directly on this subject until February. Setting that aside, we have heard loud and clear the concerns raised by colleagues and members of the public on the proposed reduction to funding for Citizens Advice. This is not a decision we take lightly, and it is no reflection of the high regard that we hold for those that volunteer and provide support to our residents. But we cannot let our own statutory services suffer when difficult decisions are needed. Asking our partners to work within our available budgets is not only prudent, but proportionate, fair and necessary. I have read in the local newspaper that it may be proposed tonight that a single year grant we have received from the government could be used to fund Citizens Advice.

Government has said to us that this funding is to be used to address the pressures facing councils and improve performance and that is what we will do. We will use that funding to protect our statutory services and prevent a repeat of the level of savings we were faced with this year. That is the prudent and sensible approach as households across our districts will be doing every day. It is often better to manage our money sensibly, to plan to our future rather than be led by our hearts desire.

 

 

The funding we will continue to provide to our local citizen service is comparable to other Councils and is guaranteed for the next 3 years. I remain open minded to reviewing that in the future should our budget position improve in future years. You have a 10 year balanced budget in front of you, it’s an award-winning 10 year budget and it remains unique across this country. Other councils across the country can only aspire to this. I’m hoping that I can rely on you this evening to support this. Thank you.”

 

An amendment by Cllr Leaman was moved and duly seconded by Cllr Gustard that recommendation (a) include, “provided that the General Advice Grant to Citizens Advice is restored to £98,000 per annum for the years 2024-25, 2025-26 and 2026-27, using £105,000 of the additional £165,000 funding from Government announced in February to offset this amount, with the remainder to be used as proposed.”

 

Councillor Leaman spoke to his amendment, acknowledging the commitment of Councillors and Officers who had worked hard on the budget. However, he did not think that it was a budget that he could support as over time there were a number of future issues which could affect the position. He expressed his thanks to the Citizens Advice for their work within the District and expressed concern that their grant could be cut. Noting that the local government finance settlement, of which £165,000 was unplanned and unexpected and in Michael Gove’s speech it was said that the additional funding is for services which communities relied upon. He presented figures to the meeting, detailing the amount in reserves and questioned why an additional grant was also going into reserves when it could be used for the residents.

Members debated the amendment and in discussion concerns were raised that the cuts would have an impact and around 900 residents could miss out on advice and services provided as a result of the cut. It was further raised that being in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, demand had increased by 14% and many of the users required specialist skills and the £165,000 would be able to support local services. 

 

It was raised that the amendment would support the most deprived in the district. Concerns were raised that as the Citizen’s Advice was the first contact point for people in difficult circumstances to propose a cut was ill-advised, when considering the skilled advice that was provided.  Some Members felt as if the proposed cut had not been well debated through the committee process and that by reducing the grant, Officers at the Council would have more demand on their time.

 

In response to some of the points raised in debate, other Members also recognised the invaluable service provided by the Citizen’s Advice and that they too regularly referred residents to them for advice and so it was not an easy decision to make. However, it was noted that the Portfolio Holder in response to the public questions earlier in the meeting had shared other ways that the Council was helping them and the reasoning. The HERO service which the Council provides was highlighted, and credit should be given, for the number of people who had been helped through the Council’s own services.

 

It was raised during debate that the additional funding through the Local Government Finance Settlement would help ensure the Council’s statutory services were maintained, and so it was unfortunate that the grant funding to Citizen’s Advice was not a statutory activity. It was further raised that the reduction in funding, was only a reduction and that there was still funding being provided to support the service. It received more funding than any other charity from the Council. The decisions taken were to ensure that a balanced budget was met, and it was not an easy decision, noting the number of residents who were helped. It was brought to Members’ attention that there was a wealth of other free support available to residents in the district including KCC, Age UK, Imago, West Kent Housing Tenancy support. The HERO service supported residents in a number of areas and everyone had a part to play in helping residents. It was unfortunate that given the cost-of-living crisis which was affecting businesses as well, that cuts had to be made.

 

It was moved that the amendment be put.

 

In Cllr Leaman’s right of reply, he put forward that core funding was critical to organisations such as the Citizen’s Advice and therefore felt the right decision was to vote for the amendment.

 

The amendment was put to the vote and it was taken by all those present in the Council Chamber.

For	Against	Abstention
	Abraham
Alger
	Baker
	Ball
	Barnes
	Bayley
Camp
	Clack
Clayton
	Cole, Penny
	Cole, Perry
	P. Darrington
	Dyball
	Edwards-Winser
	Esler
	Ferrari
Granville
Gustard
	Haslam
	Horwood
		Hudson
		Kitchener
	Layland
Leaman
Lindop
	Malone
Manamperi
Manston
	Maskell
	McArthur
Morgan. J
Purves
	Reay
Robinson
	Scott
Shea
Silander
Skinner
Steatfeild
	Thornton
Varley
Waterton
	White
	Williams
19	24	2

 

The amendment was lost.

 

Cllr Leaman moved an amendment, which was duly seconded to add to recommendation (a), “with the addition that the Expenses of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman be reduced by 50% in 2024-25 and £8,000 used to provide black waste bags free of charge to those who need them, distributed via food banks, charities and other voluntary organisations.”

 

Cllr Leaman spoke to his amendment expressing that the amendment was a result of the decision in the budget to end free black sacks for residents and many would be affected by this, as another expense in the cost-of-living crisis. As this money was not being used, it would benefit those in need whilst cutting the cost of distribution by making them available via food banks, and other voluntary organisations.

The amendment was put to the vote, and it was taken by all those present In the Council Chamber.

 

For	Against	Abstention
	Abraham
Alger
	Baker
	Ball
	Barnes
	Bayley
Camp
	Clack
Clayton
	Cole, Penny
	Cole, Perry
	P. Darrington
	Dyball
	Edwards-Winser
	Esler
	Ferrari
Granville
Gustard
	Haslam
	Horwood
	Hudson
	Kitchener
	Layland
Leaman
Lindop
	Malone
Manamperi
Manston
	Maskell
	McArthur
Morgan. J
Purves
	Reay
Robinson
	Scott
Shea
Silander
Skinner
Steatfeild
	Thornton
Varley
Waterton
	White
	Williams
19	26

 

The amendment was lost.

 

Debate continued on the original motion.

 

 

It was indicated that as part of the budget process, suggestions which had been proposed were not fully considered for full cost analysis and that the early payment of a penalty charge for fly tipping was not increasing. If those were increased, they could off-set savings from other services. Concerns were raised about the number of Family Fun days being cut and staff vacancy rates. In addition, that the £165,000 from the Local Government Financial Settlement was being proposed to go into reserves.

 

It was stated that it was never easy to put a budget together, especially when savings were required, and every budget line had been scrutinised to reduced expenditure. It was important to be realistic and provide services for residents, whilst noting the amount of work that had gone into the budget and the enviable position the Council was in. 

 

Cllr Thornton gave her right of reply, thanking Councillors for their comments, noting the vast amount of work which had gone into the budget at every single level. She stressed that achieving a balanced budget in the current economic climate was not simple and by making the difficult decisions now and closing the gap, it would leave the Council on a firm footing for whatever may come. Coping with a pandemic and being able to open the leisure centres because of their strong financial position the Council was in.

 

She further stated that the award-winning, forward-thinking strategies that were in place such as the property investment strategy provided independence from government funding. She further noted that with cuts being made in other services, it was likely that the Council would have to have resilience to support those affected. The £165,000 would be to go in the Council’s reserves as there was still a financial shortfall for the year 2023/24 to deliver the essential services. Noting comments raised regarding staff vacancies, she advised that most of the vacancies and agency staff were used for the waste collection services and the team was under a lot of pressure with the volume of waste and recycling that was collected. In closing she reminded Members that thanks to this process the Council was in a stronger financial position than many others who could only aspire to be in and commended the budget for approval. 

 

The motion was put to the vote and it was taken by all those present in the Council Chamber.

For	Against	Abstention
Abraham
	Alger
Baker
Ball
	Barker
Barnes
Bayley
	Camp
Clack
	Clayton
Cole, Penny
Cole, Perry
P. Darrington
Dyball
Edwards-Winser
Esler
	Granville
	Gustard
Haslam
Horwood
Hudson
Kitchener
Layland
	Leaman
Lindop
Malone
	Manamperi
	Manston
Maskell
McArthur
	Morgan. J
	Purves
Reay
	Robinson
Scott
	Shea
		Silander
	Skinner
	Streatfeild
Thornton
	Varley
Waterton
White
Williams
27	16	1

 

It was therefore resolved that

a)     The summary of Council Expenditure and Council Tax for 2024/25 set out in the supplementary agenda, be approved;

b)     the 10-year budget 2024/25 to 2033/34 which is the guiding framework for the detailed approval of future years’ budgets set out in Appendix C(i) to the report, including the budget changes set out in Appendix E to the report, and that where possible any variations during and between years be met from the Budget Stabilisation Reserve, be approved;

c)     the Capital Programme 2024/27 and funding method set out in Appendix K(i) and Capital Strategy 2024/25 set out in Appendix K(iii), be approved;

d)     the changes to reserves and provisions set out in Appendix L, be approved;

e)     the Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2023/24, be rolled forward to 2024/25, with effect from 1 April 2024 (Appendix N), be approved;

f)      the agreement made at Council on 21 February 2023 to shorten the Council Tax premium on long term empty dwellings from the current 2 years (empty) to 1 year from 1 April 2024, be confirmed;

 

g)     the agreement made at Council on 21 February 2023 to implement the 100% Council Tax premium on all second homes from 1 April 2025, be confirmed;

h)     that it be noted that at the Cabinet meeting on 18 January 2024 the Council calculated as its council tax base for the year 2024/25:

(i)     for the whole Council area as 52,394.75 being Item T in the formula in Section 31B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended, (the “Act”); and

(ii)     for dwellings in those parts of its area to which a parish precept relates as in the attached Appendix P;

j)       that the council tax requirement for the Council’s own purpose for 2024/25 (excluding Town and Parish precepts) be calculated as £243.72;

k)     that the following amounts be calculated for the year 2024/25 in accordance with Sections 31 to 36 of the Act:

(i)	£59,441,384	being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(2) of the Act taking into account all precepts issued to it by Town and Parish Councils.
(ii)	£41,113,000	being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(3) of the Act.
(iii)	£18,328,384	being the amount by which the aggregate at (c)(i) above exceeds the aggregate at (c)(ii) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 31A(4) of the Act, as its council tax requirement for the year (Item R in the formula in Section 31B of the Act).
(iv)	£349.81	being the amount at (c)(iii) above (Item R), all divided by (a)(i) above (Item T), calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 31B of the Act, as the basic amount of its council tax for the year (including Town and Parish precepts).
(v)	£5,558,736	being the aggregate amount of all special items (Town and Parish precepts) referred to in Section 34 (1) of the Act (as per the attached Appendix P).
(vi)	£243.72	being the amount at (c)(iv) above, less the result given by dividing the amount at (c)(v) above by the amount at (a)(i) above (Item T), calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 34 (2) of the Act, as the basic amount of its council tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which no Town or Parish precept relates.

l)       that it be noted that for the year 2024/25 the Kent County Council, the Kent Police & Crime Commissioner and the Kent & Medway Fire and Rescue Authority have issued precepts to the Council in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each category of dwellings in the Council’s area as indicated in the table below:-

Valuation Bands	Precepting Authority
	Sevenoaks District Council £	Kent County Council £	Kent Police & C.C. £	Kent & Medway Fire and Rescue Authority £
A B C D E F G H	162.48 189.56 216.64 243.72 297.88 352.04 406.20 487.44	1,073.88 1,252.86 1,431.84 1,610.82 1,968.78 2,326.74 2,684.70 3,221.64	170.77 199.23 227.69 256.15 313.07 369.99 426.92 512.30	59.94 69.93 79.92 89.91 109.89 129.87 149.85 179.82

m)   that the Council, in accordance with Sections 30 and 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, hereby sets the aggregate amounts shown in Appendix R as the amounts of council tax for the year 2024/25  for each part of its area and for each of the categories of dwellings;

n)     that the Council’s basic amount of council tax for 2024/25, shown in (c)(vi) above, is not excessive in accordance with principles approved under Section 52ZB of the Local Government Finance Act 1992; and

o)     the additional one-off funding of £165,000 in 2024/25 be placed into the Budget Stabilisation Reserve to reduce the savings required to offset the expected 2023/24 overspend when setting the 2025/26 budget, be approved.

 

At 9.50pm the Chairman adjourned the meeting for the comfort of Members and officers.

 

At 10pm the meeting resumed.