Response to Budget Consultation 2020/2021 by Labour Group

We fully appreciate that funding is very tight. Government funding for Local Councils has been severely cut in recent years and savings have had to be made by all Local Councils- £90m by Bracknell Forest so far.

The massive changes that have occurred due to the Transformation Programme has delivered a lot of these savings, but now future such changes must be limited.

[Children’s Services] increased expenditure this year will be £6m. This shows how urgent it is for central government to act to implement a National Care Plan for adults with increased funding from central government.

We also appreciate the huge pressures all councils are experiencing from Adult Social Services provision and from Children Social Care. The cost of these is difficult to predict, particularly the children’s services, and last year the costs exceeded their budget. It is stated that their increased expenditure this year will be £6m. This shows how urgent it is for central government to act to implement a National Care Plan for adults with increased funding from central government. It also shows how urgent it is for the central government to realise and accept the huge issues concerning children’s social services. Expecting Local Government to finance the crisis through raising Council Tax cannot be the best solution nor sustainable in the long term.

The fact that this consultation must go out before the Government Financial Settlement is never acceptable but is a recurring problem, with no apparent priority to resolve. These proposals are therefore, from necessity, a guesstimate. They state another £2.6m savings have yet to be identified and so unlikely to be consulted on before the budget vote on February 26th.

The consultation refers to the expenditure of external funding of £13.91m. £3.97m is from S106 funding, but it is not obvious where the other £10m is from.

We appreciate that once reserves are used, they have gone for good, but accept this must be the case since any increase in council tax will hit our struggling families hard and so must be kept to a minimum. For this budget, and to prevent a referendum being triggered, these proposals are for the maximum allowed increase, however.

Every year, only the highest priority maintenance needs are being funded but priorities 1C & 1D are quoted as needing investment of £2m. […] What is not going to be done and what risks does that pose for users of the buildings? What has been done to get central government to increase their grant to match the need?

Every year, only the highest priority maintenance needs are being funded but priorities 1C & 1D are quoted as needing investment of £2m. Only £1.545m is allocated so already urgent maintenance is being pushed over to next year. Fears for the next year’s funding are that it will be even more tight than this budget, so we challenge this allocation.

For schools, this is an even worse scenario. £3m identified for priority categories 1C & 1D on current building condition surveys, but funding grant from central government expected to be limited to £1.499m. What is not going to be done and what risks does that pose for users of the buildings? What has been done to get central government to increase their grant to match the need?

There is no Basic Needs Grant for this year and so it is fortunate that Bracknell Forest has been able to accrue section 106 funds to replace this and finance the proposed school schemes.

Whilst supporting most of the ‘People Capital Programme Bids’, we are very concerned about the proposals for a new Primary SEMH School. The proposals are that such a school would serve 50 pupils, but the evidence presented suggests there is a much bigger need than this. Also, the school would cater for children suffering from trauma, ADHD, SEND, migrants with language needs- a huge range of issues, all to be catered for in one setting? Where would the expertise come from to serve these children? It appears from these papers that another school could well house this new school, rather than it be purposefully built in its own grounds. If this is the case, then from experience, this could, unfortunately, have a detrimental effect on the existing school. We recognise this £40K is to fund a feasibility and cost report but look forward to much more information on this proposal.

We support the Joint Venture Partnership and therefore also the investment needed to back it.

We hope the application for the lamp column replacement is successful if that will enable the short columns to be replaced by tall ones and so improve the poor lighting delivered from the LED conversions on the existing poles.

We support the New Exhibits at The Look Out Science Centre as this is an excellent provision but needs new excitement for returning visitors.

We support the New Exhibits at The Look Out Science Centre as this is an excellent provision but needs new excitement for returning visitors.

We support the proposed the new parking arrangements at the Look Out and Coral Reef but needed to read this several times before realising it was ‘like going into the Avenue car park.’ It would be helpful for reports and proposals to be written in plain English to ensure they can be properly understood and scrutinised.

Very glad that Savernake Lake is to be rescued.

The New Homes Bonus continues to be based on false assumptions. It is only paid after a certain number of houses have been built but for a borough that does not build its own houses, this is entirely dependent on the achievements of the developers. Many houses have been completed in Bracknell Forest in the last year, however, so surely the number must be above the base line and funding will be received?

The section on Business Rates is very hard to comprehend without personal guidance from the Treasurer himself. If the new Business Rate system is introduced in 2021/22, then from these papers, it reads that all our new development in the New Town Centre and all the added businesses up to date, will not help us. The big company moving out of Bracknell and joining the Central Rating list will also have a negative effect on BF’s budget. Again, we praise the Bracknell Forest Director of Finance for gaining the Berkshire Wide Business Rates pilot for the past two years which have achieved huge bonuses for this borough. This appears not to be possible again, but all the monies gained are still available to support this and future budgets.

Because extra staff are needed in the People Directorate whilst a new operating model is embedded, an extra £1.4m is required. It is difficult for consultation-responders to read ‘these costs will be funded from an Earmarked Reserve to be created by re-prioritising existing earmarked reserves’. How many such ‘existing earmarked reserves’ exist that can be renamed and shunted? How much money is included in all these ‘earmarked reserves’? This information is not available in the consultation documents.

According to the papers, the Bracknell Forest per pupil funding, financed directly from Central Government, will increase by £4.8m. We have new schools in BF that are not yet fully populated,and these need additional financial support. The Council has contributed £0.308m last year and this is again included in these papers, but this does not cover the shortfall.

Another pressure is listed as funding for SEND pupils.

An increase of £1.472m next year is said to be insufficient to fund the forecast cost increase of £3.4m arising from numbers and complexity of needs in Bracknell Forest. […] Schools have been asked to contribute […] this is an ask too far.

An increase of £1.472m next year is said to be insufficient to fund the forecast cost increase of £3.4m arising from numbers and complexity of needs in Bracknell Forest.

To reduce this deficit, the schools have been asked to contribute £0.375m from their own budgets. Knowing how so very tight the existing school budgets are, and how many are calling for parents to contribute more and more, I think this is an ask too far. They have no spare funds. No doubt this has been clearly expressed in the Schools Forum meetings.

Every year, the DFE release the data needed to enable Councils to set their school budget at the end of December and then demand these budgets are sent in for approval by January 25.

Resident consultation cannot be part of this timeline and deadline. This reflects the nonsense that consultations on the whole budget also must take place before even the Provisional Finance Settlement has been released.

In the Annexe A papers, it states that there will be a reduction of £75K from the grant to SHP. It is not clear from these papers if this is all the funding gone and so no grant will be given to support the arts in our Borough. The South Hill Park building is owned by the Council so must be maintained but what about the programme of arts activities and learning that so enriches the lives of so many of our residents. South Hill Park is the home for emotional wellbeing for our residents and attracts visitors from outside the borough. We need to support the development of ‘whole’ people both physically and mentally.

It is assumed that the new restaurant has now taken off and can substitute the funds lost from this cut. The restaurant has been embedded and demand is growing but I do not think it is yet able to provide a profit of £75k. Until this is evidenced, we do not support this cut as it threatens the existence of SHP- our ‘jewel in the crown’.

We fully support the saving of £11K because of the decision not to increase Members’ Allowances.

The Bracknell Town Neighbourhood Development Plan has never yet been completed. The referendum has not yet been held. £48K cannot be removed as this money is still needed.
We fully support the saving of £11K because of the decision not to increase Members’ Allowances.

In Annexe B We are concerned abut the withdrawal of funds by the CCG from adults and children and trust the sum mentioned £807K is enough to replace this.

We are also concerned that it states the Children’s Transformation Programme is being re-evaluated and has therefore paused, resulting in the savings target being removed. We are aware of the pressures in Children’s Social Services and question whether £1.042m is the correct and full figure for this? There must be pace and agility to this review ensuring the right outcome, but with pressure only getting bigger, we can ill afford delays.

We are dismayed at the withdrawal of the grant for the Youth Offending team by the Police & Crime Commissioner

We are dismayed at the withdrawal of the grant for the Youth Offending team by the Police & Crime Commissioner and support this inclusion to enable the work to continue. We also fully support financing of the Town Centre Youth Facility.

Is there also a shortage of Mental Health Professionals for children? Is this being resolved?

£220K to sustain the Family Safeguarding model is supported but illustrates a reoccurring concern throughout these budget proposals. The officers spend a huge amount of time in competing for a time-limited grant. Because they are good at it, they win the grant and the projects are implemented. Then the grant runs out and the new bids must be made, the project terminated, or new revenue funding found.

How much better it would be if the LAs were properly funded from Central Government so that time spent on these bids could be spent in action with the residents.

In Annexe CWe are concerned about the effects of stopping Counselling Functions in the proposed review of the OH and Counselling contract, saving £10K. What support will be provided to employees in future?

We trust that the review of bus contracts will include a consideration of the effects of reducing the Bracknell Forest carbon footprint. When the buses are frequent, more residents chose to use them. Encouraging residents to use public transport is a must.

We are concerned that so much money, £100K, has been amassed from clients who have arranged their own care. They would have been assessed and money awarded according to their needs. So, what needs have not been met?

We are concerned that so much money, £100K, has been amassed from clients who have arranged their own care. They would have been assessed and money awarded according to their needs. So, what needs have not been met? What have they gone without? How often are these reviewed and the lack of spend identified? Is this a safeguarding issue?

Is the Schools Budget able to afford the transfer of Early Years Development Workers? £140K

In Annexe D The ‘Home to School’ hire vehicle fee is reduced by 47.9% and the Charge for immigration reports for the Home Office is increased by 67.4%. No explanation is included for these or for other large changes, making it impossible to agree or disagree with such proposals.

We are concerned that there is very little included in support of the Council’s determination to achieve a net zero carbon footprint by 2050.

With the potential overall cost of the budget being £81.787m and the potential gap of £2.577m we support the use of balances to offset some of the deficit.

We appreciate, however, that once used, the balances are gone forever, and that next year’s budget may be much more difficult to balance than this year.

£4m is a good balance to keep if possible, and therefore, £2.5m could be used for the 2020/21 balance.

As these cuts and reductions have been proposed by each individual department as things they considered can be ‘afforded’ without affecting front line services too greatly, we would find it difficult to argue against their proposals without accessibility to much greater detail.

We accept that the Council Tax will have to increase but urge renewed publicity over the Council Tax Discount Scheme for the residents who need it most yet may not be aware of what support is available.

We accept that the Council Tax will have to increase but urge renewed publicity over the Council Tax Discount Scheme for the residents who need it most yet may not be aware of what support is available.