Agenda item

The Council considered reports from Cabinet which detailed budget recommendations for the 2019/20 balanced revenue budget, an outline Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP(9)) 2019/20 to 2022/23 and a fully funded Capital Programme, and provided financial information and forecasts to enable the Council to calculate and set the Council Tax for 2019/20 (for copies see file of Minutes).

 

In Moving adoption of the Cabinet reports, Councillor Henig made a statement on the Budget and Precept for 2019/20, summarised as follows:

 

Proposals were approved by Cabinet at its meeting on 6 February and followed an extensive period of consultation and scrutiny.  The proposals had been in the public domain for many months even though it was only a few weeks since government finalised its annual local government settlement.

 

Since the start of government austerity in 2010/11, Durham County Council had delivered savings of more than £220 million.  There would be a further huge £14.2 million reduction in government revenue support grant next year, which dwarved the additional one-off funding pots found in the settlement for areas such as winter pressures.  All of this was despite the much vaunted Conservative promise of an end to austerity.  At least £30 million of further cuts were still to come in future years and the cuts could be even worse in subsequent years as a result of the so called fair funding review

 

There would be an estimated reduction in council posts of almost 3,000 by 2020.  This compared with just over 100 lost as a result of local government reorganisation in 2009.

 

Austerity was the offspring of both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, with the cuts at their deepest from 2010-15 when the Liberal Democrats were in power.  The former Chancellor George Osborne promised in 2010 they would be over by 2015, but cuts were still going in 2019-20 and there was no end in sight.  The Council was now approaching a decade of deep cuts to the fabric of society.  This was totally unprecedented in any large developed nation and Mrs Thatcher could only have dreamed of cuts on this scale.

 

The Council was also now faced, at the same time, with growing demand for the biggest spending services, adult services and children’s services, both escalating rapidly, provoking the real threat of council insolvency and crisis across the country.

 

Numerous studies had demonstrated that Councils in poorer areas had been hit the hardest.  In County Durham core spending power, which was the government’s own preferred measure was now almost £200 lower per dwelling than the national average.  The Council’s core spending power was lower even than places such as Surrey and Wokingham despite the level of needs in County Durham in areas such as adult and children’s services being far greater.

 

If County Durham were funded at the national average it would receive £44 million more in government grant, as outlined in paragraph 43 of the budget report.

 

It should also be noted that government figures on core spending power assumed that councils would increase the council tax to the permitted limit.  Given the serious implications to the Council’s budget and to services if it did not follow this government expectation, most council’s around the country had concluded there was no choice.  The Council’s proposals therefore included a 2.99% general council tax increase and 2% adult social care precept for 2019/20, as set out in paragraph 4 of Agenda Item 11.

 

It was high time the government funded local services properly and did not pass the buck to councils and the general public to bridge a funding gap they had created.

 

It was against this background that the Council must set its budget.  Yet despite this the Council had managed to protect many frontline services in County Durham.  Priorities had been shaped by many years of consultation with several thousand residents across County Durham.  Those priorities included support for the elderly in their homes, safeguarding budgets for vulnerable and looked after children, budgets for winter gritting and council tax support for low income households.  Durham was the only council in the North East where the poorest working age families were exempt from council tax.  Priorities also included the economy and job creation.  The Council had always retained its business support function to create much needed jobs, as well as a fully funded capital programme aimed at economic regeneration.

 

County Durham had always retained a fully funded capital programme aimed at boosting its infrastructure and our economy.  Funded mainly from borrowing, grants and contributions as demonstrated in Appendix 8 and Table 12 of Item 10, this was not an optional extra; it was critical for a county which had never fully recovered from the Thatcher onslaught of the 1980s and early 1990s.  The County had to do everything it could to close the economic gap, whatever happened as a result of Brexit.  The Majority Group made no apology for again making proposals to improve the County’s economy and boost jobs.  That included an expansion of Durham City’s Park and Ride, additional funding for highways maintenance and funding for Town and Village regeneration.  The complete capital programme which was set out in Appendix 7 showed support for Industrial Estates, Town Centres, for housing, for integrated transport and for renewable technology.  The Leader made no apology for moving off the Aykley Heads site to attract 6,000 jobs which the county and the North East so badly needed.

 

The Government was undertaking a fair funding review which threatened to transfer yet more resource from poor to rich, Robin Hood in reverse with the government claiming, quite remarkably, that deprivation was not a factor in determining the need for services.  The impact would potentially be another big transfer from poorer areas to more affluent district and county councils in the south of England and was due to be implemented in April 2020.

 

This would cost County Durham even more in cuts.  The impact could be magnified by a threat to Durham’s public health budget, initially determined on the basis of need by previous NHS bodies, now to be calculated mainly by population.  The impact again would be a large transfer of funding from north to south, from poor to rich.  Durham would be the biggest loser in the country, with £19 million removed from its much needed public health programmes.  Surrey and Hertfordshire would each gain about £14 million.  This was simply wrong and lobbying against this change which will hit hard would continue.

 

A big new challenge being faced was rising demand in children’s services. This added to the existing demographic pressure in adult services.  Table 5 of Item 10 showed th Council’s base budget pressures which totalled £32 million, dominated by Children’s Services, Adult Services as well as pay and price inflation.

 

In Children’s services the pressures in children’s social care continued to escalate, which had a huge cost to the Council.  In addition the pressures on the ‘high needs block’ of the dedicated schools grant were also growing.  This was a national crisis, with the same thing happening in local authorities across the country, to leave a huge funding gap which the government was doing very little about.

 

Faced by all of these pressures, which were making the task of setting the general fund budget more and more difficult, wthe Council was proposing savings proposals for 2019-20 totalling £10.334 million as outlined in Appendix 3.  Members were asked to consider the Equality impact assessments of the savings proposals and the mitigations set out in paragraphs 143 to 164 of the budget report and in Appendix 10.  Consultation feedback could be found in paragraphs 47-53 and Scrutiny Committee feedback in paragraphs 54 to 57.

 

The Council was extremely fortunate that it was able to meet the significant budget shortfall in the children’s high needs block of Dedicated Schools Grant with a one-off use in 2019/20 of £5.487 million of budget support reserve to plug the shortfall due to increased demand.  This was unprecedented but it was a good thing the Council still had some reserves and didn’t listen to the people who had suggested spending them all.  Had the Council done this it would have had no reserves to be able to use and really would be in a crisis.

 

As it is the budget proposals for 2019-20 continued to protect Durham’s front line services as far as possible.

 

As well as those areas of the reports the Leader had highlighted, the Council also needed to agree the prudential code, treasury management strategy and Property Strategies as set out in Appendix 14 of Item 10, note the taxbase as agreed by Cabinet as set out in paragraph 9 of Item 11, the collection fund surplus and distribution as set out in paragraph 8 and the precepts for Police, Fire and Parish Councils as notified, set out in the council tax report. Recommendations on all of the required council tax resolutions were set out in paragraph 9 of Item 11.

 

In closing the Leader thanked all officers and especially the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Finance for their careful, robust and forward thinking financial stewardship in what were very difficult times.  The Leader moved the reports and recommendations.

 

In seconding the reports and recommendations, Councillor Napier, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Finance informed Council that this was another year of austerity with the government being oblivious to the impact it was having on local communities.  Cuts of this magnitude had never before been experienced and foodbanks were becoming the norm, homelessness rising and the police service needing to raise its precept by more than 10%.  By the end of the financial year, the Council would have made savings of £224 million, and if austerity had never been, this would have meant the Council would have had £224 million more to spend on services.  The LGA had identified an £8bn funding gap by 2025, the Institute for Fiscal Studies identified that poorer areas were losing more money and the Financial Times had commented on the scale of cuts.  Austerity was neither necessary nor coming to an end.  For 2019/20 the Council would need to find savings of £15 million of savings and £140 million had been taken from the Revenue Support Grant since 2011.

 

97% of councils were likely to increase council tax and this was a shift from central government funding to local tax payers funding services.  The Council had maintained its Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme and it was hoped this could be maintained after the fair funding review.  The Council would continue to focus on the people of County Durham.

 

Councillor R Crute, Chairman of Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Management Board informed Council that there had been three scrutiny meetings to consider the budget. The Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Management Board had scrutinised the budget setting, savings proposals and settlement and commended officers on the way savings had been carried out to date and the planned way savings were to be carried out.  Members were very concerned about the level of uncertainty in the financial outlook.  Feedback from the scrutiny process could be found at paragraphs 54 to 57 of the report at Agenda Item 10.

 

An amendment was Moved by Councillor Shuttleworth, Seconded by Councillor Makepeace as follows:

 

MTFP 9

The Council, in respect of the Cabinet’s 2019/20 budget and MTFP 9 to consider :

 

(a)  Cease entirely the publication of the County Durham News from April 2019. This produces an annual saving of £160,000.

 

(b)  Reduce the staffing in the Communication and Marketing team to one press officer, two assistants and two marketing officers. This would produce a saving in 2019/20 of £672,500 and an additional saving in 2020/21 of £672,500, totalling £1,345,000.

 

(c)  Cease entirely the development of the new HQ and the History Centre. A total of £13.1 million of the capital cost is funded from borrowing which will result in a revenue saving of £750,000 in 2022/23. The remainder of the capital cost is being funded from the Office Accommodation Capital Reserve.

Total Revenue Savings from (a) + (b) + (c) are as follows

(i)            2019/20 - £832,500

(ii)          2020/21 - £672,500

(iii)         2022/23 - £750,000

 

TOTAL REVENUE SAVING - £2,255,000

 

The revenue savings identified above to be invested as follows:

 

(a)  Reduce the 2.99% Council Tax increase in 2019/20 to 1.99%. The total council tax increase in 2020/21 will therefore be 3.99% once the Adult Social Care 2% precept increase is included. The lost income in 2019/20 is £2,100,000 from this proposal.

 

(b)  The remaining savings of £155,000 to be invested to provide an annual grant of circa £500 for village halls and community centres from 2019/20.

Total Revenue Costs from (a) + (b) are £2,255,000 in 2020/21

 

There will be a requirement to utilise additional Budget Support Reserve of £1,422,000 in 2019/20. The total use of the Budget Support Reserve in 2019/20 will increase from £5,487,000 to £6,909,000.

 

The savings in 2020/21 and 2022/23 will ensure the additional costs incurred in 2019/20 are balanced across the MTFP.

 

In relation to the capital budget, the savings from ceasing plans to build a new HQ and the History Centre are proposed to be invested as follows;

 

(a)  Total backlog maintenance for retaining HQ in its current form is estimated £37 million. A total of £10 million to be made available across the MTFP(9) period to ensure any high priority condition issues are addressed in County Hall with future backlog maintenance costs to be considered as part of future MTFP plans.

 

(b)  An increase in the Highways Maintenance capital budget of £5.375 million in each of the next four years, totalling £21.5 million.

The net MTFP impact of the budget proposals is set out below:

 

Summary of MTFP Impact	2019/20 £’000	2020/21 £’000	2021/22 £’000	2022/23 £’000	Total £’000
Savings	-832	-673	-750	0	-2,255
Investments	155	0	0	0	155
Reduced Council Tax	2,100	0	0	0	2100
Increase Use of Budget Reserve	-1,423	0	0	0	1,423
Adjustment for PYR use of Reserve	0	1,423	0	0	1,423
Change in MTFP Savings	0	750	-750	0	0
Revised MTFP Savings	0	10,321	5,497	7,425	23,243

 

In summary, the decisions above increase the utilisation of the Budget support Reserve by £1,423,000. Although the savings target in 2020/21 increases by £750,000, this is offset in 2021/22 ensuring that the savings shortfall over the MTFP(9) period is retained at £23,243,000.

 

For the Amendment

Councillors B Avery, A Bainbridge, B Bainbridge, R Bell, D Brown, I Cochrane, K Hawley, T Henderson, K Liddell, J Makepeace, S McDonnell, G Richardson, J Rowlandson, J Shuttleworth and K Thompson

 

Against the Amendment

Councillors E Adam, J Allen, J Atkinson, P Atkinson, A Batey, A Bell, D Bell, E Bell, J Bell, H Bennett, G Bleasdale, L Boyd, D Boyes, P Brookes, J Brown, J Carr, J Chaplow, J Clare, J Clark, M Clarke, J Considine, K Corrigan, P Crathorne, R Crute, M Davinson, S Dunn, S Durham, O Gunn, D Hall, C Hampson, S Henig, D Hicks, K Hopper, L Hovvels, P Howell, E Huntington, S Iveson, I Jewell, O Johnson, B Kellett, L Kennedy, A Laing, J Lethbridge, R Manchester, C Marshall, L Marshall, M McKeon, O Milburn, S Morrison, A Napier, A Patterson, L Pounder, S Quinn, J Robinson, S Robinson, K Shaw, H Smith, T Smith, W Stelling, J Stephenson, A Surtees, P Taylor, J Turnbull, A Watson, C Wilson, M Wilson, S Wilson, D Wood, R Yorke and S Zair

 

Abstentions

Councillor J Blakey, L Brown, G Darkes, D Freeman, A Hopgood, P Jopling, L Maddison, C Martin, E Mavin, J Nicholson, R Ormerod, E Scott, M Simmons, A Simpson, D Stoker, O Temple, M Wilkes and A Willis

 

The Amendment was Lost.

 

An amendment was Moved by Councillor Hopgood, Seconded by Councillor Temple as follows:

 

MTFP 9

The Council, in respect of the Cabinet’s 2019/20 budget to consider:

Savings

(a)  Councils are able to charge a 100% council tax premium on empty properties from 1 April 2019; a 200% premium on properties unoccupied for more than 5 years from 1 April 2020 and a 300% premium on properties unoccupied and unfurnished for more than 10 years from 1 April 2021. It is estimated that implementing this policy will generate £1,220,000 from April 2020 and a further £311,000 in 2021/22. Proposed changes would need to be subject to consultation and therefore the earliest implementation date is 1 April 2020 for the 100% and 200% premiums and 1 April 2021 for the 300% premium. These proposals are estimated to provide total income of £1,531,000.

Total Revenue Savings over the MTFP are as follows:

(iv)         2020/21 : £1,220,000

(v)          2021/22 : £   311,000

 

TOTAL REVENUE SAVING : £1,531,000

 

Investments

 

(a)  There are 200 dropped kerbs on the waiting list that meet the Council’s criteria. The estimated capital cost of undertaking these works is estimated at £190,000 in 2019/20. The revenue borrowing costs associated with this capital expenditure are estimated at £11,000 from 2020/21.

 

(b)  There are circa 200 schools that have had a risk assessment undertaken but have not yet been allocated funding for 20mph zonal work. The capital cost of undertaking the works at these schools is estimated at £3 million. Assuming the works are undertaken over a three year period, the annual capital cost is estimated at £500,000 per annum (to be match funded with £500,000 per annum from other sources). The revenue borrowing costs associated with this capital expenditure are estimated at £30,000 in 2020/21, 2020/22 and 2022/23 – totalling £90,000.

 

(c)  An additional capital allocation of £5,000,000 will enable the worst condition unclassified roads to be dealt with. The revenue borrowing costs associated with this capital expenditure are estimated at £289,000 from 2020/21.

Total Revenue Costs from (a) + (b) + (c) are as follows

(i)            2020/21 : £330,000

(ii)          2021/22 : £  30,000

(iii)         2022/23 : £  30,000

TOTAL INVESTMENT: £390,000

 

The net MTFP changes of the budget proposals as set out is as follows:

Summary of MTFP Impact	2019/20 £’000	2020/21 £’000	2021/22 £’000	2022/23 £’000	Total £’000
Savings	0	-1,220	-311	0	-1,531
Investments	0	330	30	30	390
Change in MTFP Savings	0	-890	-281	30	-1,141
Revised MTFP Savings		8,681	5,966	7,455	22,102

 

In summary, in addition to the investment set out, the budget amendment will also reduce the MTFP 9 savings requirement by £1,141,000 - from £23,243,000 to £22,102,000.

 

For the Amendment

Councillors L Brown, G Darkes, D Freeman, K Hawley, D Hicks, A Hopgood, P Jopling, K Liddell, L Maddison, J Makepeace, C Martin, E Mavin, S McDonnell, J Nicholson, R Ormerod, S Robinson, E Scott, M Simmons, A Simpson, W Stelling, D Stoker, O Temple, K Thompson, A Watson, M Wilkes and S Zair

 

Against the Amendment

Councillors E Adam, J Allen, J Atkinson, P Atkinson, A Bainbridge, B Bainbridge, A Batey, A Bell, D Bell, E Bell, J Bell, R Bell, H Bennett, J Blakey, G Bleasdale, L Boyd, D Boyes, P Brookes, J Brown, J Carr, J Chaplow, J Clare, J Clark, M Clarke, J Considine, K Corrigan, P Crathorne, R Crute, M Davinson, S Dunn, S Durham, O Gunn, D Hall, C Hampson, T Henderson, S Henig, K Hopper, L Hovvels, E Huntington, S Iveson, I Jewell, O Johnson, B Kellett, L Kennedy, A Laing, J Lethbridge, R Manchester, C Marshall, L Marshall, M McKeon, O Milburn, S Morrison, A Napier, A Patterson, L Pounder, S Quinn, G Richardson, J Robinson, J

Rowlandson, K Shaw, H Smith, T Smith, J Stephenson, A Surtees, P Taylor, J Turnbull, C Wilson, M Wilson, S Wilson, D Wood and R Yorke.

 

Abstentions

Councillors D Brown, I Cochrane, P Howell, J Shuttleworth and A Willis

 

The Amendment was Lost.

 

An amendment was Moved by Councillor R Bell, Seconded by Councillor Henderson as follows:

 

MTFP 9

The Council welcomes the recent report by the Economy and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee “Review of support provided to the retail sector by Durham County Council”, noting its approval by Cabinet on 16^th January 2019, and seeks to accelerate its implementation by moving that:

 

The Council, in respect of the Cabinet’s 2019/20 budget and MTFP 9 to make additional savings and expenditure as follows:

 

Savings

 

(a)  Reduce the number of editions of the County Durham News from four to three from April 2019 – retaining the guide to services. This produces an estimated annual saving of £25,000

 

TOTAL REVENUE SAVING: £25,000

 

Investments

 

(a)  Extend free wi-fi across Barnard Castle, Chester-le-Street and Seaham. The total capital costs are estimated at £130,000. It is proposed to fund these capital costs from the towns and villages reserve that has been established by cabinet (£10 million). The on-going revenue costs are estimated at £25,000 and will be funded from savings identified in this budget amendment.

Total Revenue Costs are as follows

(i)            2019/20 - £ 25,000

 

TOTAL INVESTMENT: £25,000

 

As the savings and investments net off in 2019/20, there is no net impact on the MTFP.

 

For the Amendment

Councillors A Bainbridge, B Bainbridge, R Bell, J Blakey, D Brown, L Brown, I Cochrane, S Durham, D Freeman, K Hawley, T Henderson, D Hicks, A Hopgood, P Howell, P Jopling, K Liddell, J Makepeace, C Martin, E Mavin, S McDonnell, J Nicholson, R Ormerod, G Richardson, J Rowlandson, E Scott, J Shuttleworth, M Simmons, A Simpson, D Stoker, O Temple, M Wilkes, A Willis and S Zair

 

Against the Amendment

Councillors E Adam, J Allen, J Atkinson, P Atkinson, A Batey, A Bell, D Bell, E Bell, J Bell, H Bennett, G Bleasdale, L Boyd, D Boyes, P Brookes, J Brown, J Carr, J Chaplow, J Clare, J Clark, M Clarke, J Considine, K Corrigan, P Crathorne, R Crute, S Dunn, O Gunn, D Hall, C Hampson, S Henig, K Hopper, L Hovvels, E Huntington, S Iveson, I Jewell, O Johnson, B Kellett, L Kennedy, A Laing, J Lethbridge, L Maddison, R Manchester, C Marshall, L Marshall, M McKeon, O Milburn, S Morrison, A Napier, A Patterson, L Pounder, S Quinn, J Robinson, S Robinson, K Shaw, H Smith, T Smith, W Stelling, J Stephenson, A Surtees, P Taylor, K Thompson, J Turnbull, A Watson, C Wilson, M Wilson, S Wilson, D Wood and R Yorke

 

Abstentions

Councillor G Darkes

 

The Amendment was Lost.

 

Votes were then taken on the main Motions which were the recommendations contained within the reports.

 

Medium Term Financial Plan 2019/20 to 2022/23 and Revenue and Capital Budget 2019/20.

 

For the Motion

Councillors E Adam, J Allen, J Atkinson, P Atkinson, A Batey, A Bell, D Bell, E Bell, J Bell, H Bennett, G Bleasdale, L Boyd, D Boyes, P Brookes, J Brown, J Carr, J Chaplow, J Clare, J Clark, M Clarke, J Considine, K Corrigan, P Crathorne, R Crute, G Darkes, S Dunn, O Gunn, D Hall, C Hampson, S Henig, K Hopper, L Hovvels, E Huntington, S Iveson, I Jewell, O Johnson, B Kellett, L Kennedy, A Laing, J Lethbridge, L Maddison, R Manchester, C Marshall, L Marshall, M McKeon, O Milburn, S Morrison, A Napier, J Patterson, L Pounder, S Quinn, J Robinson, K Shaw, H Smith, T Smith, J Stephenson, A Surtees, P Taylor, K Thompson, J Turnbull, A Watson, C Wilson, M Wilson, S Wilson, D Wood and R Yorke

 

Against the Motion

Councillors A Bainbridge, B Bainbridge, R Bell, D Brown, L Brown, S Durham, D Freeman, K Hawley, T Henderson, D Hicks, A Hopgood, P Howell, P Jopling, K Liddell, J Makepeace, C Martin, E Mavin, S McDonnell, J Nicholson, R Ormerod, G Richardson, S Robinson, J Rowlandson, E Scott, J Shuttleworth, M Simmons, A Simpson, D Stoker, O Temple, M Wilkes and S Zair.

 

Abstentions

Councillors J Blakey, I Cochrane, W Stelling and A Willis.

 

Resolved:

That the report and its recommendations be adopted in full.

 

Council Tax Setting in Order to Meet the County Council's Council Tax Requirement for 2019/20

 

For the Motion

Councillors E Adam, J Allen, J Atkinson, P Atkinson, A Bainbridge, B Bainbridge, A Batey, A Bell, D Bell, E Bell, J Bell, R Bell, H Bennett, J Blakey, G Bleasdale, L Boyd, D Boyes, P Brookes, D Brown, J Brown, J Carr, J Chaplow, J Clare, J Clark, M Clarke, J Considine, K Corrigan, P Crathorne, R Crute, G Darkes, S Dunn, S Durham, O Gunn, D Hall, C Hampson, S Henig, K Hopper, L Hovvels, P Howell, E Huntington, S Iveson, I Jewell, O Johnson, B Kellett, L Kennedy, A Laing, J Lethbridge, L Maddison, R Manchester, C Marshall, L Marshall, M McKeon, O Milburn, S Morrison, A Napier, A Patterson, L Pounder, S Quinn, G Richardson, J Robinson, J Rowlandson, K Shaw, H Smith, T Smith, J Stephenson, A Surtees, P Taylor, K Thompson, J Turnbull, A Watson, A Willis, C Wilson, M Wilson, S Wilson, D Wood and R Yorke

 

 

Against the Motion

Councillors L Brown, I Cochrane, D Freeman, K Hawley, D Hicks, A Hopgood, P Jopling, K Liddell, J Makepeace, C Martin, E Mavin, S McDonnell, J Nicholson, R Ormerod, S Robinson, E Scott, J Shuttleworth, M Simmons, A Simpson, D Stoker, O Temple, M Wilkes and S Zair

 

Abstentions

Councillor W Stelling

 

Resolved

That the following be adopted:

 

(a)          It be noted that on 14 November 2018 the Cabinet calculated the council tax base 2019/20 for:

 

(i)     the whole council area as 139,738.8 Band D equivalent properties [Item T in the formula in Section 31B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended) and;

 

(ii)    dwellings in those parts of its area to which a parish precept relates as in the attached Appendix 3.

 

(b)          The Council Tax Requirement for the Council’s own purposes for 2019/20 (excluding Parish precepts and the Charter Trustees for the City of Durham) is £222,275,522.

 

(c)          Agree the following amounts in accordance with Sections 30 to 36 of the Act being the:

 

(i)        aggregate of the gross expenditure 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 parish councils is  £1,268,078,485.

 

(ii)       aggregate of the gross income which the council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(3) of the Act is  £1,032,654,533.

 

(iii)      amount by which the aggregate at (c) i) above exceeds the aggregate at (c) ii) above 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) is £235,423,952.

 

(iv)     amount at (c) iii) above (Item R), all divided by Item T ((a) i) above), in accordance with Section 31B of the Act as the basic amount of its council tax at Band D for the year (including parish precepts is £1,684.74.

 

(v)      aggregate amount of all special items referred to in Section 34 (1) of the Act: (total of all parish precepts including Charter Trustees) is £13,148,430.

 

(vi)     amount at (c) iv) above less the result given by dividing the amount at (c) v) above by Item T ((a) i) above), in accordance with Section 34(2) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax at Band D for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which no Parish precept relates is £1,590.65.

 

(d)          It be noted that for 2019/20, the County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Authority has recommended the following amounts be in the precept issued to the County Council, in accordance with Section 40 of the Act, as shown in the table below:

 

 COUNTY DURHAM AND DARLINGTON FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY

 

 

(e)          It be noted that for 2019/20, the Durham Police, Crime and Victims’ Commissioner has recommended that the following amounts be in the precept issued to the County Council, in accordance with Section 40 of the Act, as shown in the following table:

 

DURHAM POLICE, CRIME AND VICTIMS’ COMMISSIONER  

 

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£
136.83	159.63	182.44	205.24	250.85	296.46	342.07	410.48

 

 

(f)           That the Council, in accordance with Sections 30 and 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended) hereby sets the aggregate amounts shown in the tables below as the amounts of council tax for 2019/20 for each part of its area and for each of the categories of dwellings;

 

DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL

 

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£
984.70	1,148.82	1,312.93	1,477.05	1,805.28	2,133.52	2,461.75	2,954.10

 

DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL – ADULT SOCIAL CARE

 

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£
75.73	88.36	100.98	113.60	138.84	164.09	189.33	227.20

 

 

AGGREGATE OF COUNCIL TAX REQUIREMENTS

(excluding Parish, Town Council and Charter Trustees)

 

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£
1,266.26	1,477.31	1,688.35	1,899.39	2,321.47	2,743.57	3,165.65	3,798.78

 

(g)          That the Council has determined that its relevant basic amount of council tax for 2019/20 is not excessive in accordance with principles approved under Section 52ZB Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended) and that the increase in council tax is not excessive in accordance with the principles approved under Section 52ZC Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended).

 

(h)          As the billing authority, the council has not been notified by County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Authority and Durham Police, Crime and Victims’ Commissioner, as major precepting authorities, that their relevant basic amount of council tax for 2019/20 is excessive and that the billing authority is not required to hold a referendum in accordance with Section 52ZK Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended).

 

(i)            The County Council, in accordance with Section 11A (3) of the Act sets a 0% discount for Second and Empty Furnished Homes;

 

(j)            The County Council, in accordance with Section 11A (4A) of the Act sets a 0% discount for dwellings defined in classes C or D;

 

(k)          The County Council in accordance with Section 11B (1b) of the Act sets a 50% premium for long term empty homes;

 

(l)            The Chief Executive be instructed to publish a notice in accordance with Section 38 (2) of the Act, relating to the amounts of council tax set.

 

(m)        The Chief Executive be instructed to publish a notice in accordance with Section 11A (6) and 11B (6) of the Act, relating to the discount set.