Agenda item

In Moving adoption of the Cabinet reports, Councillor Hopgood made a statement on the budget proposals for 2025/26 and the Medium Term Financial Plan forecasts for the period 2025/26 to 2028/29, as follows:

 

The Leader Moved the recommendations of both reports and in doing so placed on record her thanks to the Corporate Director of Resources and his team and budget managers across the Council for the work undertaken to develop the reports and the budget proposals before Council.

The report was the culmination of months and months of hard work, with four detailed reports considered by the Cabinet and at each stage we had sought to involve scrutiny in the budget setting process. The notes of the most recent meeting on 13 February had been circulated under separate cover.

The report included the details of the two rounds of budget consultation through our Area Action Partnerships and through engagement with Business Rate Payers and with Trade Unions, plus other partners and stakeholders across the Autumn of last year and into January this year.

The budget had once again been prepared against a backdrop of significant inflationary and demand pressures in our budgets, particularly in our statutory social care and home to school transport services, and not least of which as a result of the 6.7% increase in the National Living Wage, but also because of the changes to Employers National Insurance Costs from April. All of these pressures were unavoidable, but they soaked up what limited resources we had available. The report provided a comprehensive overview of the budget pressures we were facing, the announcements made in the Autumn Budget Statement in October last year and in the Local Government Finance Settlement.  Members would see that the council had benefited from £48.8 million of additional Government funding next year, with £19 million of this being targeted funding with associated spending requirements. The net increase in core funding was therefore £30 million, of which around £14 million was the new Recovery Grant, which was claimed to be the start of the new Governments commitment to redistributing and rebalancing the Local Government funding regime from 2026/27.  The budget pressures we faced next year totalled £85.8 million, with significant uplifts required in our statutory social care services of £34.5 million next year,  well in excess of the additional social care grant we would receive from Government and from the income we could generate from an adult social care precept locally. Put simply, pressures vastly outweighed funding increases.  The Council also had to pay the increased National Insurance Costs, and very disappointingly, we had not been fully compensated from these increases. Instead, we were faced with a £3.8 million budget pressure as the £8.2 million of increase in costs was not being fully offset by the additional grant funding we would receive next year.  Also included in the budget next year was around £9 million from an assumed 3% pay award next year and an additional £3 million uplift to our Home to School Transport budgets, as well as a further £400,000 to cover the shortfall in housing benefit subsidy in relation to temporary and specialist supported housing, effectively a cost shunt from the DWP to local authorities, taking that cost of this to the Durham Taxpayer to £3 million next year.  This was something we had and would continue to lobby strongly on as it was simply not fair.  Whilst the vast majority of the spending pressures we faced next year were unavoidable there were some limited policy led investments factored into the base budget, including a £1.1 million investment in our SEND Teams to increase capacity and our ability to deal with the increase in Education, Health and Social Care Plans and a £3 million time limited investment in our Transformation Programme.  With such huge cost pressures, allied with the level of uncertainty that exists beyond next year, we have had to think carefully about discretionary spending and the affordability of our capital programme.  Across the MTFP planning period we had made provision for an additional £15.7 million of additional annual borrowing costs, £13 million of this was linked to borrowing commitments against the current capital programme.  Like every member, there were many things we would like to do but we only had limited resources available and we had to make some difficult choices with regards to new capital investments.  The budget proposals did include £159 million of new capital investments, funded from a combination of new additional government grant, new prudential borrowing and new self-financed prudential borrowing, plus some use of reserves.  The new capital spending commitments includes a £55 million investment in the acquisition of the Milburngate Development, on a fully self-financed basis, significant continued investment in highways and bridges infrastructure of £49 million, investment in NETPark of £12.7m in anticipation of a major inward investment opportunity, investment in the capitalised maintenance of our buildings of £8 million, increases in our demolitions budgets of £4 million to deal with the demolition of county hall and other surplus buildings across the county, a £2 million investment in our Looked After Children Sufficiency strategy to increase in house provision and a £5.7 million investment in our digital infrastructure.   The capital programme would have been around £50 million higher had this government honoured the commitments given by the previous government in terms of the additional transport capital grant we were due to receive. The loss of that £50 million of funding would mean we would only be able to deliver less than a third of the schemes we were planning on delivering over the next two years.

 

Councillor Hopgood wanted to be clear that when the time was right and when we had greater certainty and financial security,  we would seek to invest further in our leisure facilities. The Cabinet retained an aspiration to bring forward new build proposals for Chester-le-Street and Seaham and would do so when it was prudent and affordable, but now was not that time given the financial forecasts set out in the budget report.  The uncertainty over our funding settlements from 2026/27 onwards casted an ominous shadow over our medium term financial planning. The Government had committed to undertaking a Comprehensive Spending review and providing a multi-year settlement from 2026/27 and as part of this they would undertake a fundamental review of the formula used to allocate funding to each authority, stating that greater weight would be put on council tax raising capacity and on needs driven by higher levels of deprivation.   Councillor Hopgood welcomed these announcements, as we all should. However,

the Government were in a difficult place in terms of the national finances, so I doubt whether investment in the sector, a non-protected Government Department at the moment, that was so badly needed would be forthcoming. We would have to wait and see how the review took shape and how quickly changes were brought in.

 

Councillor Hopgood thanked everyone involved in the consultation exercises that were undertaken this year, the feedback we had received, as updated for the deliberations by the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Management Board was set out in detail in the report and has been carefully considered in finalising the savings plans included at Appendix 4 and 5.  As the budget report set out, we simply could not raise sufficient income from council tax to fund the cost pressures we faced, and under the current formula, the Government was not meeting the gap, meaning we were constantly having to find savings just to stand still. This was ultimately not sustainable for the sector and would need to be addressed by Government. We were unfortunately in a constant spiral of finding savings to balance the budget, and it was getting harder and harder as the years go by.  The additional funding we would receive from Government next year was significant and to be welcomed, but it was simply not enough.  The funding gap we faced next year, before consideration of savings proposals was £21.5 million. That was the gap between the funding we received and revenue we could raise locally and the spending pressures we needed to accommodate next year. The total identified savings across the MTFP15 planning period were £23.4 million, with £18.2 million (78%) falling into next year.  The budget proposals included Council Tax increases in line with the Governments expectations. They took into account the Council Tax core referendum limits, and the Adult Social Care Precepting powers which were for an additional 2% next year. The clear expectation from Government was that these increases were applied and the recommendation from our s151 officer was that we implement these increases. Not implementing them meant bigger reductions in spending in future years.

 

Increasing the council tax was a decision that should not be taken lightly and in considering this we must recognise the squeeze on the cost of living at this time. However, not increasing council tax was simply not a sustainable or prudent strategy to adopt and as the section 151 officer outlined earlier, every member had a fiduciary responsibility to set a balanced budget.

Every 1% of council tax increase applied generated around £2.9 million of additional funding for the Council to sustain vital local services. To put it bluntly, it was a binary choice between increasing the Council Tax or increasing the scale of the budget deficit and the savings and efficiencies, and cuts that would be required in future years.   Assuming that Council does agree to the Council Tax increases set out in the report and the savings proposals were agreed and delivered, then the budget shortfall next year would be £3.5 million, rising to £45.5 million over the four year planning period. Achieving further savings of such a magnitude would be incredibly challenging, with a budget deficit of nearly £23 million forecast for 2026/27, a big gap to bridge. As was always the case, the estimates beyond next year were more indicative and would undoubtedly change.  A 4.99% increase in our Council Tax next year represented an increase of around £1.24 per week for the majority of households across the County, with those on low incomes fully protected through our Local Council Tax Reduction scheme.   It  was important that we followed the advice of our s151 officer in terms of the sufficiency of our reserves.  Those councils that did not listen to statutory officer advice had found themselves in real difficulty and it was not a position we were prepared to be in here in County Durham.  It was simply not sustainable to underpin a budget indefinitely from reserves and, just as we had done so in the past, we would need to address the underlying budget position and ensure we could live within our means going forward.  Many authorities had fallen foul of not planning sufficiently well ahead, of not taking the tough decisions on council tax and on savings and using reserves to unsustainable levels whilst exercising ostrich management, and it was not a strategy that this was administration would subscribe to.  Utilising the MTFP reserve next year would buy us some time to develop proposals that would minimise as far as possible the impact on front line service delivery. But if nothing changed we would have some hugely difficult choices to make about the services this council could provide going forward.

 

The report included details of the various Dedicated Schools block funding allocations, including the Schools Block, the High Needs Block and the Early Years and Central Block DSG funding allocations.  The updated school funding formula factors were set out in the report and were in line with the local formula agreed by Cabinet in December.  The recommendations were summarised at paragraph 43, and Councillor Hopgood confirmed that they satisfied our statutory requirements with regards to the budget setting, including the adoption of the Pay Policy, which was a requirement of the Localism Act and was set out at Appendix 14, the Capital Strategy and the various Treasury Management Policies and Strategies which included updated Property Investment Strategy and the updated Prudential Indicators, which had been updated and attached to the report also at Appendix 12 and 13.

 

The report at Agenda item 11 detailed the various statutory Council Tax setting determinations we were required to formally consider and adopt and included a base council tax increase of 2.99% next year and a proposed 2% Adult Social Care Precept. The report included precept information for the County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Authority, the Durham Police, Crime and Victims Commissioner and County Durham’s Parish and Town Councils.

 

Councillor Hopgood moved the recommendations of both reports and in doing so would like to place on record my thanks to the Corporate Director and his team and budget managers right across the Council for the work undertaken to develop these reports and the budget proposals.

 

Councillor R Bell, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Finance Seconded the reports and recommendations and reserved the right to speak until the end of the debate.

 

Referring to paragraph 276 of item 10 in relation to the range of sources of funding available to finance new capital programme commitments, Councillor M Walton was aware of the original devolution deal from the previous government however, the new government had only provided £23 million of transport related funding.  She asked which schemes would not be going ahead as a result of this. In response the Corporate Director of Resources explained that the £23 million would be ringfenced for schemes within County Durham and final decisions and what schemes to progress would be made with Cabinet over the next couple of years.  He added that all schemes put forward for transport investment would be included in the Regional Transport Plan.

 

Councillor R Crute, Chair of the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Board (COSMB) welcomed the opportunity to scrutinise the Cabinet’s budget proposals for the MTFP (15) 2025/26 to 2028/29 and Capital and Treasury Management Strategy.

 

Councillor Crute said that it was a priority for the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Management Board to scrutinise the MTFP and budget, and he was pleased we had been able to do that diligently and constructively.

 

The Board had received four Cabinet reports on the development of the MTFP and budget in October and December 2024 and January and February 2025 and had fed back views on each occasion.  At the last meeting on 15 February, we undertook detailed and final scrutiny of Cabinet’s final budget proposals.  The Board had a robust challenge and debated over the plans, and he thanked the Head of Financial and Commercial Services for the comprehensive way he had responded to all questions.

 

All the points raised by the Board were set out in the report and the supplementary paper from COSMB on 13 February 2025.  Councillor Crute highlighted a number of concerns raised by the Board as part of the process:

·      COSMB noted with concern the continued single year Local Government Financial Settlement but were cautiously optimistic by the Government’s announcement committing to implementation of a Comprehensive Spending Review and Fair Funding Formula reform from April 2026;

·      Members again welcomed the Fair Funding Formula reform which reflected Government commitments to redistributing local government funding on a more equitable basis by placing more emphasis on deprivation and council tax raising capacity. Members noted that the anticipated level of representations from Local Authorities who might be significantly adversely impacted by any changes to future Local Government funding allocations, may result in a new methodology for Local government finance could prove to be extremely complex and might prevent the Governments aspirations around introducing multi-year financial settlements as quickly as intended;

·      COSMB noted that the increased local government funding allocations included within the report were predicated on a continued Government assumption that councils would raise council tax by the maximum permitted levels of 2.99% with an additional 2% social care precept;

·      The increase to National Insurance employer contributions introduced by the Government remains a significant concern for the council both in terms of its direct costs as an employer but also relating to those Commissioned services within areas such as adult social care and children's social care delivered by third party organisations. It was disappointing that the Government had not fully reflected the costs to the Council of these increases in its Local Government Financial Settlement allocation;

·      The Board referenced the proposed MTFP 15 allocation in respect of the Milburngate development, Durham City and in particular the significant potential risks to the council as a public body in committing public finances to deliver a failed private development. Whilst acknowledging the potential benefits of this scheme, there were a number of modelling assumptions that could significantly impact on the proposal and the likelihood of any deliverable benefits in terms of occupancy levels and rental income;

·      Reflecting upon some delays experienced in delivering major capital projects previously by the Council and the additional costs to the Council of these delays, members were concerned that the complexities surrounding the Milburngate project could result in an even greater financial pressure for the Council in respect of MTFP 16 and beyond in terms of increased capital financing costs;

·      The Board questioned the linkages expressed within the Cabinet report regarding the delivery of the Leisure Transformation Programme, specifically the commitment for two new build leisure facilities at Seaham and Chester-le-Street, and the Milburngate project. The report suggested that the Council remained committed to these developments but that this could be predicated on the potential occupancy rates and income levels generated by the Milburngate project, which raised questions on whether these would be viable or deliverable;

·      A number of members of the Board had significant concerns that the proposed capital programme appeared to be Durham City centric to the expense of more remote and rural towns and villages within County Durham. This suggested that towns and villages which already could be considered “left behind” could experience a further inequity of access to services and transport;

·      Reference was made to the extensive use of council reserves to balance the council's budget over the last three years and he sought assurances that the council's level of reserves would be maintained at such prudent levels as recommended by the Council’s section 151 officer and CIPFA.

 

Finally, COSMB had recommended to Cabinet that a full inquiry be undertaken in respect of the Milburngate project from its inception through to delivery.  With this feedback Councillor Crute looked forward to the Board having an early involvement in the budget consultation process in future years.

 

Councillor C Hood asked for clarity from the Monitoring Officer should the budget not be approved and should Cabinet still approve the same budget as set out today, as no amendments had been brought forward to it.  The Monitoring Officer clarified that at the conclusion of the vote should the budget not be agreed, the high level of objections would need to be captured.  Cabinet would then re-convene and decide if they were willing to accept the set out objections and make any amendments to the budget.  Full Council would then meet again, and could be asked to agree the same budget as set out for this meeting or a one that was altered.

 

Councillor C Marshall, Leader of the Labour Group said that the new Labour government had recognised the need and prepared a deal for County Durham and our Labour Group had worked hard to ensure the government understood the way council tax worked in County Durham.  As austerity had been ongoing for the last 14 years this was an unexpected but welcome investment and was more than what had been received in the last 14 years.  The new government was more focused on delivering more and reaching the potential work around bringing in a fair funding review and longer term settlements.  Councillor Marshall added that the budget was so bad and that the decision to increase council tax was one made by this Cabinet.  He went on to say that the Cabinet were pleading poverty but were maxing out the council’s credit cards and squandering reserves.  The capital programme would leave debts of £1 billion over the next 40 years.  He said that this Council should put the people of County Durham first and look at the needs of the community.  Councillor Marshall was concerned at the increased costs for the new bus station in Durham, Leisure Transformation, the DLI, the Story and that the current County Hall was costing £6 million a year to run and the environmental impact of that.  He was concerned at the state and sanity of the building.  Moving on to new jobs and developments at Aykley Heads and the 5000 jobs that were meant to be created on the County Hall site,  Councillor Marshall commented that there was a failure in not securing what had been promised.  The council tax was the highest that it had been over the last 4 years, we had lost 3000 jobs, poverty had increased and life expectancy had fallen.  Moving on to Milburngate, Councillor Marshall welcomed the public review as claimed Labour had handed over a project ready to go.  With regards to outlying villages, he said that it was not acceptable not to have any investment for residents as we had a proud history in the whole County and could offer a lot more to make lives better.  He could see a more positive future for the people of County Durham and he asked members to reject these budget proposals.

 

Councillor A Shield, Leader of the Durham Independent Group said that there had been a prudent approach when setting this budget with an ongoing approach to look at efficiency savings.  There were a number of projects and initiatives that had been welcomed, including welcome spaces and warm hubs and the ongoing support to those residents who needed it.  He urged members to read reports and attend meetings to voice their opinions as the process was ongoing, as this was the 4^th year running where no amendments had been brought forward.  He referred to the advice from the s151 officer and the Monitoring Officer about the duty in public office and a deliberate delay in not approving the budget would have serious consequences.  Councillor Shield said that no one wanted to increase the council tax but this equated to 25p per week for band A properties and 37p per week for band D properties.    As no alternatives had been put forward he urged members to support the budget and thanked the Corporate Director of Resources and his team.

 

The meeting was adjourned from 11.30 am until 11.50 am

 

Councillor J Shuttleworth, Leader of the Durham County Council Independent Group said that there was a lot of expectations from the new Labour government after 14 years of austerity but reminded members that the local transport fund had been cut to £23 million.  A number of investments had been made for residents of County Durham, including landslips on Burney Gill bank and the A690, the road network improvements, potholes being addressed, to name a few.  Councillor Shuttleworth could recall a time when the Labour leadership of this Council put up council tax by 15.9% in 1999.

 

Councillor P Sexton, Leader of the County Durham Independent Group commented that Councillor Watson had indicated that the financial situation was dire but that his understanding that we had a budget deficit, created by people who were making decisions on capital projects.  The cost of living, war, COVID pandemic all had plans in place but now there seemed to be no plans in place for social homes, no transparency and nothing being delivered on time.  The bus station in Durham and the DLI were overspent and the decision just made on Milburngate.  Councillor Sexton expressed his disappointment that the refurbishment of Chester-le-Street Leisure Centre had been cancelled.  Members were being kept in the dark about this project and there was no plan in place to be able to track progress.  Local Councillors Fantarrow and Scurfield had championed work for the Front Street and Leisure Centre so it was disappointing for all involved.  The self-financing part of the Milburngate was aspirational and high risk but there was no information about what would happen if this did not work and therefore the funding for Chester-le-Street Leisure Centre would once again not be forthcoming.  Councillor Sexton could not support the budget and asked that members sit around a table to come up with an alternative budget.

 

Councillors K Early, R Charlton-Lainé, E Adam, B Moist, O Gunn, L Hovvels, R Yorke, A Surtees, A Batey, J Miller, J Scurfield, C Bihari, S Deinali, K Shaw, S Wilson, K Fantarrow, D Mulholland, V Andrews, D Wood, spoke against the budget proposals.

 

Councillors J Howey, D Sutton-Lloyd, J Quinn, P Heaviside, A Sterling, J Rowlandson, C Lines, M Wilkes, A Watson, E Scott, S McDonnell, spoke in favour of the budget proposals.

 

Councillor R Bell, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Finance thanked officers for a comprehensive and thorough report and thanked the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Management Board and all those who participated in the budget consultation this year.  Councillor Bell commended the proposals set out in the reports and Seconded the recommendations. 

 

Councillor Bell welcomed the debate but asked where the objections had been over the last 6 months when members had had the opportunity to attend Cabinet, Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Management Board and other meetings.  He asked that if members were serious about the budget they would engage in a timelier manner, earlier and properly.  As a member living as far from Durham as possible in the County he could not understand the comments about projects all being Durham centric.  He asked what did members not understand that the Milburngate project would be self-financing which would pay for the capital and principal sum.

 

Councillor Bell referred to the report that set out the very significant financial challenges the council faced next year and beyond. The pressures we had to accommodate in order to set a legal balanced budget included:

 

·      £17.9m of additional costs in our Adult Social Care budgets – directly as a result of the 6.7% increase in the National Living Wage and from the changes to National Insurance Costs;

·      £16.6m of additional Looked After Children placement pressures – in part inflated by the changes to the National Living Wage and to insurance costs;

·      Pay inflation for our directly employed staff of £8.9m. Every 1% increase in pay roughly equates to 1% increase in Council tax, around £2.9m;

·      Additional national insurance contributions on directly employed staff of £8.2m;

·      Home to school transport up by £2.966m.

 

Councillor Bell said that the list went on, meaning that we faced total base budget pressures of £85.8m next year.  The additional funding being provided by the Government next year totalled £48.8 million, though a significant proportion of this, around £19 million was targeted specific grant funding, which came with new associated spending commitments.

Despite this challenging financial position, which was mirrored across the sector we had still been able to set a balanced budget, with the assistance of £18.2 million of savings and £3.5m of our MTFP Support Reserve, and in doing so accommodated an additional £160 million of additional new capital investment in our assets and infrastructure.  That investment was £50m less than would otherwise have been the case had the current government honoured the previous governments commitment in terms of the additional devolution transport funding this council was due to receive over the next two years, with the additional funding we would receive being less than a third of the funding we were expecting.  The uncertainty which existed from 2026/27 continued to cast a significant shadow over our medium term financial planning. There were significant concerns and uncertainty over what, if any, government funding increase we would receive from the revised approach to the funding formulae, which would in no small part be linked to what the impact of the review of Government spending would deliver in terms of its investment into local government over the medium term and on the pace of change in moving towards redistributing funding based on a new fairer formula.  As things stand, the Council was facing a budget deficit of £23 million in 2026/27.  This Council and the whole sector needed a multi-year settlement and some certainty over the medium term so we could plan effectively.  The report provided an overview of the Government consultation on reforms of the funding formula, which was around the key principles at this stage, the proposed formula had not been published yet so we could not yet model impacts which were largely in line with the previous proposals. The council had responded to that consultation and made strong representations regarding the need to equalise council tax raising capacity, focus on deprivation linked challenges and properly reflected the significant and enduring pressures in social care, particularly children’s social care in the new formula. We had also requested that those authorities that benefited from the new formula should receive that funding immediately.  Our inherent low tax raising capacity and the underlying financial challenges this caused us, alongside the regressive nature of the Council Tax system, a system we all recognised was in need of either reform or replacement, was something consistently raised with ministers and shadow ministers, and hopefully the Government saw through on its promises in terms of the planned reforms to the local government finance system. That said, they had hardly kept to their word in terms of us being “fully compensated” for the impacts of the uplifts to national insurance costs in 2026/27.  The savings proposals set out in the budget report were broadly in line with the proposals that were published in December and which had been extensively consulted upon.  

 

Councillor Bell continued that utilising reserves to balance the budget represented good financial management provided it was for the short term, as it delayed the impacts of budget reductions and allowed more time to consider how those more sustainable solutions might be delivered.

It was a strategy the previous administration adopted on many occasions it was recalled.  Increasing the council tax, particularly at this time, where we must recognise the squeeze on the cost of living, was not an easy or comfortable decision.  We must however be cognisant of our fiduciary responsibilities with regards to the stewardship of public funds and as far as the Councils budget and the protection of vital public services was concerned it was the correct and only sensible decision to make. Not increasing council tax was simply not a sustainable or prudent strategy to adopt and would not be in line with the Governments expectations or in line with the advice from our s151 officer. If we did not increase council tax our 2025/26 budget and medium term financial planning position would be much worse.   It was more important than ever that we had a well-managed budget and medium term financial planning process.  We needed to ensure we continued to plan sufficiently well ahead, that we took the tough decisions on council tax and on savings and that we did not use reserves to unsustainable levels going forward. That represented prudent financial management of the public finances, which would always be the bedrock of our approach.

 

As the Leader had mentioned, this report also included updates on the Pay Policy; Treasury Management Strategy and Prudential Indicators; and Property Investment Strategy. These were important documents and adopting these various policies and strategies was integral to us meeting our statutory requirements in terms of budget setting.  Councillor Bell reminded all members that we all had a legal duty and obligation to facilitate and not frustrate the setting of the budget.

 

With that Councillor Bell commended the proposals set out in the report and seconded the recommendations, noting the significant uncertainty and challenges that existed beyond the next financial year, and he asked all members to support the proposals set out in Items 10 and 11.

 

In closing the debate, the Leader of the Council addressed some issues which had been raised.  She said that this was the fourth year in a row when there had been objections to the budget with no amendments put forward and said that this was not about the people of County Duram but a points scoring exercise.  Part of the scrutiny process should have been to put forward amendments if members were not happy with the proposals.  As far as meeting to discuss, Councillor Hopgood confirmed that she had agreed to a number of discussion items to be considered at meetings of Constitution Working Group but the members who had requested it had not turned up.  She said that if the budget was not approved officers would have to re-cost and revise the budget but without any suggested amendments this could not happen.

 

Councillor Hopgood urged members to vote for the balanced budget put forward as no amendment had been put forward and it had been a clear and robust process.

 

 

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

 

Medium Term Financial Plan 2025/26 to 2028/29 and Revenue and Capital Budget 2025/26

 

For -

Councillors M Abley, R Bell, A Bell, C Bell, J Blakey, D Brown, L Brown,

J Charlton, J Cosslett, B Coult, M Currah, T Duffy, J Elmer, D Freeman,

P Heaviside, T Henderson, L Holmes, C Hood, A Hopgood, J Howey,

G Hutchinson, A Jackson, N Jones, P Jopling, C Lines, L Maddison, C Martin, E Mavin, L Mavin, B McAloon, S McDonnell, P Molloy, J Nicholson, D Oliver, R Ormerod, E Peeke, R Potts, J Quinn, A Reed, G Richardson, S Robinson, K Robson, K Rooney, J Rowlandson, A Savory, E Scott, A Shield,

J Shuttleworth, A Simpson, M Stead, W Stelling, A Sterling, D Stoker,

T Stubbs, D Sutton-Lloyd, M Walton, A Watson, M Wilkes and S Zair.

 

Against -

Councillors E Adam, R Adcock-Forster, V Anderson, V Andrews, J Atkinson,

P Atkinson, A Batey, K Batey, C Bihari, D Boyes, J Chaplow,

R Charlton-Lainé, J Clark, I Cochrane, R Crute, S Deinali, K Earley,

K Fantarrow, L Fenwick, C Fletcher, J Griffiths, O Gunn, D Hall, C Hampson, A Hanson, K Hawley, S Henig, L Hovvels, D Howarth, M Johnson, B Kellett,

R Manchester, C Marshall, M McGaun, D McKenna, I McLean, S McMahon,

J Miller, B Moist, D Mulholland, D Nicholls, P Pringle, J Purvis, S Quinn,

J Scurfield, P Sexton, K Shaw, G Smith, T Smith, A Surtees, S Townsend,

C Varty, E Waldock, M Wilson, S Wilson, D Wood, and R Yorke.

 

Abstentions -

None

 

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 2025/26

 

For -

Councillors M Abley, R Bell, A Bell, C Bell, J Blakey, D Brown, L Brown,

J Charlton, J Cosslett, B Coult, M Currah, T Duffy, J Elmer, D Freeman,

P Heaviside, T Henderson, L Holmes, C Hood, A Hopgood, J Howey,

G Hutchinson, A Jackson, N Jones, P Jopling, C Lines, L Maddison, C Martin, E Mavin, L Mavin, B McAloon, S McDonnell, P Molloy, J Nicholson, D Oliver, R Ormerod, E Peeke, R Potts, J Quinn, A Reed, G Richardson, S Robinson,

K Robson, K Rooney, J Rowlandson, A Savory, E Scott, A Shield,

J Shuttleworth, A Simpson, M Stead, W Stelling, A Sterling, D Stoker,

T Stubbs, D Sutton-Lloyd, M Walton, A Watson, M Wilkes and S Zair.

 

Against -

Councillors E Adam, R Adcock-Forster, V Anderson, V Andrews, J Atkinson,

P Atkinson, A Batey, K Batey, C Bihari, D Boyes, J Chaplow,

R Charlton-Lainé, J Clark, I Cochrane, R Crute, S Deinali, K Earley,

K Fantarrow,  L Fenwick, C Fletcher, J Griffiths, O Gunn, D Hall, C Hampson, A Hanson, K Hawley, S Henig, L Hovvels, D Howarth, M Johnson, B Kellett,

R Manchester, C Marshall, M McGaun, D McKenna, I McLean, S McMahon,

J Miller, B Moist, D Mulholland, D Nicholls, P Pringle, J Purvis, S Quinn,

J Scurfield, P Sexton, K Shaw, G Smith, T Smith, A Surtees, S Townsend,

C Varty, E Waldock, M Wilson, S Wilson, D Wood and R Yorke.

 

Abstentions -

None

 

Resolved:

That the following be adopted:

(a)          that the council tax base 2025/26 be noted for:

 

(i)     the whole council area was 148,760.6 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 is set out in the attached Appendix 3.

 

(b)          that the Council Tax Requirement for the Council’s own purposes for 2025/26 (excluding Parish precepts and the Charter Trustees for the City of Durham precept) is £302,088,150 be agreed.

 

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

 

(i)         aggregate of the gross expenditure which the council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(2) of the Act considering all precepts issued to it by parish councils was £1,643,139,247.

 

(ii)       aggregate of the gross income which the council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(3) of the Act was  £1,323,927,440.

 

(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] was £319,211,807.

 

(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) was £2,145.81.

 

(v)       aggregate amount of all special items referred to in Section 34 (1) of the Act: (total of all parish precepts including Charter Trustees) was £17,123,657.

 

(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 was £2,030.70.

 

(d)          that for 2025/26, the County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Authority had recommended the following amounts be in the precept issued to the County Council, in accordance with Section 40 of the Act, be noted, as shown in the table below:

 

 

COUNTY DURHAM AND DARLINGTON FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY

 

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£
82.08	95.76	109.44	123.12	150.48	177.84	205.20	246.24

 

(e)          that for 2025/26, the Durham Police, Crime and Victims’ Commissioner had recommended that the following amounts be in the precept issued to the County Council, in accordance with Section 40 of the Act, be noted as shown in the following table:

 

DURHAM POLICE, CRIME AND VICTIMS’ COMMISSIONER

 

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£
188.16	219.52	250.88	282.24	344.96	407.68	470.40	564.48

 

(f)            set the aggregate amounts shown in the tables below as the amounts of council tax for 2025/26 for each part of its area and for each of the categories of dwellings, in accordance with Sections 30 and 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended).

 

 

AGGREGATE OF COUNCIL TAX REQUIREMENTS

(excluding Parish, Town Council and Charter Trustees)

 

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£
1,624.04	1,894.71	2,165.39	2,436.06	2,977.41	3,518.75	4,060.10	4,872.12

 

(g)          that its relevant basic amount of council tax for 2025/26 was 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), be agreed.

 

(h)          that the council had 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 2025/26 was excessive and that the billing authority was not required to hold a referendum in accordance with Section 52ZK Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended), be agreed.

 

(i)            set a 0% discount for dwellings defined in classes C or D, in accordance with Section 11A (4A) of the Act.

 

(j)            set premium charges for long term empty homes, in accordance with Section 11B (1c) of the Act: 100% premium for properties which have been empty for more than twelve months and up to five years, a 200% premium for properties empty for longer than five years but less than ten years and a 300% premium for empty properties longer than ten years.

 

(k)           set a 100% premium for Second and Empty Furnished Homes, in accordance with Section 11C (1b) of the Act.

 

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

 

(m)        instruct the Chief Executive to publish a notice in accordance with Section 11A (6), 11B (6) and 11C (7) of the Act, relating to the discount and premium set.