Cllr Paul Kennedy
WARRINGTON Borough Council has been accused of delivering an “opaque and deceptive budget” for the coming year.
The accusation came from Cllr Bob Barr, (pictured) leader of the Liberal Democrat opposition group as the Labour controlled council approved an average council tax rise of 3.98 per cent.
Taking into account the precepts of Cheshire Police, Cheshire Fire Authority and parish councils, it means the occupier of an average Band D house in Warrington will have to pay council tax of £1,510.29 – an increase of 3.75 per cent.
Cllr Barr said Government demands for substantial savings from local councils were not new. They had started under the Labour government in the mid-2000s.
But Cllr Barr said when the Liberal Democrats had run the council, under first a Labour and then a Coalition government, they had kept the public fully informed about the substantial cuts they had to make.
“We filled the Parr Hall and allowed members of the public to tell us which cuts we should choose to minimise the effect on the town and where we should spend more, such as improving the appearance and cleanliness of the borough.
“By contrast the Labour administration has held a very small number of consultation sessions with a very small number of representatives of charities, businesses and the youth parliament.
“They gave the public only nine days to respond to a document over 100 pages long that was very short on detail. In fact virtually no specific cuts to service or increases in fees are spelt out.
“Instead Labour have said they will ‘review’ services. They say that 70 times in their list of proposals and they tell us 20 times that they will ask for service re-designs. Almost never do they say what cuts they are considering, what fee increases residents will face or what services will stop being delivered or be delivered differently. Yet they make it clear that all of those will have to happen.
“This is less a budget more a series of instructions to officers to cut their services.”
Cllr Barr said people had been left none the wiser as to how £451,000 woujld be saved by a waste review. Less frequent bin collections? More charges for waste removal? Closing waste centres. There had been no answers.
“It is clear that the cuts will affect the most vulnerable in the town. Most contentiously a small contract is being taken away from the YMCA potentially undermining their out-of-hours service for some of the most vulnerable homeless people in the town. What will it be replaced with?”
Cllr Barr said Labour were being coy about the budget because of the elections in May which would fix membership of the council for four years.
The budget was deceitful and responsibility was being passed to officers.
“We were promised an open and transparent administration that is member-led and protects the most vulnerable. This budget is secretive, officer driven and fails to give the vulnerable the assurance they need that they will be protected.”
Conservative leader Cllr Paul Kennedy accepted that the budget involved taking difficult decisions. His natural instinct was to be as supportive as he could be and be a “critical friend” to those who had to make the decisions.
He pointed out that capital spending increased the council’s borrowing and had to repaid at some time in the future
He listed a number of projects which could be the subject of further debate and therefore not go ahead.
These included the Warrington Youth Zone, £3 million; capitalisation of potholes, £1 million; Sankey Canal restoration, £1.1 million, travellers’ transit site, £1.9 million; waste transfer station, £3.6 million; loans to registered social landlords, £872 million; community investment bank, £30 million.. and “very interestingly” a loan to Warrington Collegiate of £11.5 million.
Cllr Kennedy said he did not like increased bills but recognised that despite proposed savings a small increase was needed to balance the books.
But, in a reference to the fact that he will be leaving the council in May, he added: “Please spend it wisely, as when I am no longer here I might be posting on Warrington Worldwide…..as Mr Grumpy of Appleton, berating the council if I see frivolous expenditure.”
Cllr Kennedy repeated that it was his natural instinct to be supportive.
He supported the budget and wished whoever was in control after May, and the officers, all the best in its implementation.
He added: “and be lucky.”
14 Comments
Whilst I do agree with a lot of what Cllr Barr is saying, at this meeting there was also another voice speaking on behalf of the people of Warrington…Cllr Kevin Bennett (TUSC). He did take the time to go through the 100 page document, and did put forward a Legal ‘no cuts budget’ that had been checked by the chief finance officer for W.B.C. This, surprise surprise, was not given any consideration by the Labour council. Cllr Kevin Bennett put forward an amendment, asking for an adjournment for one week, to discuss the alternatives he had proposed. Surely ANYTHING that could have benefitted the people of Warrington, should have been worth listening too. Cllr Bowden, seems to think the rest of the councillors are idiots and can’t possible grasp the concept of the budget. It’s more like a ‘bodget!!’
I think what Cllr Bennett should have done in the time allotted to him was to present his version of the budget, clearly if it had been checked by the WBC Finance Director, then the figures would have been readily to hand and he could have quoted them, highlighting the differences between his Budget and the one presented by the Administration. Indeed, he could have emailed those figures to all Members in advance of the meeting…….I would have been very interested in them and given them most serious and careful consideration….and who knows might have voted for them! Although the Budget has now been approved, there is nothing to stop Kevin from publishing his budget, and given there are elections in May, it is something I hope that he will do as part of his campaign to be re-elected. He might for example like to publish them on Warrington Worldwide. It is worth noting that a budget sets the financial parameters that the Council has to work within, specific items can be changed depending upon the circumstances…….so there is some measure of flexibility provided that the budget remains balanced.
Paula – Sorry to correct you, but Cllr Bennett didn’t present an alternative budget at all. He also did not submit an alternative budget for the Section 151 officer to assess for legality. The proposed budget has been in the public domain for more than 5 weeks. At no time did Cllr Bennett call me, speak to me or raise any issues about it – he has had plenty of time to do so. And on Monday night, he still passed up the chance to put forward any credible alternative. Instead, we got him ‘grandstanding’ in the Council Chamber and wanting to spend the Council’s MTFP reserve for the 5th time over.
Did I read correctly that Russ Bowden was congratulated on this so-called budget, except for the fact he had ‘mistakenly’ left in an £11.5 million loan to bail out Steve Broomhead’s former employer?
I’ve got no time for Bob Barr, but Warrington needs somebody like Paul sitting on the sidelines challenging this sort of stuff.
The £11.5m has never been in any Capital programme report taken to full Council or to the Executive Board. The question over that potential loan was resolved months ago – it was clearly an error that it was included, but it had absolutely no bearing on the budget as it was an ‘Invest to Save’ capital item.
Thanks Russ. Where in the budget are the costs of the new council offices?
The Bridge Street Quarter scheme is covered in Appendix 3a – 3c. It is presented as a whole project under ‘Invest to Save’. That’s because the final scheme when delivered will generate income of £800k+ a year for the Council.
That’s not an answer to the question. What is the budget for the new council offices?
It is a direct answer to your question of where those costs appear in the budget, as presented to full Council on Monday night.
The BSQ scheme has been in front of the WBC Executive Board on various occasions since 2011 – detailed costs are Part 2 due to their commercial confidentiality (for others and WBC). I reiterate the earlier point – the business case for the scheme as a whole generates £800k+/y income, including the capital and revenue cost of consolidating WBC staff into a new single, energy-efficient building.
I knew you wouldn’t answer Russ. Don’t worry though. I write about office design for a living so I’m pretty aware of the likely cost. I’ll know for sure when you publish the spec.
Here’s another perfectly simple question for you to ignore and to which I already know the answer. Out of that £800,000 per year, how much of it will be generated by the council’s offices? And if the answer is zero, what has that got to do with anything?
Thanks Mark…….and yes you did read correctly that by mistake a proposed loan of £11.5 to the Collegiate was left in the Budget…..a loan that I and others put a stop to last year when we signed a Call In of the decision. Whilst I am supportive of some of the loans that WBC are making….even I have to draw the line somewhere….and in my (final) Budget speech gave a very cautionary story of how Treasury Management can go seriously wrong if not overseen properly.
Mark Eltringham, you should know better than to expect a politician to answer your direct question. I wonder how much more the scheme would generate if the new council offices were commercially let on the open market and WBC stayed put?
I’m not expecting them to answer. I already know the answer, as well as to other questions including why they haven’t merely moved to one of the many empty office buildings in Warrington and how much more income they could generate by making the space for the new building available for commercial or retail use. The best we can hope for in asking these questions is that people like Russ and his fellows, all liars by omission in this case, realise we’re not as thick and uninformed as they’d like to think. The shame is that no councillors are prepared to ask these questions themselves.
Cllr Kennedy and Cllr Bowden, Cllr Bennett was advised by Tim Date (the Council Solicitor), and Linton Green (Chief Finance Officer) agreed, it was a good idea to put the amendment forward, that would give everyone time to sit down, digest and discuss the proposals Cllr Bennett wanted to put forward. Cllr Bennett had had meetings with the finance officer and other officers and only finished the last of those meetings on Friday. Cllr Bowden, we all know that you would not have given Cllr Bennett the courtesy and time that would be needed to seriously discuss any amendments he wanted to put forward. The hostility shown to Cllr Bennett in the Council chambers proves my point.