Agenda item

To consider the budget review and consultation outcomes 2018-2019

The Chairman said the Scrutiny Committee’s final input on the budget would be made at the February meeting. The Assistant Director – Resources said a decision by DCLG will have been made about whether the Essex submission to be a pilot for 100% business rates pilot was successful by that time.

Members said that the second bullet point in paragraph 12 of the report should include reference to the opportunities created by the Council budget, as well as its risks.

The Chairman said officers had produced a report to provide members with a detailed overview of council housing. This report would be sent out in the next few days. The Director – Finance and Corporate Services said the Housing Revenue Account cap might be lifted.

The Assistant Director – Resources gave a summary of how the current system of business rates worked. She said she would send a briefing note round to members about this system.

Councillor Chambers entered the meeting.

In response to a question from Councillor Oliver, the Assistant Director – Resources said the Council would not pay a levy on bad debt. If the Council failed to collect enough tax to collect its baseline need, it could potentially receive top-up funding from central government.

The Assistant Director – Corporate Services the response rate to this year’s consultation had been very good. The team had made it easier for people to respond by including a pull-out questionnaire and a pre-paid envelope in Uttlesford Life. The Council would likely continue to use this method.

In response to a question from Councillor Dean, the Assistant Director – Corporate Services said the methodology used for presenting the responses to Question 1 was an industry-standard approach and one which was recommended by the providers of the Council’s consultation software.

In response to a question from Councillor Light, the Cabinet Member – Finance and Administration said he would go through the results of the consultation to inform himself of residents’ views. He needed to be sure he had listened to people living in the district before decisions were taken. However, he would also need to use his own judgement when deciding upon budget allocation.

Members said some statistics included in the report were unhelpful because of their margin for error and the way they had been presented.

Members said it was possible that the public did not see car parks as a particularly big priority because many people did not use them and because they were taken for granted. It was also difficult to tell how many people considered car parks a high priority in comparison to services which were considered to be ‘key services’.

The Chairman said he was concerned that responses were skewed because a disproportionate amount of people over 55 had replied. In response, the Cabinet Member – Finance and Administration said he believed a response rate of about 250 people still gave an accurate representation of resident opinion, and that younger people could have participated if they had wanted to.

The Director – Finance and Corporate Services said one questionnaire had been sent to every household, and so it was likely that a greater amount of older people had replied because they were the homeowners.

The Cabinet Member – Finance and Administration said it was easy to try to over-analyse the figures presented.

Councillor Chambers said many of the comments made were simply people presenting a wish list to Uttlesford District Council, and some even referenced issues which the council was not in control of. Councillor Asker said there was a level of ignorance amongst some of the public about the responsibilities of different tiers of government, and education was necessary to resolve this.

The Chairman noted there had been a lower level of responses to the business consultation. Councillor Barker said this could be due to the phrasing of the questions in the consultation.