In accordance with notice duly given under Procedure Rule 4, Councillor A S Fluker to move the following Motion, duly seconded by Councillors L J Haywood, M G Neall, W Stamp and J C Stilts.
Motion:
That at its meeting on Thursday 2nd November Council resolves to agree that the New Homes Bonus reserve and the additional monies received through new Business Rate income should not be used to support the General Fund but should instead be used to deliver District wide infrastructure projects for the benefit of all residents and with regards new Business Rate income support for local businesses and commerce.
Minutes:
In accordance with Procedure Rule 4, the Chairperson advised the Council that one Motion, duly proposed and seconded, had been received and was set out on the agenda.
Councillor A S Fluker provided the Council with some background information relating to his Motion which included detail of the purpose of the New Homes Bonus when it was set up by the Government and how he felt the Council owed its residents to spend the monies on infrastructure.
Councillor Fluker then presented his Motion (as set out below) and duly seconded by Councillors L J Haywood, M G Neall, W Stamp and J C Stilts.
That at its meeting on Thursday 2nd November Council resolves to agree that the New Homes Bonus reserve and the additional monies received through new Business Rate income should not be used to support the General Fund but should instead be used to deliver District wide infrastructure projects for the benefit of all residents and with regards new Business Rate income support for local businesses and commerce.
The Interim Chief Finance Officer provided the Council with some context relating to the Motion. She reminded Members of the decision by the Council in February 2023 to balance the budget for this financial year and as a result the New Homes Bonus (NHB) monies received for 2023 / 24 had not been allocated to any specific projects. Should the NHB monies for this year (£450k) be ringfenced it would have the effect of increasing the budget gap by the same £450k. In response to the reference to Business Rates (BR) within the Motion, Members were advised that the Council had a BR equalisation reserve set up to manage BR, which were difficult to accurately predict and fluctuated year on year. BR for the last financial year had been better than forecast allowing the Council to top up the reserve and the Council was recommended to now use this reserve (rather than General Funds). However should the Council decide to ringfence some of these monies for alternative purposes this would have a similar impact to the NHB and create a gap for this financial year requiring use of General Fund balances.
A debate ensued during which a number of Members spoke giving their support both for and against the proposed Motion.
In summing up at the end of the debate, Councillor Fluker referred to Southminster being in the lowest 20% of council areas with regards to deprivation and referred to Mr Gove (government minister) saying that NHB should be used for infrastructure. He noted the comments regarding costs and cuts but felt this was a bigger issue and something the Council should be thinking about. He then put his Motion.
In accordance with Procedure Rule No. 13 (3) Councillor A S Fluker requested a recorded vote. This was duly seconded.
The Chairperson then put the Motion in the name of Councillor Fluker to the Council and the voting was as follows:
For the recommendation:
Councillors A S Fluker, L J Haywood, M G Neall, U G C Siddall-Norman, W Stamp and J C Stilts.
Against the recommendation:
Councillors V J Bell, D O Bown, S J Burwood, J Driver, M F L Durham, T Fittock, K Jennings, A M Lay, W J Laybourn, N R Miller, S J N Morgan, R G Pratt, N G F Shaughnessy, R H Siddall, N D Spenceley, P L Spenceley, E L Stephens, N J Swindle, M E Thompson, S White and L L Wiffen
Abstention:
Councillor K M H Lagan
The Chairperson announced that the vote had been lost and the Motion was therefore not agreed.