Agenda item

Council is asked to approve the 2025/26 Final Budget and Medium-Term Financial Strategy to 2029/30.

 

• Leader’s Statement (Budget) - to be appended to the minutes.

 

There will be an opportunity for Members to ask questions and/or make comments.

 

The Leader presented the 2025/26 Final Budget and Medium-Term Financial Strategy to 2029/30 and made a statement in support of the proposed budget.

 

A copy of the Leader’s budget statement is attached as Appendix A.

 

Each of the Minority Group Leaders (Paul Follows, Catherine Powell, Jonathan Essex and Robert Evans OBE) were invited to speak on the budget proposals.

 

Key points made by Paul Follows were that:

 

·         Thanked all involved with the crafting of the budget and responding to queries on it, and noted the impossible task of balancing local government finances.

·         Noted that the Council was rushing forward into the uncertainty of local government reorganisation which would not be a fix for Surrey, and the local government reorganisation figure in the budget had not been scrutinised.

·         Noted that the demand for services was accelerating and costs were increasing, successive governments had not provided a fix and the Council’s challenge to central government had been weak.

·         Noted the £30 million capital for pothole repairs funded by borrowing and asset sales - asked whether those had been chosen - and the £5 million for one-off verge cutting.

·         Noted the additional £4.4 million capital for Farnham Brightwells, the vague asset sales and unaffordable debt concerning infrastructure.

·         Noted that the Council had fallen short by 1.17 million of the 1.2 million figure of planting trees.

·         Noted the £36.7 million of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) money budgeted over five years, should instead be taken as a one-off payment.

·         Noted the £140 million in defined cuts and £150 million in undefined cuts concerning Children, Families and Learning (CFL).

·         Noted the millions of pounds of cuts in Adult Social Care (ASC), there was over £300 million unfunded after efficiencies, and 287 jobs targeted for cuts.

·         Noted the Council’s low reserves and reserves gap of £1 billion.

·         Noted that the Council could have reassured residents of the viability of the budget through inviting independent evaluation, it was a balanced budget on paper only, it was unsustainable. Residents were not receiving services and were being left behind.

·         Stressed that transformation projects that have not delivered savings, should be reviewed or removed.

 

Key points made by Catherine Powell were that:

 

·         Highlighted the exponential increase in the demand for services particularly in adults’ and children’s social care, and Home to School Transport.

·         Noted the strong evidence that a child’s first 1,001 days set the foundations for their development; yet in 2019 there were 58 Sure Start centres in Surrey, now there were only 21 Family Centres, the majority run by the voluntary sector.

·         Noted a recent study which showed the clear association in youth provision and positive short-term outcomes, many were sustained over decades; yet youth provision was lower now than it was five years ago and was mostly provided by the voluntary sector whose buildings were at risk.

·         Noted the Good Childhood Report from the Children’s Society, in which the UK ranked high in family support but ranked in the bottom 20% in Europe for 15-year olds’ wellbeing.

·         Noted that the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) system was broken, the pandemic had created long-term challenges and developmental issues and conditions.  

·         Called for short breaks and specialist youth clubs and play groups for children with SEND, those provided respite and activities to increase wellbeing.

·         Noted the need to do more to support children and young people in poverty and with SEND, yet one efficiency in 2026/27 of £800,000 was to identify and benchmark against available provision by other local authorities.

·         Noted that borrowing would increase from £767 million in March 2024 to £1.4 billion by March 2028, reserves would drop by £91.2 million this financial year to a further £70.9 million next year; that was unsustainable.

·         Noted that the 2025/26 budget does not consider the impact of debt redistribution from local government reorganisation, it was uncertain whether the Government would write off local government debt in Surrey particularly Woking Borough Council’s £2 billion debt, a small proportion of the debt would make the level of borrowing unsustainable.

·         Noted last year’s concerns on the rising costs of the SEND capital programme, a review had identified issues such as around poor building conditions.

·         Added that costs on the SEND capital programme had risen by 40% resulting in the removal of additional places for girls with Autism Spectrum Disorder and children with moderate and specific Learning Disabilities.

·         Noted that recent planning application in which a Council building planned to be extended was 51 years old and was approaching the end of its usable life; yet the capital budget for maintenance of schools and other Council buildings had a limited increase over the next two years and would then decrease.

·         Noted that more than eighteen months into the Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) end-to-end review the filing system remained broken, potholes were not being fixed right the first time, there were issues with gully cleaning.

·         Noted that coordination with the borough and district councils on roads was needed, the provision of transport remained split between multiple teams using different criteria.

·         Emphasised that rather than transforming, the Council must focus on working out how to address early intervention and prevention.

·         Noted that the average Band D Council Tax 2023/24 in Surrey was £1,559 and despite being one of the most expensive areas to live in the country, that was lower than the England average of £2,065 for Band D.

 

Key points made by Jonathan Essex were that:

 

·         Noted that irrespective of what happens with local government reorganisation, the same services would need to be provided and the challenges would need to be overcome.

·         Noted that last year, extra funding was promised for prevention measures and support for children with Additional Needs and Disabilities, the EHCP backlog had been addressed although there were concerns on the quality of outcomes and more families were challenging the Council in tribunals.

·         Noted that in dealing with the backlog, SEND school place demand had in increased; yet there was not a larger capital budget for such demand, in June 2024 the number of high needs specialist school places had been reduced and replaced by SEND units in mainstream schools.

·         Noted the reliance on the non-maintained and independent sector to supply school places often far from where people live was higher than last year so Home to School Transport spend increased.

·         Noted that the higher budget was needed to plug the gap created and whilst part of CFL was on track to be rated as Good, more needed to be done to improve support for children and young people with SEND.

·         Noted concern in those people being made redundant who deliver Surrey’s contract under the supporting families programme providing one to one support, being replaced by lower level of support to families over a shorter period.

·         Noted that the budget did not include the saving generated, ringfenced for partners who deliver early intervention and prevention in Children’s Services.

·         Commended the work in maintaining and extending the Library Service, welcomed the refurbishment of Redhill Library, however the police station and the Harlequin Theatre remained closed.

·         Welcomed the continued ambition in the building of new children’s homes, responding to the long-term profiteering in the sector.

·         Noted that the closing and selling of the Council’s residential care homes in Merstham and Horley was short sighted, queried why some could not be retained and for there to be a benchmark to assess providers.

·         Noted that the plan to sell off public assets, combined with owning properties across the UK was a gamble with little benefit to residents.

·         Noted that there was a need to ensure that when Council sites were sold off for housing, socially rented homes and key worker housing should be provided, retaining social workers in the Council’s full time pay.

·         Highlighted that climate change had past 1.5 degrees Celsius globally for the whole of last year for the first time, escalating catastrophic consequences.

·         Queried where the Council’s commitment and investment was to raise its climate delivery ambition, with one staff member in the climate adaptation team.

·         Called for the Council to inspire others to act, the Environment Agency’s updated surface water flood maps showed the increase in risks.

·         Noted that reserves should be used for SEND and climate change, and not the £5 million to beautify highways, particularly as that budget had been right-sized.

 

Key points made by Robert Evans OBE were that:

 

·         Thanked all those involved in putting the budget together.

·         Noted the fourteen years of previous governments’ huge cuts to Surrey’s real-term funding and other councils, for example Spelthorne and Woking Borough Councils were in large debts from the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB).

·         Queried what would happen to those unsustainable debts in the case of local government reorganisation, asked whether those involved would be held accountable in the future.

·         Noted that over a decade ago the Council had a fully funded youth service, Surrey’s roads and potholes were better mended, there were not the same concerns about SEND and there were Sure Start centres.

·         Noted that over the past five years nationally, tax rates had risen 33% of national income to 36%, raising an extra £93 billion without improving the services delivered.

·         Welcomed the additional investment in the Government’s October budget of £69 billion for local government.

·         Highlighted that Council Tax was a flawed and unfair system and urged for support for the voluntary contribution scheme.

·         Noted that according to Rightmove, in Surrey the highest valued property was £24 million and Council Tax was less than 0.2% of the property’s value, for the cheapest property of £65,000 the Council Tax was 2.4% of the property’s value.

·         Queried whether the budget should be approved with £66 million savings being introduced which was noted to be a key risk.

·         Stressed that efficiencies as cuts in the services delivered should be called out as such, questioned whether the efficiencies would lead to better outcomes.

·         Sought clarification on the reserves figures of either £121 million or £168 million.

·         Noted that the poorest residents had cuts to their household support, the Council had spent £300,000 on the Liquidlogic’s Integrated Finance Technology System (LIFT) which duplicated information held by the borough and district councils, the Council could not deliver on its IT projects.

·         Called on the Council to undertake work to understand care savings and to increase service quality by providing more in-house services.

·         Noted that the money spent on modernising the Yvonne Arnaud Theatre through Your Fund Surrey (YFS) had been positive.

·         Noted that the budget kept people behind, hoped that local government reorganisation and devolution would improve local government going forward.

 

Item 5 (i)

 

Paul Follows moved an amendment, presenting the following recommended alternative budget proposals (included in the third supplementary agenda item 5 (i) and (ii), published on 3 February 2025), which was formally seconded by Lance Spencer. This was:

 

Recommendations

 

Council is asked to approve the following budget proposals:

 

1.    (a) that Surrey County Council will explore the creation of a voluntary contribution scheme for Council Tax Band H residents of our County.

 

(b) that a cross-party working group will be established to determine this scheme's scope, legal structure, governance, and communication and to bring back to Council for consideration with the aim of establishing the scheme for the next financial year.

 

There are no direct financial impacts of the above proposals, as set out in the table below: 

 

Table 1. Summary of budget proposals

Proposal	2025-26 & annual ongoing revenue impact	One-Off costs	Notes
1. Voluntary Contribution Fund (a) that Surrey County Council will explore the creation of a voluntary contribution scheme for Council Tax Band H residents of our County.   (b) that a cross-party working group will be established to determine this scheme's scope, legal structure, governance, and communication and to bring back to Council for consideration with the aim of establishing the scheme for the next financial year.		Initial set up and promotional costs	Minimal promotional & administrative costs are anticipated to set up a voluntary fund.  It is proposed that these are built into future years’ budgets once initial work to establish viability, cost and governance arrangements are established.
	-	-

 

In support of his budget amendment, Paul Follows made the following points:

 

·         Stressed that the Council Tax system was broken, hoped that the new Government would revisit its reform.

·         Reiterated the need for such a scheme particularly for early intervention activity which would help residents and reduce core budgetary pressures.

·         Had worked with colleagues at Waverley Borough Council to enact such a scheme which comes into effect for the coming tax year, the fund was based on Westminster City Council’s model which had minimal set up costs.

·         Noted that last year the critique of the budget amendment was a misunderstanding of the word voluntary, it was a choice to opt into; the second query was to better to encourage residents to support charities, there was no evidence that the Council structurally encouraged that.

·         Noted that countywide the charitable sector was at breaking point, a charity in Godalming ceased to operate as it could not find trustees.

·         Clarified that initially, only those in Band H could choose to donate, in the future other tax bands could donate; that mirrored practices elsewhere.

·         Suggested holding a cross-party working group to discuss and develop the proposals, last year the opportunity was missed to do that.

·         Hoped that Members saw it as a practical and apolitical proposal, which did not cost lot of time and money to try and may help many if enacted.

 

The budget amendment was formally seconded by Lance Spencer, who reserved the right to speak.

 

The Leader did not accept the budget amendment and therefore the budget amendment was open for debate.

 

Eight Members spoke on the budget amendment and made the following comments:

 

·         Noted that it was a corrupt amendment, throughout the world many people were starving and suffering disease, there were thousands of charities working to alleviate that.

·         Emphasised that the amendment was not a levy or imposition or obligation, it sought additional voluntary contributions to help those in need; it was not acceptable to say that asking for even £1 from residents in the county living in a multimillionaire property was an attack on charitable contribution.

·         Noted that it was an affront to residents to set up such a fund, residents already gave generously with their money and time.

·         Noted that the Council has a special relationship with the Community Foundation for Surrey (CFS), it does what the amendment was proposing through investors across Surrey who wish to invest and give to charities, targeting money into neighbourhoods, and into early intervention, and children and young people.

·         Stressed that the charitable and voluntary sector did a wonderful job and Members could signpost those who wish to donate to those organisations.

·         Noted that during the Covid-19 pandemic and Ukraine conflict, Runnymede Borough Council received many voluntary contributions, a Surrey resident was able to help support families that the local authority knew about.

·         Noted that the amendment would divert funds away from charities which were highly successful in communities and it could compromise those organisations.

·         Noted the moral pressure of contributing would filter down to other tax bands, people were able to make their own direct donations without being pressured to.

·         Noted that the amendment was a practical solution to financial challenges faced, and promoted fairness, inclusivity and transparency in how resources were generated.

·         Noted that the situation had changed significantly since 1991 when the Council Tax bands were established, the Council was responsible for a wide range of essential services which required significant funding and it must explore innovative ways of securing resources.

·         Noted that the scheme would not put pressure on people, it would be voluntary and confidential, carefully designed through a cross-party working group.

·         Stressed that a successful scheme would show how the Council balances its fiscal responsibility with its residents’ needs in a compassionate way.

·         Noted that a few years ago the administration committed 1% of Council Tax to CFS to be spent on young people and mental health, in recent years more money had been given to CFS to ensure that contributions were properly distributed, creating competition would damage their work, and a team would need to be employed to administer such a scheme.

·         Called for a higher Council Tax band for people in houses worth millions of pounds.  

 

The Leader of the Council spoke on the budget amendment, making the following points:

 

·         Noted that he does not understand the conflation between people living in large houses with their failure to not contribute to society.

·         Agreed that the Council has a responsibility to deliver the best quality services to residents and to keep Council Tax down.

·         Highlighted the 16,000 voluntary organisations in Surrey to support services alongside the Council, the CFS had provided £2 million in match funding for the Mental Health Improvement Fund, it had given millions of pounds to support work the Council was doing to stop children being excluded from schools.

·         Noted that the Government must reform the Council Tax system alongside business rates reform, the Government must fund services properly.

·         Requested that effort be focused on helping him in his lobbying for the 2026 Fair Funding Review.

 

As seconder to the budget amendment, Lance Spencer made the following points:

 

·         Noted that in 1992 a property in Band H was around £320,000, in May 2023 a property in Band H sold in Surrey for £34 million; the amendment sought to support communities and share the burden.

·         Stressed that the scheme was voluntary, acknowledged that not everyone in Band H would be able to contribute.

·         Noted that the £66 million in efficiencies in 2025/26 and £166 million over the medium-term, would mean a further degradation in services provided.

·         Noted that an adult in his division with autism had not left the house for five years and could not get the support needed as their needs were supposedly being met, a father of child with SEND had to give up work as their child’s transport to school had been removed.

·         Noted the lack of youth clubs and no Sure Start centres.

·         Highlighted that in the first year of its operation, the scheme at Westminster City Council generated £1 million, followed by a further £0.5 million, affluent householders wanted to raise money for youth provision, to tackle homelessness and address loneliness.

·         Noted that such schemes could strengthen the sense of unity and civic pride.

 

The Chair asked Paul Follows, as proposer of the budget amendment to conclude the debate:

 

·         Noted the regressive and outdated Council Tax system that needed reform by the Government, there should be more bands, the proposed scheme was within the Leader’s power.  

·         Had no issue regarding wealthy people with money being able to choose to donate more money to other causes.

·         Noted that there were times when local authorities were in a better place to act than charities from a legal and data protection perspective, councils have intelligence about vulnerable people.

·         Noted that the Westminster City Council model funds hundreds of thousands of pounds of targeted youth and early years engagement and tackles homelessness, it would reduce pressure on the Council’s General Fund.

·         Stressed the moral duty to help others, the amendment sought to help vulnerable residents.

·         Noted that the demographics in Westminster City Council’s area was similar to Surrey and the scheme there raised lots of money, it did not deprive the charitable sector and it worked with them to fill in gaps.  

 

The budget amendment was put to the vote with 25 Members voting For, 43 voting Against and 6 Abstentions.

 

The following Members voted for it:

 

Catherine Baart, Harry Boparai, Stephen Cooksey, Nick Darby, Fiona Davidson, Jonathan Essex, Robert Evans OBE, Paul Follows, Angela Goodwin, Jeffrey Gray, Nick Harrison, Robert King, Andy MacLeod, Julia McShane, Carla Morson, George Potter, Catherine Powell, Penny Rivers, John Robini, Joanne Sexton, Lance Spencer, Ashley Tilling, Liz Townsend, Hazel Watson, Fiona White.

The following Members voted against it:

 

Maureen Attewell, Ayesha Azad, Steve Bax, Luke Bennett, Liz Bowes, Natalie Bramhall, Helyn Clack, Clare Curran, Paul Deach, Kevin Deanus, Matt Furniss, Tim Hall, David Harmer, Edward Hawkins, Marisa Heath, Trefor Hogg, Robert Hughes, Jonathan Hulley, Saj Hussain, Rebecca Jennings-Evans, Frank Kelly, Riasat Khan, Rachael Lake BEM, Victor Lewanski, David Lewis (Cobham), Scott Lewis, Andy Lynch, Ernest Mallett MBE, Jan Mason, Steven McCormick, Cameron McIntosh, Sinead Mooney, Bernie Muir, Mark Nuti, John O’Reilly, Tim Oliver OBE, Becky Rush, Lesley Steeds, Richard Tear, Denise Turner-Stewart, Jeremy Webster, Buddhi Weerasinghe, Keith Witham.

 

The following Members Abstained:

 

John Beckett, Amanda Boote, Dennis Booth, Eber Kington, Michaela Martin, Chris Townsend.

 

Therefore it was RESOLVED that:

 

The budget amendment was lost.

 

Returning to the original budget proposal and recommendations as published in the agenda, a second budget amendment was moved.

 

Item 5 (ii)

 

Catherine Powell moved an amendment, presenting the following recommended alternative budget proposals (included in the third supplementary agenda item 5 (i) and (ii), published on 3 February 2025), which was formally seconded by Jonathan Essex. This was:

 

Recommendations

 

Council is asked to approve the following budget proposals, which are aimed at ensuring scarce resources are targeted at the most vulnerable, exit strategies are in place for areas of spend where funding is not ongoing and propose the establishment of an ongoing funding source to ensure future funding for preventative activities:

 

1.    The establishment of a fund, created through voluntary contributions from residents, to provide an ongoing revenue funding source for specific early intervention, preventative and support services for children and young people, through the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise Sector (VCSE), to increase the security of these services given the rising costs of statutory services.

 

2.    In light of the scale of the capital programme, pressures on capital expenditure, on-going capital cost overruns and the risks associated with Local Government Reorganisation and potential debt redistribution, close the Your Fund Surrey programme to further applications and apply more rigid assessment criteria.

 

3.    Place the Phase 3 Digital Demand Responsive Transport (DDRT) on hold, in line with the select committee’s recommendations to Cabinet, and instead invest in reviewing / testing alternatives which are likely to be more financially sustainable going forward.

 

4.    Commit to setting up a cross-party Task & Finish Group to review and refresh the Alternative Provision (AP) + Special Educational Needs & Disabilities (SEND) Capital Programme alongside work being undertaken by the Children’s, Families & Lifelong Learning Directorate, including allocating £150k to ensure resources are available to support this review.

 

5.    Remove the £0.5m proposed efficiency in relation to the Greener Futures Team and provide funding for a further financial year by reducing the one-off investment by 10% in verge maintenance, weed control and other visual improvements, including signs.

 

The financial impacts of the above proposals are set out in the table below. 

 

Table 1. Summary of budget proposals

Proposal	2025-26 & annual ongoing revenue impact	One-Off costs	Notes
Voluntary Contribution Fund The establishment of a fund, created through voluntary contributions from residents, to provide an ongoing funding source for specific early intervention, preventative and support services for children and young people through the VCSE, to increase the security of these services given the rising cost of statutory services.		Set up costs during 2025/26	Minimal promotional & administrative costs anticipated to set up, covered from earmarked reserves for LGR.
Your Fund Surrey In light of the scale of the capital programme, pressures on capital expenditure and the risks associated with Local Government Reorganisation and potential debt redistribution, close the Your Fund Surrey programme to further applications.			No direct revenue costs and no reduction in the capital programme suggested. Supports ensuring future spend is contained within the residual capital allocation.
Phase 3 DDRT Place phase 3 on hold and instead invest in alternatives to address the Council’s four priority objectives and overriding purpose of “no-one left behind”.	(£0.9m) 2025/26 (£1.5m) 2026/27	£0.75m	Overall efficiency, with one-off costs incurred in 2025/26
Review the Alternative Provision & SEND Capital Programme Commitment to set up Task & Finish Group to support review of the programme being undertaken by the Directorate		£0.15m	Funded from the efficiency achieved via proposal 3 re DDRT or capital feasibility funding.
Greener Futures: Reinstate £0.5m budget (by removing the associated proposed efficiency).		£0.5m (£0.5m)	Cost neutral, as one-off funding for 2025/26 financed by a reduction in the £5m proposed budget for verge maintenance and other visual improvements.
	(£0.9m) 2025/26 (£1.5m) 2026/27	£0.9m

 

In support of her budget amendment, Catherine Powell made the following points:

 

·         Believed that her proposals were necessary due to the uncertainty and more change and risk to come not covered by the budget, younger residents wanted a long-term focus and the budget did not align with that.

·         Noted the absence of a decision on local government reorganisation, no strategy for dealing with unserviceable debt and no commitment from the Government to properly fund statutory services or prevention.

·         Recommendation 1: more early intervention, prevention and support services for children and young people should be funded by the Council and be provided by the voluntary sector where appropriate, yet the sector was underfunded. The Council Tax system was flawed and there was an exponential increase in demand for statutory services, the recommendation sought to fund the gap.

·         Recommendation 2: noted the £39 million pipeline of large YFS projects compared to the £10 million budget, there was no closure strategy for YFS despite the budget task group calling for one in December 2023. The recommendation sought for the scheme to close and projects in the pipeline to be scrutinised with more rigorous criteria.

·         Recommendation 3: called for phase 3 of the Digital Demand Responsive Transport (DDRT) to be put on hold, the recommendation was an alternative way to meet the Cabinet’s commitment, it was more financially sustainable and consistent with achieving the purpose of no one left behind, increasing bus usage, reducing congestion and carbon emissions.

·         Recommendation 4: noted the concerns when the 2024/25 budget was set on the rising costs of the SEND capital programme, the review identified that the costs increased by 40%, the places taken out were high needs and places put in were lower needs, the recommendation sought to set up the awaited task group.

·         Recommendation 5: noted the agreed amended recommendation:

 

As a result of the Local Government Financial settlement announcement yesterday, reinstate the £0.5m into the Greener Future Team base budget and therefore do not implement the £0.5million proposed efficiency.

 

·         Stressed that climate change was impacting Surrey today, there were areas on the Environment Agency’s flood risk maps which flooded multiple times in a year rather than once every thirty years, the agreed additional funding would increase the ability to adapt and embed climate policies.

·         Believed that her researched recommendations would put the Council on a sounder footing going forward, taking a longer-term approach.

 

The budget amendment was formally seconded by Jonathan Essex, who reserved the right to speak.

 

The Leader accepted the amended recommendation 5 of the budget amendment, he did not accept recommendations 1-4 of the budget amendment and therefore the budget amendment was open for debate.

 

Eleven Members spoke on the budget amendment and made the following comments:

 

·         Provided reassurance of the work already underway by the Council in the areas highlighted, the Council was working closely with the CFS which match funds the Council’s investments, CFS provided grants of up to £75,000 for five years which gives charities stability and helps them raise other grants.

·         Noted that there were new rounds to support children and young people with multiple disadvantage and transitioning between services, with further rounds for supporting families with young people.

·         Noted the tax relief on investments into CFS, welfare teams were working closely with the CFS to ensure investment was distributed across the county and Key Neighbourhoods were targeted.

·         Supported recommendation 1 as that was the same principle as the first budget amendment and noted that recommendations 2-5 were reasonable in terms of how to spend the money better.

·         On recommendation 3, noted that the Leader said that he had no choice on discretionary spend on Home to School Transport, yet the Council has a choice in continuing the DDRT scheme of which the average cost per journey was £30.

·         On recommendation 2, noted that YFS had delivered 400 local projects across Surrey - it was scrutinised cross-party - the Small Community Projects Fund enabled Members to respond swiftly to community need, a new lease of life was given to dilapidated buildings and officers rigorously assessed applications.

·         Thanked the volunteers empowered by YFS and noted that it helped many residents avoid loneliness and it improved wellbeing.

·         On recommendation 2, noted that YFS had accrued a lot of debt, on recommendation 3, DDRT had benefited rural areas and the Council subsidising that transport was beneficial to residents.

·         On recommendation 4, asked Members not to commit to allocating an additional £150,000 to review the SEND and Alternative Provision capital programme, welcomed the select committee’s intention to have a task group.

·         Reminded Members that last year’s update of the SEND capital programme was to ensure that the Council could deliver its agreed budget of £189 million funded from borrowing, of the original 81 projects there were only 7 without immediate delivery plans and 5 of those were for secondary provision.

·         Noted that the work was underway through plans to review and refresh, the teams were constantly looking towards the future; noted the uncertain times with the Government’s direction of travel for reform to inclusive mainstream provision.

·         On recommendation 3, agreed that unitarisation would bring together many services into one making those more efficient; however noted the misunderstanding on how service delivery was done.

·         Noted the 30 million passenger journeys a year by buses in Surrey, with half price travel for those aged 21 and under, new hydrogen and electric buses, and that there were 22 bus operators.

·         Noted that Surrey Connect transported over 84,000 passengers, it was expensive at the start at £30 per person, but after a few years that decreased to £14 and then to £8.

·         Noted that Surrey Connect was more cost-effective in areas where it was not commercially viable to run a bus service - fixed routes cost £1.2 million. Phase 3 would cost £4.3 million and cover two thirds of the county.

·         On amended recommendation 5, welcomed the agreement for reversing the cuts to the Greener Future team which leads on the net zero targets and Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience Strategy.

·         Noted that restoring that £0.5 million would allow that team to respond to new finance opportunities on nature-based solutions and biodiversity net gain, continuing its work in supporting green skills and addressing the links between climate change and health benefits.

·         Noted that in reversing the cuts to that team, the Council was showing leadership, it was investing in its young people’s future.

·         Noted that the money for improving the appearance of highways, should be budgeted for to address routine ongoing maintenance.

·         On recommendation 2, noted that the current YFS approval process was robust, residents have benefited from improved safety and infrastructure.

·         On amended recommendation 5, welcomed the amended wording and noted that on climate change the Council was spending a large amount on the River Thames Scheme to alleviate flooding.

·         On amended recommendation 5, noted that Greener Future funding was vital, borough and district councils had successfully secured money on a range of environmental issues, regarding the biodiversity net gain hoped that plants and trees would be planted more effectively in flood risk areas.

·         On recommendation 3, noted that it was wrong for the Council to not have explored in more depth what other authorities have done for example in Manchester and Birmingham with a removal of duplicated routes and a clearer pricing structure, a franchising model would simplify the system.

·         On amended recommendation 5, noted that the Government must recognise the role of local government in climate change through long-term funding. Had asked for urgent funding for climate adaption to address increased flooding and drive behaviour change to meet the 2050 net zero target and help vulnerable residents with reducing their bills and shift to green energy.

·         Noted that the Greener Future team had set up a One-Stop Shop scheme.

·         Noted the work underway to look at the financial opportunities, green prescribing and countryside access.

·         Noted that the £0.5 million should be used to focus on how Greener Future could be used to benefit residents quickly on: flooding prevention, improvements on rights of way, supporting sustainable transport, protecting the countryside; all vital to deliver the Local Nature Recovery Strategy.

·         Noted that YFS money had been used on greener initiatives, a project was being developed on a sustainable transport hub.

·         Clarified that through working in partnership, 600,000 trees had been planted.

·         Noted that the money for verge maintenance and weed control would help create a space for nature recovery.

 

As seconder to the budget amendment, Jonathan Essex made the following points:

 

·         Welcomed the Council’s reaffirmation of its commitment to the climate emergency, through investing in climate adaption.

·         On recommendation 1, noted that committing additional resource to take a preventative approach to care and Children’s Services funded by those willing to pay, would provide certainty and sustainability when services were commissioned, early intervention would improve communities in the long-term.

·         On recommendation 2, welcomed the spending on improving communitywellbeing and sustainability initiatives, however YFS was funded from borrowing so an end date was crucial.

·         On recommendation 3, called for a pause and review of DDRT to look for a more joined-up approach, to use the cross-party scrutiny recommendation to have a clear strategy, to have a more sustainable subsidy amount, called for a better balance of bus provision in rural areas and provision in deprived communities in urban areas served by more fixed routes.

·         On recommendation 4, called for a best value review on EHCPs with Members to ensure the right number of places in the right locations.

 

The Chair asked Catherine Powell, as proposer of the budget amendment to conclude the debate:

 

·         Recommendation 1: noted that the Council was not doing all it could and should be doing on early intervention and prevention and support, stressed the need to acknowledge that the Children’s Society report showed that children’s wellbeing was decreasing annually.

·         Recommendation 2: recognised the benefits of YFS, but that money could be spent better elsewhere rather than on the capital debt, an exit strategy was needed. Charities and communities must be told that the scheme would run out of money at the end of the next financial year.

·         Recommendation 3: had gone through different variations of data with the team, the lowest cost for the oldest DDRT scheme was £12 per passenger journey and the highest cost was a lot more, the average between September to December was £30.

·         Recommendation 4: noted that the National Audit Office reported that in 2018/19 there were 130,000 children with EHCPs in England and that number increased to 238,000 in 2023/24, mainstream schools were doing more with less, how the money would be spent in that capital programme would lead to better outcomes.

 

Recommendation 1 of the budget amendment was put to the vote with 29 Members voting For, 41 voting Against and 4 Abstentions.

 

The following Members voted for it:

 

Catherine Baart, Amanda Boote, Harry Boparai, Stephen Cooksey, Nick Darby, Fiona Davidson, Jonathan Essex, Robert Evans OBE, Paul Follows, Angela Goodwin, Jeffrey Gray, Nick Harrison, Robert King, Andy MacLeod, Michaela Martin, Jan Mason, Julia McShane, Carla Morson, George Potter, Catherine Powell, Penny Rivers, John Robini, Joanne Sexton, Lance Spencer, Ashley Tilling, Chris Townsend, Liz Townsend, Hazel Watson, Fiona White.

The following Members voted against it:

 

Maureen Attewell, Ayesha Azad, Steve Bax, Luke Bennett, Liz Bowes, Natalie Bramhall, Helyn Clack, Clare Curran, Paul Deach, Kevin Deanus, Matt Furniss, Tim Hall, David Harmer, Edward Hawkins, Marisa Heath, Trefor Hogg, Robert Hughes, Jonathan Hulley, Saj Hussain, Rebecca Jennings-Evans, Frank Kelly, Riasat Khan, Rachael Lake BEM, Victor Lewanski, David Lewis (Cobham), Scott Lewis, Andy Lynch, Ernest Mallett MBE, Cameron McIntosh, Sinead Mooney, Bernie Muir, Mark Nuti, John O’Reilly, Tim Oliver OBE, Becky Rush, Lesley Steeds, Richard Tear, Denise Turner-Stewart, Jeremy Webster, Buddhi Weerasinghe, Keith Witham.

 

The following Members Abstained:

 

John Beckett, Dennis Booth, Eber Kington, Steven McCormick.

 

Therefore it was RESOLVED that:

 

Recommendation 1 of the budget amendment was lost.

 

Recommendation 2 of the budget amendment was put to the vote with 15 Members voting For, 42 voting Against and 17 Abstentions.

 

The following Members voted for it:

 

Catherine Baart, Amanda Boote, Nick Darby, Fiona Davidson, Jonathan Essex, Robert Evans OBE, Nick Harrison, Robert King, Eber Kington, Andy MacLeod, Jan Mason, Steven McCormick, Catherine Powell, Joanne Sexton, Chris Townsend.

The following Members voted against it:

 

Maureen Attewell, Ayesha Azad, Steve Bax, Luke Bennett, Liz Bowes, Natalie Bramhall, Helyn Clack, Clare Curran, Paul Deach, Kevin Deanus, Matt Furniss, Tim Hall, David Harmer, Edward Hawkins, Marisa Heath, Trefor Hogg, Robert Hughes, Jonathan Hulley, Saj Hussain, Rebecca Jennings-Evans, Frank Kelly, Riasat Khan, Rachael Lake BEM, Victor Lewanski, David Lewis (Cobham), Scott Lewis, Andy Lynch, Ernest Mallett MBE, Cameron McIntosh, Sinead Mooney, Bernie Muir, Mark Nuti, John O’Reilly, Tim Oliver OBE, Becky Rush, Lesley Steeds, Richard Tear, Denise Turner-Stewart, Hazel Watson, Jeremy Webster, Buddhi Weerasinghe, Keith Witham.

 

The following Members Abstained:

 

John Beckett, Dennis Booth, Harry Boparai, Stephen Cooksey, Paul Follows, Angela Goodwin, Jeffrey Gray, Michaela Martin, Julia McShane, Carla Morson, George Potter, Penny Rivers, John Robini, Lance Spencer, Ashley Tilling, Liz Townsend, Fiona White.

 

Therefore it was RESOLVED that:

 

Recommendation 2 of the budget amendment was lost.

 

Recommendation 3 of the budget amendment was put to the vote with 18 Members voting For, 41 voting Against and 15 Abstentions.

 

The following Members voted for it:

 

Catherine Baart, John Beckett, Amanda Boote, Dennis Booth, Nick Darby, Fiona Davidson, Jonathan Essex, Robert Evans OBE, Nick Harrison, Robert King, Eber Kington, Andy MacLeod, Michaela Martin, Jan Mason, Steven McCormick, Catherine Powell, Joanne Sexton, Chris Townsend.

The following Members voted against it:

 

Maureen Attewell, Ayesha Azad, Steve Bax, Luke Bennett, Liz Bowes, Natalie Bramhall, Helyn Clack, Clare Curran, Paul Deach, Kevin Deanus, Matt Furniss, Tim Hall, David Harmer, Edward Hawkins, Marisa Heath, Trefor Hogg, Robert Hughes, Jonathan Hulley, Saj Hussain, Rebecca Jennings-Evans, Frank Kelly, Riasat Khan, Rachael Lake BEM, Victor Lewanski, David Lewis (Cobham), Scott Lewis, Andy Lynch, Cameron McIntosh, Sinead Mooney, Bernie Muir, Mark Nuti, John O’Reilly, Tim Oliver OBE, Becky Rush, Lesley Steeds, Richard Tear, Denise Turner-Stewart, Hazel Watson, Jeremy Webster, Buddhi Weerasinghe, Keith Witham.

 

The following Members Abstained:

 

Harry Boparai, Stephen Cooksey, Paul Follows, Angela Goodwin, Jeffrey Gray, Ernest Mallett MBE, Julia McShane, Carla Morson, George Potter, Penny Rivers, John Robini, Lance Spencer, Ashley Tilling, Liz Townsend, Fiona White.

 

Therefore it was RESOLVED that:

 

Recommendation 3 of the budget amendment was lost.

 

Recommendation 4 of the budget amendment was put to the vote with 34 Members voting For, 40 voting Against and 0 Abstentions.

 

The following Members voted for it:

 

Catherine Baart, John Beckett, Amanda Boote, Dennis Booth, Harry Boparai, Stephen Cooksey, Nick Darby, Fiona Davidson, Jonathan Essex, Robert Evans OBE, Paul Follows, Angela Goodwin, Jeffrey Gray, Nick Harrison, Robert King, Eber Kington, Andy MacLeod, Ernest Mallett MBE, Michaela Martin, Jan Mason, Steven McCormick, Julia McShane, Carla Morson, George Potter, Catherine Powell, Penny Rivers, John Robini, Joanne Sexton, Lance Spencer, Ashley Tilling, Chris Townsend, Liz Townsend, Hazel Watson, Fiona White.

 

The following Members voted against it:

 

Maureen Attewell, Ayesha Azad, Steve Bax, Luke Bennett, Liz Bowes, Natalie Bramhall, Helyn Clack, Clare Curran, Paul Deach, Kevin Deanus, Matt Furniss, Tim Hall, David Harmer, Edward Hawkins, Marisa Heath, Trefor Hogg, Robert Hughes, Jonathan Hulley, Saj Hussain, Rebecca Jennings-Evans, Frank Kelly, Riasat Khan, Rachael Lake BEM, Victor Lewanski, David Lewis (Cobham), Scott Lewis, Andy Lynch, Cameron McIntosh, Sinead Mooney, Bernie Muir, Mark Nuti, John O’Reilly, Tim Oliver OBE, Becky Rush, Lesley Steeds, Richard Tear, Denise Turner-Stewart, Jeremy Webster, Buddhi Weerasinghe, Keith Witham.

 

Therefore it was RESOLVED that:

 

Recommendation 4 of the budget amendment was lost.

 

Amended recommendation 5 of the budget amendment was put to the vote with 74 Members voting For, 0 voting Against and 0 Abstentions.

 

The following Members voted for it:

 

Maureen Attewell, Ayesha Azad, Catherine Baart, Steve Bax, John Beckett, Luke Bennett, Amanda Boote, Dennis Booth, Harry Boparai, Liz Bowes, Natalie Bramhall, Helyn Clack, Stephen Cooksey, Clare Curran, Nick Darby, Fiona Davidson, Paul Deach, Kevin Deanus, Jonathan Essex, Robert Evans OBE, Paul Follows, Matt Furniss, Angela Goodwin, Jeffrey Gray, Tim Hall, David Harmer, Nick Harrison, Edward Hawkins, Marisa Heath, Trefor Hogg, Robert Hughes, Jonathan Hulley, Saj Hussain, Rebecca Jennings-Evans, Frank Kelly, Riasat Khan, Robert King, Eber Kington, Rachael Lake BEM, Victor Lewanski, David Lewis (Cobham), Scott Lewis, Andy Lynch, Andy MacLeod, Ernest Mallett MBE, Michaela Martin, Jan Mason, Steven McCormick, Cameron McIntosh, Julia McShane, Sinead Mooney, Carla Morson, Bernie Muir, Mark Nuti, John O’Reilly, Tim Oliver OBE, George Potter, Catherine Powell, Penny Rivers, John Robini, Becky Rush, Joanne Sexton, Lance Spencer, Lesley Steeds, Richard Tear, Ashley Tilling, Chris Townsend, Liz Townsend, Denise Turner-Stewart, Hazel Watson, Jeremy Webster, Buddhi Weerasinghe, Fiona White, Keith Witham.

 

Therefore it was RESOLVED that:

 

Amended recommendation 5 of the budget amendment was carried:

 

As a result of the Local Government Financial settlement announcement yesterday, reinstate the £0.5m into the Greener Future Team base budget and therefore do not implement the £0.5million proposed efficiency.

 

Returning to the original budget proposal and recommendations as published in the agenda, eleven Members spoke on it:

 

·         Noted the predictability of budget Council meetings and that people were being left behind; the electorate would judge Members’ actions.

·         Noted that the Chancellor’s decision to increase National Insurance contributions had cost the Council £8.4 million and it had cost businesses; farmers had also been impacted by changes.

·         Highlighted that the budget principles say that reserves should not fall below a 12% minimum as a buffer, yet the Council’s General Fund reserve was £50 million or only 4% of non-earmarked reserves which was insufficient; £71 million earmarked reserves were used to claim the reserves are 10%.

·         Noted that the Council would run out of money in the next financial year if it failed to make the required £66 million in savings which exceeded the reserves; over the past four years the Council failed to achieve the planned savings.

·         Noted the medium-term budget gap of £172 million and that relied on an assumption that EPR payments from the Government received as a one-off would be at the same level for the next five years instead of tapering off.

·         Noted that the Council had significantly cut services and oversaw failures in: SEND provision, transformation programmes, centralising verge maintenance and on-street parking, and customer services.

·         Noted disappointment regarding the criticism on the increase in the grass-cutting funding, the £5 million would triple the teams and enable the delivery of six urban cuts and two rural cuts.

·         Noted that the funding would ensure a more efficient and responsive service helped by new contractors, improved working practices and increased resources. The verge programme would start in February and the first weed sprays would start in March.

·         Noted that £1.7 million was allocated for re-lining, so far 940,000 metres of Surrey’s road network had been re-lined.

·         Noted that whilst CFL’s funding had increased by 6.4%, the demand for services, the complexity of needs and costs were increasing significantly more.

·         Welcomed that Surrey had the highest percentage spend for prevention services for children and young people compared to other areas, yet discretionary services would receive significantly less funding than was needed to improve the lives of those most disadvantaged in Surrey.

·         Stressed that the sustainability of funding to voluntary and charitable organisations was crucial to the Council, those organisations would be affected by the extra costs from the National Living Wage and National Insurance contributions; there was no compensation for the third sector.

·         Noted that of the approximately £30 million pressures, over £10 million concerned Home to School Transport and just under £5 million concerned social care placements, that situation was unlikely to improve in the near future.

·         Welcomed the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill which would tackle profiteering in social care, yet was unsure whether the £11.1 million of efficiencies would be achieved; welcomed the protection of frontline roles.

·         Noted that many Equality Impact Assessments were out of date or unavailable.

·         Called for a shift in the baseline allocation of resources to assign a higher proportion of the budget to Children’s Services.

·         Thanked the Finance team for the information provided on the budget.

·         Failed to see how a further costly task and finish groupwould resolve the problems with SEND funding.

·         Noted the significant benefits to Surrey’s community from YFS, closing that would let down those organisations bidding to make further local improvements.

·         Noted the professional and prudent Treasury Management Strategy which had been scrutinised in detail, the Council’s property portfolio was sensible and profitable without excessive borrowing, the level of reserves was sensible.

·         Noted that the budget brought more cuts to vulnerable residents and did not benefit children with Additional Needs, parents of children with SEND were exhausted and anxious about whether their child would receive support.

·         Stressed that the Council must act decisively, the SEND process review had been underway for nineteen months with little visible benefits.

·         Queried why the Council was spending £5 million for visual improvements to highways whilst families were in despair and some children had been out of school for years. The efficiencies in CFL were vague aspirations and those cuts were harmful.

·         Noted that for residents, the issues that confront them and Members concerned visible facing services such as highways and libraries; more had been done in the last five years than the last fifty years by the Council. The Council had improved such services substantially through investment.

·         Emphasised that the allocation for CFL exceeded £300 million, that was an increase of 6% and was the single largest area of growth in the budget.

·         Thanked the Chairman of the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee for the committee’s scrutiny work which was thoughtful and productive, and supportive of the service’s aspirations.

·         Stressed that the CFL budget did not contain undefined cuts, there were careful and thought-out plans, the budget would enable more spending on the continued improvement of statutory social work and children’s social care, and better Early Help services, and more funding for children with Additional Needs.

·         Highlighted that spending on children with Additional Needs was funded through the High Needs Block from the Dedicated Schools Grant - £9 million from the Government - and not the General Fund.

·         Noted that efficiencies in Home to School Transport were needed as the Council was spending more to meet children’s needs, practice improvement led to the reduction in the number of Looked After Children and children on statutory plans, the capital budget created savings and met children’s needs.

·         Noted that the Chancellor’s October budget increase to National Insurance contributions would impact staff costs and costs to suppliers and providers of care and support; the Council had to find an additional £2 million.

·         Noted that the capital programme included an additional £115.4 million for highways and transport, and £38.2 million on infrastructure, planning and major projects.

·         Noted that in rural divisions road safety was highly important particularly in areas without streetlights or footways, keeping the roads and signs clean, cutting hedges, and maintaining verges was vital for road safety.

·         Urged Members to engage in the work underway to ensure safe roads.

·         Noted that despite the challenging financial background against which the budget was set, the Council’s position remained strong, its debt was fully provided for in terms of repayment.

·         Clarified that the PWLB existed within His Majesty’s Treasury.

·         Noted that it was positive that within the final Local Government Finance Settlement the Council has received £1.5 million more than anticipated, the implications of that would be reviewed.

·         Noted that the 4.99% compared favourably to higher Council Tax increases elsewhere.

·         Noted that the 2025/26 net revenue budget of £1.26 billion was a 4% increase. Funding had increased by 6.48% for CFL, 3.95% for ASC and 3.62% for Place; enabling the Council to support the delivery of its frontline services.

·         Noted that the budget was not without risk, social care costs were increasing and the care needs were becoming more complex, containing the costs of Home to School Transport was a challenge, efficiencies were needed and would be delivered through the one council transformation programme.

·         Noted the ambitious capital programme which was affordable and deliverable, the budget for next year was £344 million and that increases with the capital pipeline to £1.4 billion over the Medium-Term Financial Strategy period.

·         Noted that when the Council consulted on its budget proposals, residents wanted a focus on the current and future needs, there was a healthy 10% level of reserves; it was a fair and responsible budget.

·         Thanked officers for their work on the budget.

 

The Leader of the Council made the following comments in response:

 

·         Noted that in 2025/26 the forecast closing balance at 31 March 2026 of reserves would be £149.4 million or 12%.

·         Stressed the need to balance the money spent on SEND and ASC, with customer-facing services such as highways.

·         Noted that neither of the budget amendments would have had a significant impact on the core budget, there were some tweaks not requiring funding that could be looked at.

·         In response to misinformation circulated in the public domain about how well the Council was doing in delivering its services, reminded Members to re-read the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) latest report on ASC, the Ofsted review on Children’s Services, and the SEND area review; the Council was moving forward at a faster pace than other councils.

·         Noted that local government competes with central government, supported rapid devolution, to provide more local control over money and the delivery of services, looking at bus franchising and an integrated transport system.

·         Stressed the need for investment in prevention, noted that two of the ‘shifts’ needed by the NHS from illness to prevention, and from hospital to community, were consistent with what the Council needed to be doing.

·         Noted the funding issue of having to double run preventative investment costs whilst delivering day-to-day services, a shift to prevention from only delivering statutory services was fundamental.

·         Noted that year on year the Council had delivered a balanced budget, there were sufficient reserves available; residents would continue to see the delivery of improved services.

·         Emphasised the significant period of change driven by the Government, reforming SEND was a huge issue locally and nationally; the Isos Partnership report set out practical ways that SEND could be reformed and improved.

 

After the debate the Chair called the recommendations, which included the Council Tax precept proposals, and a recorded vote was taken with 43 voting For, 25 voting Against and 6 Abstentions.

 

The following Members voted for it:

 

Maureen Attewell, Ayesha Azad, Steve Bax, Luke Bennett, Liz Bowes, Natalie Bramhall, Helyn Clack, Clare Curran, Paul Deach, Kevin Deanus, Matt Furniss, Tim Hall, David Harmer, Edward Hawkins, Marisa Heath, Trefor Hogg, Robert Hughes, Jonathan Hulley, Saj Hussain, Rebecca Jennings-Evans, Frank Kelly, Riasat Khan, Rachael Lake BEM, Victor Lewanski, David Lewis (Cobham), Scott Lewis, Andy Lynch, Ernest Mallett MBE, Jan Mason, Steven McCormick, Cameron McIntosh, Sinead Mooney, Bernie Muir, Mark Nuti, John O’Reilly, Tim Oliver OBE, Becky Rush, Lesley Steeds, Richard Tear, Denise Turner-Stewart, Jeremy Webster, Buddhi Weerasinghe, Keith Witham.

 

The following Members voted against it:

 

Catherine Baart, John Beckett, Dennis Booth, Harry Boparai, Stephen Cooksey, Nick Darby, Jonathan Essex, Robert Evans OBE, Paul Follows, Angela Goodwin, Jeffrey Gray, Robert King, Julia McShane, Carla Morson, George Potter, Catherine Powell, Penny Rivers, John Robini, Joanne Sexton, Lance Spencer, Ashley Tilling, Chris Townsend, Liz Townsend, Hazel Watson, Fiona White.

 

The following Members Abstained:

 

Amanda Boote, Fiona Davidson, Nick Harrison, Eber Kington, Andy MacLeod, Michaela Martin.

 

Therefore it was RESOLVED that:

 

Council noted the following features of the revenue and capital budget, and in line with Section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003:

 

1.    The Deputy Chief Executive & Executive Director of Resources’ (Section 151 Officer) conclusion that estimates included in the Final Budget Report and Medium-Term Financial Strategy are sufficiently robust in setting the budget for 2025/26; and

 

2.    That it is the view of the Deputy Chief Executive & Executive Director of Resources (Section 151 Officer), that the level of reserves is adequate to meet the Council’s needs for 2025/26. These reserves include the following amounts, (totalling £121.4m) set aside specifically to provide financial resilience:

·         the General Fund (£50.5m).

·         Earmarked Reserves available to support unforeseen events and protect financial resilience (£70.9m).

 

Proposed budget: Council approved the following Revenue and Capital budget decisions:

 

3.    The net revenue budget requirement be set at £1,264.1 million (net cost of services after service specific government grants) for 2025/26 (Annex B), subject to confirmation of the Final Local Government Financial Settlement.

 

4.    The total Council Tax Funding Requirement be set at £972.3 million for 2025/26. This is based on a council tax increase of 4.99%, made up of an increase in the level of core council tax of 2.99% and an increase of 2% in the precept proposed by Central Government to cover the growing cost of Adult Social Care (Annex E).

 

5.    For the purpose of section 52ZB of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, the Council formally determines that the increase in core council tax is not such as to trigger a referendum (i.e. not greater than 3%).

 

6.    Sets the Surrey County Council precept for Band D Council Tax at £1,846.36, which represents a 4.99% uplift. This is a rise of £1.69 a week from the 2024/25 precept of £1,758.60. This includes £286.61 for the Adult Social Care precept, which has increased by £35.17. A full list of bands is as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.    Delegated powers to the Leader and Deputy Chief Executive & Executive Director of Resources (Section 151 Officer) to finalise budget proposals, updated to take into account new information in the Final Local Government Finance Settlement.

 

8.    The Total Schools Budget of £738.7 million to meet the Council’s statutory requirement on schools funding (as set out in Section 9 of the 2025/26 Final Budget and Medium-Term Financial Strategy to 2029/30).

 

9.    The overall indicative Budget Envelopes for Directorates and individual services for the 2025/26 budget (Annex B) and that the Corporate Leadership Team be required to meet the revenue budget for the delivery of Council services.

 

10.  That the Corporate Leadership Team be required to deliver the revenue saving plans as set out in Annex A.

 

11.  The re-set of the Earmarked Reserves, as set out in Annex D.

 

12.  The total £1,398.8 million proposed five-year Capital Programme (comprising £1,016.8 million of budget and £382.0 million pipeline) and approved the £406.3 million Capital Budget in 2025/26 (Annex C).

 

13.  The investment in Transformation required to deliver improved outcomes and financial benefits is built into the proposed Medium-Term Financial Strategy (as set out in section 3 of 2025/26 Final Budget Report and Medium-Term Financial Strategy to 2029/30).

 

Capital and Investment Strategies: Council approved the following:

 

14.  The Capital, Investment and Treasury Management Strategy which provides an overview of how risks associated with capital expenditure, financing and treasury will be managed as well as how they contribute towards the delivery of services (Annex F).

 

15.  The policy for making a prudent level of revenue provision for the repayment of debt - the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) Policy (Annex G).

 

16.  That amended recommendation 5 of the budget amendment item 5 (ii) had already been carried.

 

The meeting was adjourned for lunch at 13.29 pm.

 

Andy MacLeod, John Robini, Becky Rush and Joanne Sexton left the meeting at 13.29 pm.

 

The meeting was resumed at 14.00 pm.