Agenda item

The Cabinet, at its meeting on 8 February 2013, considered a report on the council’s revenue budget 2013/14, medium term financial plan to 2017/18 and capital programme to 2017/18.

 

The Cabinet’s budget proposal is bound separately and will follow this agenda (blue pages refer). 

 

The Scrutiny Committee will consider this item at its meeting on 14 February 2013.  Any alternative recommendation will be circulated prior to the Council meeting.

Council considered Cabinet’s budget proposals.  These were contained in the head of finance’s report that covered the revenue budget for 2013/14, the medium term financial plan and the capital programme. 

 

Before considering the budget, the chairman reminded councillors that they were not entitled to vote on any issue affecting the level or administration of the council tax if they were over two months in arrears with their council tax payments. 

 

Contained within the budget report at appendix H was a report from the chief finance officer on the robustness of the budget estimates and the adequacy of the reserves.  Council noted this report. 

 

The chairman sought Council’s agreement to allow one councillor from each political group to make their budget speech for longer than the time limited by standing orders.  Council noted that Councillor Matthew Barber would present the Cabinet’s budget proposal and Councillor Richard Webber would speak on behalf of the opposition. 

 

RESOLVED: to suspend Standing Order 31(4) to allow one councillor from each political group to speak for up to 10 minutes to make their budget statements. 

 

 

Councillor Barber moved the Cabinet’s budget proposals; this was seconded by Councillor Yvonne Constance. 

 

 

Councillor Barber, Leader of the Council, then made his budget speech.  He reported that last year the Conservative group had set about putting the council’s finances in order.  This year the group had built on its success and continued to deliver high quality public services in the areas that people cared about, whilst keeping taxes low and delivering value for money.  For just £116.69 per year for the average household, the Conservative group was managing the council’s finances prudently to improve public services at a time of decreasing government grant. 

 

Building the local economy remained central to what the council did, and he reported that the budget established a significant fund to allow appropriate investment in infrastructure and services for the future.  The announcement this week of Oxfordshire’s success in the City Deal programme brought the council a step closer to the reality of genuinely devolved decision making on local infrastructure. 

 

He continued to lobby government to simplify the business rates retention scheme to ensure a real financial incentive to grow the local economy.  The council was also working increasingly closely with local businesses to ensure the economy of the Vale continued to thrive.  From the shopkeeper to the scientist, the Vale was an excellent place to do business and he would ensure that the infrastructure was in place to help that continue. 

 

Access to sports and leisure facilities would improve as a result of this budget.  For example, the White Horse Leisure and Tennis Centre would see an extension to its car park, allowing more people from across the district to enjoy the facilities offered there.  This ran alongside improvements that would be made as a result of the council’s new leisure contract which would look at every leisure facility in the district. 

 

In Wantage, the Civic Hall was set for major improvements.  By harnessing funds from developers and through prudent financial management, there would be over £350,000 investment over the next five years in Wantage Civic Hall and other leisure facilities in the town for the benefit of the wider district. 

 

The Conservative group had focussed on the things that were important to the public.  It had listened to the public’s concerns about the state of public toilets in the district.  The public conveniences the council provided were important to residents and visitors to our towns and villages.  Firstly, the expensive and unpopular automatic toilets at Hales Meadow in Abingdon and in Millbrook Square in Grove would be removed.  Then the council would refurbish the most complained about public toilets in Faringdon and Abingdon and would set out a strategy to improve facilities across the district, where possible harnessing private investment to limit the cost to the taxpayer.  These facilities would improve and remain free to use. 

 

The council would support parish councils by offering grants to help them cope with the changes in tax base.  There would also be a grant scheme to direct local resources to areas that had taken the most housing.  And the council would continue its popular capital grants scheme which offered £100,000 a year to community groups and parish councils to support local communities. 

 

The council would continue to roll out free wi-fi after a successful trial in Wantage and had used extra funding from government to help improve the shopping experience in our market towns. 

 

The budget offered consistently good services, investment where it made a difference and provided stability for the future, all at no extra cost to the taxpayer.  Councillor Barber commended the budget to the Council. 

 

 

Councillor Yvonne Constance, the seconder, reserved the right to speak later in the budget debate.  Councillor Richard Webber, leader of the opposition, asked to do likewise. 

 

 

The chairman reported that there were six amendments to the Cabinet’s budget proposals and agreed to consider them individually in the order they were received.  A seventh amendment was withdrawn.  The section 151 officer reported that the budget amendments were affordable. 

 

Amendment 1

 

Councillor Jim Halliday proposed, and Councillor Tony de Vere seconded, the following amendment:

 

‘We wish to increase the revenue grants budget by £50,000 per annum.’ 

 

Councillor Halliday reminded the council of the history of its grants schemes and pointed out that there was no longer a revenue grants scheme.  He believed a revenue scheme was important to support the many organisations in the district, in addition to separate schemes associated with new housing developments. 

 

Councillor Halliday also asked the leader to identify where in the budget were the funds for the open air pool at the Abbey Meadows in Abingdon, as requested in the motion passed by Council at its last meeting. 

 

Councillor Tony de Vere, in seconding the amendment, believed that the council had sufficient funds to support a revenue grants budget.  The £100,000 offered in the new homes bonus grants scheme was insufficient. 

 

Other councillors debated the amendment, some supporting it, others questioning where the budget would come from.  Councillor Halliday in summing up the debate reminded Council that the new homes bonus grants scheme would not help those parishes without new housing.  A separate revenue scheme was needed. 

 

The chairman put amendment 1 to the vote.  In accordance with standing order 29(3), at the request of more than a fifth of councillors present, the chairman asked for a recorded vote.  Votes on the amendment were recorded as follows:

 

For amendment 1	Against amendment 1	Abstentions
Councillors:	Councillors:	Councillors:
Julia Bricknell	John Amys	Alison Thomson
Andrew Crawford	Marilyn Badcock
Tony de Vere	Mike Badcock
Debby Hallett	Matthew Barber
Jim Halliday	Eric Batts
Jane Hanna	Yvonne Constance
Jenny Hannaby	Roger Cox
Bob Johnston	Charlotte Dickson
Angela Lawrence	Gervase Duffield
Pat Lonergan	Jason Fiddaman
Sue Marchant	Anthony Hayward
Julie Mayhew-Archer	Holly Holman
Aidan Melville	Simon Howell
Elizabeth Miles	Bill Jones
Jerry Patterson	MohinderKainth
Helen Pighills	Sandy Lovatt
Judy Roberts	John Morgan
Val Shaw	Michael Murray
Richard Webber	Fiona Roper
John Woodford	Robert Sharp
	Melinda Tilley
	Margaret Turner
	Reg Waite
	Elaine Ware
Totals:
20	24	1

 

Amendment 1 was declared not carried. 

 

 

Amendment 2

 

Councillor Jenny Hannaby proposed, and Councillor Richard Webber seconded, the following amendment:

 

‘To reinforce and assist the excellent work being done by our Flood Officer, appoint a full-time assistant.  Cost £40,000 per annum.’ 

 

Councillor Hannaby believed that the council’s flood officer need an assistant as there was a large volume of work due to the recent weather and the large number of planning applications received by the council. 

 

Councillor Webber, in seconding the amendment, believed that not enough work was being done on flooding.  The council’s officer had too much work for the time available and needed support. 

 

Other councillors debated the amendment, some supporting it believing it was affordable, while others questioned why this was needed when many local residents and local flood groups undertook much work in their communities.  Councillor Barber in his right of reply, reported that the council would have a student to assist it with this function for 15 months at no extra cost.  If this proved successful, it could be repeated. 

 

The chairman put amendment 2 to the vote.  In accordance with standing order 29(3), at the request of more than a fifth of councillors present, the chairman asked for a recorded vote.  Votes on the amendment were recorded as follows:

 

For amendment 2	Against amendment 2	Abstentions
Councillors:	Councillors:	Councillors:
Julia Bricknell	John Amys	Mike Badcock
Andrew Crawford	Marilyn Badcock	Angela Lawrence
Tony de Vere	Matthew Barber	Alison Thomson
Debby Hallett	Eric Batts
Jim Halliday	Yvonne Constance
Jane Hanna	Roger Cox
Jenny Hannaby	Charlotte Dickson
Bob Johnston	Gervase Duffield
Pat Lonergan	Jason Fiddaman
Sue Marchant	Anthony Hayward
Julie Mayhew-Archer	Holly Holman
Aidan Melville	Simon Howell
Elizabeth Miles	Bill Jones
Jerry Patterson	MohinderKainth
Helen Pighills	Sandy Lovatt
Judy Roberts	John Morgan
Val Shaw	Michael Murray
Richard Webber	Fiona Roper
John Woodford	Robert Sharp
	Melinda Tilley
	Margaret Turner
	Reg Waite
	Elaine Ware
Totals:
19	23	3

 

Amendment 2 was declared not carried. 

 

 

Amendment 3

 

Councillor Tony de Vere proposed, and Councillor Jenny Hannaby seconded, the following amendment:

 

‘In order to address the problem of the ‘scruffy Vale’, we should pay for an extra Environmental Warden to help with fly-tipping, dog fouling, etc. at a cost of £50,000 per annum.’ 

 

Councillor de Vere believed that it was important to keep the Vale clean.  Although the waste contract monitoring report was good, the board report had shown there had been an increasing number of fly-tipping incidents.  He believed that an additional warden would help reduce this recent trend and allow the ‘bring sites’ to be kept clean, and would help reduce dog fouling. 

 

Councillor Hannaby, in seconding the amendment, wanted additional resource to clean up the towns. 

 

Other councillors believed an additional warden was not necessary but rather, there should be more emphasis on education and enforcement action.  In summing up the debate, Councillor de Vere urged the ruling group to retain the ‘bring sites’, empty them more often, and reduce fly-tipping. 

 

The chairman put amendment 3 to the vote.  In accordance with standing order 29(3), at the request of more than a fifth of councillors present, the chairman asked for a recorded vote.  Votes on the amendment were recorded as follows:

 

For amendment 3	Against amendment 3	Abstentions
Councillors:	Councillors:	Councillors:
Julia Bricknell	John Amys	Alison Thomson
Andrew Crawford	Marilyn Badcock
Tony de Vere	Mike Badcock
Debby Hallett	Matthew Barber
Jim Halliday	Eric Batts
Jane Hanna	Yvonne Constance
Jenny Hannaby	Roger Cox
Bob Johnston	Charlotte Dickson
Angela Lawrence	Gervase Duffield
Pat Lonergan	Jason Fiddaman
Sue Marchant	Anthony Hayward
Julie Mayhew-Archer	Holly Holman
Aidan Melville	Simon Howell
Elizabeth Miles	Bill Jones
Jerry Patterson	MohinderKainth
Helen Pighills	Sandy Lovatt
Judy Roberts	John Morgan
Val Shaw	Michael Murray
Richard Webber	Fiona Roper
John Woodford	Robert Sharp
	Melinda Tilley
	Margaret Turner
	Reg Waite
	Elaine Ware
Totals:
20	24	1

 

Amendment 3 was declared not carried. 

 

 

Amendment 4

 

Councillor Julie Mayhew-Archer proposed, and Councillor Jim Halliday seconded, the following amendment:

 

‘Delete the proposed 2013/14 reduction of funding to the Abingdon Partnership, and give the Partnership notice that it is planned to reduce the funding by £5,000 in 2014/15.’ 

 

Councillor Mayhew-Archer asked Council adopt this modest amendment that would allow the Choose Abingdon Partnership more time to plan and seek funding from other sources.  She considered the partnership to be valuable and good value for money. 

 

Councillor Halliday, in seconding the amendment, believed every organisation needed time to plan and budget its resources.  Any funding cut from the district or the county council would fall on the town council to make up.  He believed a planned, gradual shift in funding patterns would be a better solution. 

 

Some councillors believed that economic development was an important district council function and that the partnership was good value for money in supporting the local economy, and thereby they supported the amendment.  Other councillors pointed to partnership agreement whereby this council matched funds given by the county council and believed that the town council was happy with the funding proposals. 

 

The chairman put amendment 4 to the vote.  In accordance with standing order 29(3), at the request of more than a fifth of councillors present, the chairman asked for a recorded vote.  Votes on the amendment were recorded as follows:

 

For amendment 4	Against amendment 4	Abstentions
Councillors:	Councillors:	Councillors:
Julia Bricknell	John Amys	Sandy Lovatt
Andrew Crawford	Marilyn Badcock	Aidan Melville
Tony de Vere	Mike Badcock	Alison Thomson
Debby Hallett	Matthew Barber
Jim Halliday	Eric Batts
Jane Hanna	Yvonne Constance
Jenny Hannaby	Roger Cox
Bob Johnston	Charlotte Dickson
Angela Lawrence	Gervase Duffield
Pat Lonergan	Jason Fiddaman
Sue Marchant	Anthony Hayward
Julie Mayhew-Archer	Holly Holman
Elizabeth Miles	Simon Howell
Jerry Patterson	Bill Jones
Helen Pighills	MohinderKainth
Judy Roberts	John Morgan
Val Shaw	Michael Murray
Richard Webber	Fiona Roper
John Woodford	Robert Sharp
	Melinda Tilley
	Margaret Turner
	Reg Waite
	Elaine Ware
Totals:
19	23	3

 

Amendment 4 was declared not carried. 

 

 

Amendment 5

 

Councillor Judy Roberts proposed, and Councillor Debby Hallett seconded, the following amendment:

 

‘We wish to allocate a one-off sum for the year 2013/14 of £50,000 for a needs assessment for recreational facilities in north-east Vale.’ 

 

Councillor Roberts believed that as there had been additional housing in the north-eastern Vale, there should be an up-to-date leisure needs survey for that part of the district.  The area had missed out on developer funding for leisure facilities. 

 

Councillor Hallett, in seconding the amendment, believed an evidence base was needed to show leisure need in this area as it was lagging behind other parts of the Vale.  This evidence would help bring in developer contributions to leisure facilities. 

 

Some councillors supported the amendment believing there were fewer facilities in the north-eastern Vale compared to other parts of the district.  Other councillors disagreed, nor did they not consider that the north-east part of the Vale was an area of deprivation.  There were many leisure facilities in the area and nearby in Oxford that local residents used. 

 

In summing up the debate, Councillor Roberts urged Council to support the amendment, thereby spending to gain money from developers. 

 

The chairman put amendment 5 to the vote.  In accordance with standing order 29(3), at the request of more than a fifth of councillors present, the chairman asked for a recorded vote.  Votes on the amendment were recorded as follows:

 

For amendment 5	Against amendment 5	Abstentions
Councillors:	Councillors:	Councillors:
Julia Bricknell	John Amys	Alison Thomson
Andrew Crawford	Marilyn Badcock
Tony de Vere	Mike Badcock
Debby Hallett	Matthew Barber
Jim Halliday	Eric Batts
Jane Hanna	Yvonne Constance
Jenny Hannaby	Roger Cox
Bob Johnston	Charlotte Dickson
Angela Lawrence	Gervase Duffield
Pat Lonergan	Jason Fiddaman
Sue Marchant	Anthony Hayward
Julie Mayhew-Archer	Holly Holman
Elizabeth Miles	Simon Howell
Jerry Patterson	Bill Jones
Helen Pighills	MohinderKainth
Judy Roberts	Sandy Lovatt
Val Shaw	Aidan Melville
Richard Webber	John Morgan
John Woodford	Michael Murray
	Fiona Roper
	Robert Sharp
	Melinda Tilley
	Margaret Turner
	Reg Waite
	Elaine Ware
Totals:
19	25	1

 

Amendment 5 was declared not carried. 

 

 

Amendment 6

 

Councillor Julia Bricknell proposed, and Councillor Judy Roberts seconded, the following amendment:

 

‘Allocate a revenue sum of £100,000 one-off for the year 2013/14 to support and set up youth clubs throughout the Vale.’ 

 

Councillor Bricknell believed that the young people of the district needed better facilities.  Allocating this sum would help support youth clubs and allow new ones to be set up, bringing many benefits to the younger population. 

 

Councillor Roberts, in seconding the amendment, believed this funding would support new play equipment, help secondary school aged children, and provide places for them to go after school. 

 

Some councillors supported the amendment as they believed not enough was spent in support of young people.  Other councillors disagreed, pointing out that this was a county council function and gave examples of good county-run facilities in the Vale.  Some councillors asked how would this money help or set up and sustain youth clubs, believing the amendment lacked detail. 

 

In summing up the debate, Councillor Bricknell believed the amendment would provide additional funds to support the county council’s work. 

 

The chairman put amendment 6 to the vote.  In accordance with standing order 29(3), at the request of more than a fifth of councillors present, the chairman asked for a recorded vote.  Votes on the amendment were recorded as follows:

 

For amendment 6	Against amendment 6	Abstentions
Councillors:	Councillors:	Councillors:
Julia Bricknell	John Amys	Angela Lawrence
Andrew Crawford	Marilyn Badcock	Alison Thomson
Tony de Vere	Mike Badcock
Debby Hallett	Matthew Barber
Jim Halliday	Eric Batts
Jane Hanna	Yvonne Constance
Jenny Hannaby	Roger Cox
Bob Johnston	Charlotte Dickson
Pat Lonergan	Gervase Duffield
Sue Marchant	Jason Fiddaman
Julie Mayhew-Archer	Anthony Hayward
Aidan Melville	Holly Holman
Elizabeth Miles	Simon Howell
Jerry Patterson	Bill Jones
Helen Pighills	MohinderKainth
Judy Roberts	Sandy Lovatt
Val Shaw	John Morgan
Richard Webber	Michael Murray
John Woodford	Fiona Roper
	Robert Sharp
	Melinda Tilley
	Margaret Turner
	Reg Waite
	Elaine Ware
Totals:
19	24	2

 

Amendment 6 was declared not carried. 

 

 

Motion

 

With all six amendments lost, the chairman asked Council to debate the original motion. 

 

Councillor Yvonne Constance, seconder of the motion, believed the budget brought many reasons for celebration.  To start with there was likely to be an underspend in the current year’s revenue budget through careful budget management.  This helped the proposed budget also.  There was no need to cut services this year and money could be returned to balances, prudent saving for a rainy day.  She believed the council should not spend its reserves on every worthy cause.  Instead, grants had been spread evenly across the Vale; partnership funding had been spread evenly too.  The council should also celebrate the successful way it managed multiple flooding events during the winter and she thanked the officers for their efforts. 

 

 

Councillor Richard Webber made his budget speech as leader of the opposition.  He criticised the Conservative group for the lack of clarity during the budget preparation.  For example, the reasons for funding levels for the advice centres were not clear and there had been last minute changes to the Abingdon Partnership funding without explanation.  The draft budget for consultation gave no indication of which growth bids would be taken; and the draft budget only had partial information on new homes bonus.  It was impossible for the public to get a clear view of the council’s true financial position. 

 

He criticised the Cabinet member for finance for suggesting that the draft budget consultation idea to close public toilets was an ‘officer’s budget proposal’, when the Cabinet member had asked officers to produce a list of possible savings.  If the Cabinet had no intention of accepting them, why had they publicised them?  This led to confusion, diverting the public’s attention from the real possible cuts under consideration.  Councillor Webber believed that what went into the public domain for consultation should genuinely be for consultation.  He urged the Cabinet member to reconsider his approach to budget setting in future. 

 

Councillor Webber reported that due to the Liberal Democrat administration’s handling of limited resources in years of difficult circumstances, this Council’s finances were handed over to the new Conservative administration in 2011 in a robust condition.  Hard decisions were taken to achieve this.  However, the new homes bonus had completely changed the picture.  It was largely a misnomer, turning out to be a revenue grant subsidy.  The only new homes bonus to be banked so far was gained through development undertaken whilst the Liberal Democrats were in power.  The budget predicted new homes bonus over the five years of the medium term financial plan of more than £11m – dwarfing any future cuts in future grant funding. 

 

Councillor Webber asked the council to consider the not so lucky councils in other parts of the country.  The Vale remained a place where people wished to live and buy the homes we are building, therefore this council gained the new homes bonus to support its budget.  Others were not so fortunate, where the expected decrease in government subsidy was likely to far exceed any expected new homes bonus.  The current financial position of the council owed everything to the windfall of the new homes bonus.  Without it, things would look different.  Even assuming the average former annual increase in government grant, with no new homes bonus, the council could be in the region of £6-8million in the red by the end of the five-year medium term financial plan.  Councillor Webber believed that Councillor Barber’s budget was far from a budget the result of prudent financial management.  It was the new homes bonus budget, gained at the expense of others.  He believed the coalition government had got many things right, but not this. 

 

Given this council’s good fortune, it had an obligation to use that wisely and attempt to limit some of the pain being felt.  He believed Councillor Barber’s budget had taken few of the savings offered and taken almost all the growth bids requested.  With only very minor tinkering, the rest of the budget was devoid of any initiatives.  The policy seemed to be to sit on all the riches, use them to maintain the status quo, build up the reserves for a rainy day.  However, Councillor Webber reported that there were plenty of people suffering, even in this area.  The budget could have helped the elderly, young people, people struggling to find homes, and still substantially increased the council’s reserves.  The Liberal Democrats’ amendments were an attempt to address some of these issues. 

 

These amendments to the revenue budget had an estimated total revenue impact of £800,000 over the life of the five-year medium term financial plan and allowed for a healthy increase in reserves.  They had been scrutinised by the section 151 officer and had been pronounced affordable. 

 

In addition, Councillor Webber suggested a more imaginative capital budget, such as stimulating usage of the Wantage Leisure Centre by setting aside some capital for the development of a Wantage learner pool.  The budget could have addressed some of the housing problems and home affordability issues we face by researching into, and committing some capital towards affordable council mortgages. 

 

To make all this even more affordable, Councillor Webber urged the ruling group to solve the issue of shared office accommodation.  Under Liberal Democrat control, as a result of shared services, our officer corps was reduced by 50 per cent.  More than three years later, the council’s offices were still underused, and every year the council missed the opportunity to save up to £0.5 million. 

 

Abingdon was suffering and the budget did little to address this issue.  The budget had diverted grants funding away from the Vale’s major market town to the western Vale.  He believed that stimulating Abingdon’s economy by allowing an extra 200 people to occupy spare office capacity would at least be one way of apologising for penalising Abingdon in favour of the west. 

 

Councillor Webber reported that he would oppose the budget because it was unimaginative and represented a rare opportunity missed. 

 

 

It was moved by Councillor Melinda Tilley and seconded by Councillor Sandy Lovatt ‘that the question (the budget motion) be put to the vote immediately’, a closure motion under standing order 26. 

 

The chairman considered that the budget motion had been sufficiently discussed and called for a vote on the closure motion.  However, before doing so, she called on Councillor Barber to sum up the debate. 

 

Councillor Barber believed that the opposition had failed to come up with a coherent alternative to the Cabinet’s budget proposals.  Instead, they had misunderstood the facts on a range of subjects from recycling to finance.  The first job of last year’s budget had been to undo the financial position his party had inherited from the Liberal Democrat group.  He did not intend to go back. 

 

The opposition had proposed further expenditure to make headlines but he believed their proposals had no substance, no idea of how to pay the bills – just raided the piggy bank.  Their proposals would result in cuts and tax rises.  They have been vocal in their opposition to the extremely popular and successful two-hour free parking.  He believed the opposition were lacking credibility.  After years in control with declining finances, they were unable to explain adequately how they would pay for their plans for the future. 

 

Councillor Barber believed there was a better way, as outlined in the Cabinet’s budget proposals.  A vote in support of which was a vote for high quality, value for money services, low taxes and stability for the future.  He commended the budget to the Council. 

 

 

In accordance with standing order 29(3), at the request of more than a fifth of councillors present, the chairman asked for a recorded vote.  Votes on the closure motion were recorded as follows:

 

For the closure motion	Against the closure motion	Abstentions
Councillors:	Councillors:	Councillors:
John Amys	Julia Bricknell	Alison Thomson
Marilyn Badcock	Andrew Crawford
Mike Badcock	Tony de Vere
Matthew Barber	Debby Hallett
Eric Batts	Jim Halliday
Yvonne Constance	Jane Hanna
Roger Cox	Jenny Hannaby
Charlotte Dickson	Bob Johnston
Gervase Duffield	Angela Lawrence
Jason Fiddaman	Pat Lonergan
Anthony Hayward	Sue Marchant
Holly Holman	Julie Mayhew-Archer
Simon Howell	Aidan Melville
Bill Jones	Elizabeth Miles
MohinderKainth	Jerry Patterson
Sandy Lovatt	Helen Pighills
John Morgan	Judy Roberts
Michael Murray	Val Shaw
Fiona Roper	Richard Webber
Robert Sharp	John Woodford
Melinda Tilley
Margaret Turner
Reg Waite
Elaine Ware
Totals:
24	20	1

 

The closure motion was declared carried. 

 

RESOLVED: that the question be put to the vote immediately. 

 

 

The chairman put the budget motion to the Council.  In accordance with standing order 29(3), at the request of more than a fifth of councillors present, the chairman asked for a recorded vote.  Votes on the motion were recorded as follows:

 

For the motion	Against the motion	Abstentions
Councillors:	Councillors:	Councillors:
John Amys	Julia Bricknell	Angela Lawrence
Marilyn Badcock	Andrew Crawford	Alison Thomson
Mike Badcock	Tony de Vere
Matthew Barber	Debby Hallett
Eric Batts	Jim Halliday
Yvonne Constance	Jane Hanna
Roger Cox	Jenny Hannaby
Charlotte Dickson	Bob Johnston
Gervase Duffield	Pat Lonergan
Jason Fiddaman	Sue Marchant
Anthony Hayward	Julie Mayhew-Archer
Holly Holman	Aidan Melville
Simon Howell	Elizabeth Miles
Bill Jones	Jerry Patterson
MohinderKainth	Helen Pighills
Sandy Lovatt	Judy Roberts
John Morgan	Val Shaw
Michael Murray	Richard Webber
Fiona Roper	John Woodford
Robert Sharp
Melinda Tilley
Margaret Turner
Reg Waite
Elaine Ware
Totals:
24	19	2

 

The motion was declared carried. 

 

RESOLVED: to

 

(a)               set the revenue budget for 2013/14 as set out in the Medium Term Financial Plan shown at appendix G of the report of the head of finance to Cabinet on 8 February 2013;

 

(b)               approve the capital programme for 2013/14 to 2017/18 as set out in appendix C to the report of the head of finance to Cabinet on 8 February 2013, together with the capital growth bids set out in appendix D of the report ;

 

(c)               set the council’s prudential limits as listed in appendix F of the report of the head of finance to Cabinet on 8 February 2013; and

 

(d)   approve the medium term financial plan to 2017/18 as set out in appendix G of the report of the head of finance to Cabinet on 8 February 2013. 

(d)