Brent Council Budget and Council Setting meeeting is at 3.30pm tomorrow. Links to full alternative proposals from Tory, Green and Lib Dem Groups

The Council's Budget and Council Setting meeting tomorrow (Monday February 23rd) is the last Full Council Meeting of the Municipal Year. The next meeting will be after the May 7th Council Election and will see the fromation of a new adminstration.

The budget meeting will be at 3.30pm rather than the usual 6pm to allow for Ramadan observation. WATCH LIVE HERE

There is some history attached to the meeting as it will be the first time a Green Group of councillors will present alternative proposals to Labour's budget.

All three opposition groups have submitted alternative proposals and the full details can be found on the links below:

  

·  6.2 Brent Conservative Group Alternative Budget Proposdals 2026 -27, item 6. PDF 604 KB

 

·  6.3 Green Group Alternative Budget Proposals 2026-27, item 6. PDF 462 KB

 

·  6.4 Liberal Democrat Group Alternative Budget Proposals 2026-27, item 6. PDF 284 · 

  

In their introduction to their proposals the Greens say:

 

This Green Group set of budget amendments is not a fully comprehensive view of investment opportunities, cost saving measures or income generation opportunities.
 

Rather, it intends to set core principles for financial prioritisation and a direction of travel based on Green Party values of social and environmental justice.

Our priorities for investment fall within three areas:

1. Aligning with the energy transition away from fossil fuels and ensuring long- term energy resilience

2. Ensuring housing equity for all Brent’s residents including enhanced scrutiny of housing policies and operations and landlord licensing arrangements

3. Protecting and investing in Brent’s Green Spaces, including parks, protected areas of natural interest and pocket parks and other green spaces

Brent Council, as with all local authorities, remains in a local government funding crisis, despite the new Labour government’s funding settlement. There are therefore only hard decisions to be made in terms of cost savings, and it is not within the scope of our budget amendments to scrutinise the spending within service delivery. The Green Party is calling for a radical overhaul of the funding of local government as the present system, including council tax, is regressive and unsustainable.

However, we have proposed cost savings as they relate to internal processes such as removing costs associated with the Mayor and Deputy Mayor role, reducing the number of cabinet members, and a reduction in costly engagement initiatives with a low ROI (Return on Investment).

It is also our position that there are a number of under-utilised avenues for income generation and maximising the council’s assets, some, but not all of which have been costed up as part of these budget amendments. These include expanding CPZs and increasing parking revenue through a mix of increasing the base rate and introducing a variable parking rate which takes into account vehicle size, weight and emissions type, further investment in debt collection initiatives, and ensuring maximum ROI of Brent-owned properties, whilst recognising the social value they add to Brent as well as financial value. Where further exploration is required, we have budgeted for feasibility studies for these initiatives.

These budget amendments propose a modest use of SCIL funding at £2.4m, which will part-fund travel initiatives to enhance active travel and traffic calming measures.   

 

As noted by the Budget Scrutiny Task Group, there is an opportunity to deploy CIL funding more widely to support infrastructure and to offset financial pressures on services, while ensuring the residents that benefit are those most impacted by development across the borough.

 

The Full Paper sets out proposals in detail HERE. Below is a summary. Note that in the first item the sum of £15,000 is for a feasibility study - not a programme of work.

 

Government underfunding means council tax increase, higher council rents and increased charges as Brent Council faces £30m budget gap by 2028-29

 

 

I wrote a while ago that which ever party (or parties) win the May local election in Brent will be faced with a challenging financial situation. They will inherit the 2026-27 budget currently going out to consultation after approval at Monday's Cabinet Meeting.

Although there was plenty of mutual praise anomf Cabinet members there was no disguising the serious financial situation with increasing costs of homelessness accommodation, the Housing Revenue Account  coping with the cost of repairs required by the Social Housing Regulator, increasing costs in Adut and Children's Social Care and the soaring demands on the High Needs Grant for children with SEND, In addition 65% of Brent Council maintained schools are forecasting in-year deficits and facing restructures of staff to reduce costs.

 Meanwhile the Labour Government is still to decide the local government funding settlement and the current confusion over the Budget offers little realistic hope. Green MP Carla Denyer said, 'Local councils continue to be underfunded by the UK Government, and I will keep pushing Labour to give them the funding they need.'

The Brent budget gap is due to rise to £30m by 2028-29:

Apart from growth through increased demand there is also the additional inflation cost;

 To bridge the £10.4m 2026-27 budget gap savings/cuts are proposed to be decided at the Budget Setting Meeting in February 2026:

A 4.99% Council tax increase is proposed (2.99% general, 2% social care) and a 4.8% council rent increase, increased service charges and increased borrowing to bring the Housing Revenue Account into balance:

 

Among proposals to close the budget gap are a saving through challenging procurement costs of £3m, digital including AI innovation £1.43m, service efficiencies of 1% £3.2m, staffing reduction £400k, increased fees and chages £500k, self-service web-forms rather than email £655k, lane rental increase to utility companies £350k , off-street parking charges increased to market rates £130k.  There also be less tolerance of bad debt and an effort to get maximum market rent from Brent properties other than council homes.

Spending currently underway ahead of the May election on roads and tree planting is largely financed as a one-off by the Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy. 

Savings/Cuts proposed 

Hover mouse over foot of extract to enlarge.

 

 

Brent Council has launched a consultation on the proposals: 

Councillor Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, said: 

Many councils continue to operate under severe financial duress. Brent isn’t immune to these challenges, but we have continued to manage our finances responsibly over many, many years, allowing us to protect the frontline services that matter most. 

We are now accelerating our programme to transform the way we work so we can continue to protect essential services. This isn’t an easy task but I’m pleased that most of our £10million financial plan will come from working more efficiently and effectively. If you live or work locally, I urge you to have your say on the proposals. 

Residents, businesses and local partners can share their views on the council’s 2026-27 budget proposals until 30 January 2026.

Questions at Brent Full Council reveal issues for consideration by the Auditor

 

 As predicted the Labour Group with its massive majority pushed through the reduction in Opposition time to speak on the budget at last night's Full Council meeting.

 The cut in Council Tax support was also passed despite hitting the poorest most in the borough's most deprived wards. A few councillors from those wards looked a little embarrassed but none abstained on proposals that had been overwhelmingly rejected by residents in the 'consultation' and expert advice from Brent Citizens' Advice Bureau.

Similarly, the alternative budget proposals by Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups were dismissed and voted down. The 'debate' on the budget was dominated by a 20 speech by Muhammed Butt and a long commentary by Cllr Mili Patel, Cabinet Lead on Finance, about the Tory Prime Ministers of the last decade or more with little additional budget information of interest to Brent resident. They were followed by a troupe of Cabinet Ministers reading speeches from their smart phones.

It was left to a four-minute exchange between the Auditor and Cllr Paul Lorber (Lib Dem Group Leader) to inject something of value into the 2 hours plus meeting.

I have preserved the exchange in the video above (they have a time limited existence on the Council website) as it is of interest in terms of transparency and accountability in the future.

The Auditor said that the issue of £4m loss in the abandoned Stonebridge Altimira project had not been referred to him by the Council. If the evidence was forwarded to the auditors, they would consider if there were any audit actions required.

On the issue of councillors' declarations of gifts and hospitality the Auditor said that they had remarked that they were 'light on detail' in the level of disclosure and that there was scope for more detail to be provided in the more complex arrangements. Readers interested in the fairground and sports and concert ticket giveaways will be pleased that this is receiving attention.

 Lastly, the Auditor said that they had not been asked to consider the Barham Park Trust account but because the Trust was associated with the Council, they could consider them if there were any concerns

 

The wards that will be hit hardest by cuts in Council Tax Support Scheme. Budget cuts, rise in Council Tax and cuts in Council Tax Support will be voted on tonight.

 

Working age claimants of Council Tax Support bu ward

Earlier this month Wembley Matters wrote about Brent Council proposals on  cuts to the Council Tax Support Scheme LINK. Although those changes, which demand that everyone pay something towards Council Tax despite low incomes and the Cost of Living Crisis, were rejected in the public consultation, the Labour Group will approve them at tonight's Full Council. Brent Citizens Advice Bureau tabled a paper that showed the poorest would be hit hardest and that is evidenced by the ward breakdown above,

The cuts amounts to £8m but a £1.5m hardship fund has been proposed. In their budget proposal Lib Dems will propose that this be doubled to £3m.

Cllr Lorber, Lib Dem leader, told Wembley Matters:

It will be interesting how the Councillors from these wards will react and vote.

The changes have of course been implemented in very short time. They could have started discussing this in April 2024. The consultation was pointless as they already decided what they were going to do and no views would be taken into account.

The result is that many residents will be charged Council Tax for the first time or will see a very high increase. The officers predict that  many will not be able to pay and debts will simply rise - and many will need to be written off. In the meantime the individuals concerned will end up with more worry and more stress.

Councillors were presented with this far too late and needless to say when I went to Cabinet no one was listening.

The overall impact on the claimants is £8 million. They are setting up a £1.5 million hardship fund but this is not enough.

The key point is that the claimants have simply not been given enough time to rearrange their affairs. Finding jobs is hard and the extra charges (£600 a year for some) will hit many as a bombshell on 1 April 2025.

 

In our view the changes should have been introduced in a staggered way rather than the massive hit implemented immediately. 

We are therefore proposing that the support is doubled this year to £3 million to provide some help to as many people as possible.

In the past rather than vote against the Budget and Council Tax motion, dissident Labour councillors have left the Council Chamber before the vote is taken, and returned once next business is underway. Tonight this might well be what happens when the Council Tax Support Scheme is discussed.

You can watch the meeting on Brent Live from 6pm HERE

The Budget and Council Tax is Item 6.

Review of the Council Tax Support Scheme Item 8, 

 

 

Brent budget for 2024/25 agreed: Council Tax +4.99%, council rents +7.7%, communal heating +90% and £8m in savings

 The Brent Cabinet yesterday approved the Council budget for 2024-25 with Deputy Leader Cllr Shama Tatler saying it was the worse situation they had encountered yet: 'We didn't come into politics to make these sorts of decisions.'  Cllr Butt stressed that they had to be honest with residents about they decisions they had been forced to make.

The budget includes a council tax rise of 4.99% (2% ring-fenced for Adult Social Care), 7.7% increase in council rents and £8m in 'savings'.

Cllr Anton Georgiou addressing the Cabinet said that the Liberal Democrats would come forward with a 10 point alternative budget. 

Council Tax Bands including GLA Precept

Council rent rises will be at the maximum (CPI+1%=7.7%)

 

Council Service charges including 90% rise for  communal heating and hot water

 

Council garage rents will also rise by 7.7%

 

A 'community impact' levy on Wembley Stadium tickets and a 'green budget' to align climate emergency measure are among 11 recommendations from Brent Budget Task Force

 

 

There is likely to be little change in Brent Council's final budget compared with earlier drafts. Wednesday's meeting of Scrutiny Committee will hear a presentation on the Budget Task Group's recommendations.

A concern repeated from previous years is around accessibility, transparency and clarity. You may recall that they had argued for calling a cut a cut, rather than a saving last year.

In all there are 11 recommendations.  ACE Brent (Action on climate and ecological emergency Brent who have been advocating for more joined up cross-department work on the climate emergency will be pleased with Recommendation 3 on a 'green budget'.  Voluntary organisations will welcome Recommendation 4 that recognises if the Council signposts the sector to mitigate the impact of cuts it should first discuss with them how the mitigations will be delivered in practice.

There is similar common-sense in Recommendation 5 that advocates a strategic approach to income generation while warning of the dangers of over-commercialisation. It  emphasises the importance of complicance with current policies on empty properties and business rates. Recommendation 6 suggests the renting out of Council meeting rooms for external use. There is still a shortage of such spaces to hire in Brent.

Campaigners for the retention of the New Millenium Day Care Centre will be disappointed that  Reccommendation 9 advocates the retention of the building for community use but not as a Day Centre.

An imaginative flourish is Recommendation 10 that suggests a Community Impact Levy on Wembley Stadium tickets.

 FULL REPORT

The Budget Scrutiny Task Group makes the following recommendations to Cabinet. Budget Presentation and Communications

 

Recommendation 1 – Improvements to budget communications:

 

The Task Group acknowledge the improvements that have been made to the consultation and engagement process following the Budget Scrutiny Task Group Review 2023/24, but believes further work is still needed to better communicate to residents what the vision, mission, aims and priority protection areas of the upcoming Budget are. This also includes ensuring communications meet agreed accessibility standards, such as writing documents in plain English in line with the average Brent reading age. These revisions will help build a greater understanding of the priority areas safeguarded in the proposals and enable residents to provide more meaningful/influential consultation feedback. As an example the Task Group received evidence that there was only one proposal from the Housing portfolio as the Council had made a concerted effort to protect housing services and the most vulnerable; Although it could be assumed that an area not featured in the proposals would be protected, such information should be made clearer in the draft Budget for the lay person. The Task Group recommend that the Council includes a concise, summary page in the Budget (and in future budgets), adopting more accessible language which makes it clear what its vision, aims, and priority protection areas are.

 

Recommendation 2 – Developing clearer and concise proposals:

 

Some of the proposals are generally vague and lack clarity around the possible impact(s) on residents and partners (e.g. 2024-25 CR02, 2024-25 FR02, 2024-25 RS21, 2024-25 CHW03, 2025-26 CHW02 etc.) The Task Group recommend that the Council review the proposals ahead of publication of the final Budget to ensure that the final proposals and their possible impact(s) can be clearly understood and are accessible to all Brent residents. This review could be actioned collaboratively with a lay-panel (e.g. resident focus group) and in future years by including additional questions in the consultation. These suggestions could also help achieve recommendation 1.

 

Recommendation 3 - Alignment with climate action commitments in Borough Plan 2023-27:

 

Building on the recommendation made as part of the Budget Scrutiny Task Group Review 2023/24, there still needs to be greater alignment between the draft Budget and the Borough Plan 2023-27, particularly in relation to climate action. The Task Group appreciates changes being made to the corporate reporting template to include a ‘Climate Change and Environmental Considerations’ section - this good practice should also be applied in the budget setting process. The Task Group recommend that the Council adopt a ‘green budget’ which clearly outlines the climate and environment implications of each proposal. This will assist the Council in its urgent climate commitments, including  the goal to become Carbon Net Zero by 2030.

 

Stronger Partnership Working with the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS)

 

Recommendation 4 - Shared Outcomes Framework:

 

Although the Council has understandably prioritised protecting the VCS and frontline services over other areas in its proposed budget, there is scope for stronger partnership working with the sector. During the Stakeholder Session (please see section 3), VCS partners expressed concerns that mitigations proposed in the draft Budget were centred around signposting to the VCS, however there had been no discussion or collaboration around how these mitigations would be delivered or achieved in practice.

 

The Task Group recommend that the Council explores a shared-outcomes framework with the voluntary sector for the benefit of residents/service users. As part of this work, the Council should urgently discuss and collaborate with the VCS in relation to budget proposals that involve them and/or may have an impact on their service provision.

 

This discussion could build on the Task Group’s recommendation from the Budget Scrutiny Task Group Review 2023/24 which suggested a collaborative strategy with the VCS to enable these organisations to identify and secure new income streams.

 

A shared-outcomes approach could avoid future service cuts, avoid service duplication and save the Council money long-term. Additionally, it would ensure that a consistent dialogue is maintained with the VCS throughout each financial year around issues like council budgets rather than the current approach which has meant budget discussions with the sector take place after proposals have already been drafted.

 

 

Income Generation

 

Recommendation 5 – Establishing a strategic approach to income generation:

 

The Task Group commend the Council’s creativity/efforts to generate additional income to bolster its finances, and particularly welcomes proposals such as 2024-25 FR01, 2024-25 RS13, and 2024-25 RS14. However, more could be done to generate even more income.

 

The Task Group recommend that the Council develops a longer-term, strategic approach to income generation (accompanied with yearly action plans) rather than focusing on piecemeal proposals year to year. The strategy should include a robust monitoring process that enables holistic working across all departments to create synergies for income generation. Specifically, allocating a dedicated, cross-  departmental resource to work across the Council to investigate and identify additional opportunities for income generation e.g. compliance with mandatory HMO licensing, compliance with council tax on empty properties, and business rates evasion.

 

Establishing a longer-term approach will help the Council to be more resourceful and self-sufficient in the absence of large central government funding pots. Strategic interventionscould enable the Council to address areas of improvement in its operations and recoup income that would have been otherwise due, as well as identify new creative ways of generating income. The Task Group however recognise a balanced approach must be adopted that ensures the Council does not become over-commercialised and learns from local authorities that have experienced financial difficulties (i.e. entered s114 territory2) due to certain commercial choices.

 

Recommendation 6 – Renting out Civic Centre meeting rooms:

 

The Task Group acknowledge the efforts the Council has made to rent out spaces in the Civic Centre to generate additional income, however believes there are additional opportunities that can be realised. The Task Group recommend that additional space, specifically meeting rooms, in the Civic Centre are made available for external hire given that staff no longer work 5 days per week in the office. To complement this suggestion, some council meetings could be moved outside of the Civic Centre to be held in other community assets in the borough.

 

Not only could this recommendation generate additional income, but it could provide residents and businesses with office space and workspace solutions in the heart of the borough. It could also encourage members/officers to increase their use of other community facilities in the borough and spread the Council’s visibility more equally throughout the borough.

 

Recommendation 7 – Implementing additional shared service arrangements:

 

The Council’s efforts to generate additional income by offering shared services to other local authorities are welcomed. Notable examples include proposal 2025-26 CYP04 which intends to sell additional respite bed nights to other local authorities at the Ade Adepitan Short Break Centre. Another instance is the formation of the Shared Technology Services (STS), an IT shared service for the councils of Brent, Lewisham and Southwark, whereby Brent is the host borough for the service. The Task Group recommend that the Council explores further opportunities for shared service arrangements, learning lessons from its current arrangements and from good practice of the shared service models that already exist across the country.

 

It is acknowledged that there is not a single model that suits all councils, localities, or types of service provision, and that this recommendation will take time to scope out. However, if delivered effectively, the Council would be able to generate additional income, reduce duplication, potentially increase investment in services, and reimagine services to better meet the needs of residents.

 

Lobbying and Advocacy

 

Recommendation 8 - Housing Subsidy Loss:

 

Although the Task Group welcomes the increase to Local Housing Allowance rates via the Autumn Statement 2023, further pro-active work could still be carried out with neighbouring local authorities, London Councils, and the Local Government Association (LGA) to seek reform to the Housing Benefit Subsidy rules. The Task Group recommend that the Council works with the above mentioned associations to lobby for positive change to the Housing Benefit subsidy rules which currently caps the amount the Council can claim back from the Department of Work & Pensions (DWP) to 90% of the 2011 LHA rates per household for TA provided, and which places financially onerous restrictions on the types of TA the Council can provide to be eligible for housing benefit subsidy. Such reform would enable Brent to significantly reduce its overspends, and to have access to a wider pool of affordable temporary accommodation to deal with increased demand in homelessness.

 

Recommendation 9 – Retaining use of New Millennium Day Centre

 

The Task Group accept that alternative provision will be put in place to mitigate the impacts of ceasing use of the New Millennium Day Centre. It would nevertheless be disappointing to lose a vital space in the borough that brings local communities together and which allows the Council to achieve its 'Borough of Culture' legacy ambitions. The Task Group recommend that the Council explores options to retain the building for community use.

 

Recommendation 10 – Wembley Stadium: 'Community Impact' Ticket Levy:

 

The Task Group welcome the financial contributions made by Wembley Stadium towards the Council’s event day management costs (e.g. cleansing and waste management, highways management, enforcement etc.), however recognise that these contributions do not cover the full extent of the costs incurred by the Council for its operations on event days.

The Task group recommend that the Council explores options with the Stadium for a ticket levy, whereby the Council receives a proportion of each ticket sale in order to fully recover costs incurred or to provide for further enhancement of the Council’s event day operations.

 

Recommendation 11 - Delegation of budgets and decision making to Brent Integrated Care Partnership (ICP):

 

The Task Group note that the success of many of the proposals are dependent on effective partnership working with health partners (e.g. 2024-25 CHW01, 2024-25 CHW03, 2025-26 CHW03, 2025-26 CYP06 etc). It was heard that the established working arrangements and governance in the Brent ICP provide opportunities for closer working between the Council and NHS partners. These working arrangements have enabled health funding to be transferred to Adult Social Care to support residents and the local health and care system.

However, the Task Group understand that the centralisation of decisions on NHS budgets away from the borough to North West London Integrated Care Board (NWL ICB) has reduced the ability of the Brent ICP to address local needs and may have increased future demand on the system. For example, in accordance with ICB processes, the ICP has submitted robust business cases for paediatric continence services, nursing provision for children in special schools, and to manage pressures on CYP and adult mental health services. All of these business cases are still awaiting a decision after many months, while need continues to increase.

 

The Task Group recommend that the Council continues to advocate and make the case to NWL ICB for both a better alignment of NHS resources to population need and for an increased delegation of budgets and decision making to Brent ICP.

 

Not only would devolution to place allow for more effective collaboration between the Council and local health partners but it would also allow for implementation of service change at greater pace. Additionally, the Task Group is of the view that the ICP is better able than NWL to tailor services to the needs of Brent’s diverse communities with greater flexibility to respond to changing needs or circumstances.

Brent Consultation on Adult Social Care opens - reduction in minimum income guarantee and increased charges. Will safeguards be enough?

 

Cllr Neil Nerva, Brent Cabinet Member for Public Health and Adult Social Care

 

Brent Council opened consultation on changes in Adult Social Care charges on Thursday that propose a reduction in the minimum income guarantee support and increased charges for service users.  This will reduce Brent Council spending on Adult Social Care overall. Adult Social Care is the biggest area of Council spending.

 

Attempting to put a positive gloss on the proposals, Councillor Neil Nerva, Cabinet Member for Public Health & Adult Social Care, said:

These proposals for the charging policy are essential to ensure that we can continue to deliver a high-quality Adult Social Care service for years to come. If adopted Brent’s Adult Social Care charging policy would still be one of the most generous in London but it would be more consistent and sustainable for future years.

The Council said:

The proposed changes to the charging policy are essential to ensure the council can continue to provide the Adult Social Care services thousands of residents rely on in a sustainable way for years to come.

The proposals include:

• Changes to the minimum income guarantee – There is a minimum level of income which a person must be left with after charges are taken. This changes according to a person’s circumstances. Currently, Brent tops this up by 25%. It is proposed to reduce this to 10%. This change only affects the half of service users that contribute towards the cost of their homecare and these people will still receive 10% more than the minimum level of income they need to live, which would be one of the most generous schemes in London. The consultation will ask whether this should be implemented in full in April 2024, or phased over time.
• Increasing the amount charged to service users if they do not participate or cooperate with their financial assessment – The vast majority of service users take part in the financial assessment process, but if after four weeks they do not, it is proposed they are charged the full cost of their care. The average care cost will also be raised for financial assessments that take longer than expected to complete. The consultation will ask whether residents agree with this proposal.
• Increasing the hourly rate charged for homecare from £12.97, which will increase annually – This will impact self-funders (people who pay the total cost of their care) and some people on low incomes who have a small care package, however everyone will be re-assessed to ensure they can afford to pay. The consultation will ask what steps the council should take to support those affected.
• Charges during admissions to hospital – Proposals include not reimbursing service users for the cost of their adult social care while they are in hospital, for up to seven days if they receive homecare, or 28 days if they are in a residential or nursing home

 

In only the second proposal are residents given the opportunity to reject it outright. Public consultation meetings will be arranged to discuss the proposals.

 

More information is available on the Consultation website LINK . This includes a Powerpoint presentation from which I have extracted some case studies below:

 

 

The Council seek to reassure service users:

Share your thoughts on the consultation by Sunday 17 December. The council will then review all feedback and present the final proposals to Brent’s Cabinet in January. The earliest that any changes will take effect is April 2024.

Brent Finance Chief issues grim warning on Council finances

 The Brent Corporate Director of Finance and Resources has issued a grim warning on the Council's financial situation following a significant over-spend on the housing service caused by a high level of demand due to increased homelessness, reduced supply of suitable temporary accommodation and subsequent higher costs. The forecast spend of £16.3m is nearly five times the original budget.

The Director informs the Cabinet that the 'seriousness of the Council's financial position cannot be understated' and stresses the need for more measures than had been planned in order to control expenditure to address the underlying issue that 'the  Council's net expenditure is significanty greater than the available sources of in-year funding'. 

Extracts from the report (Full Report that is available HERE)

The Council’s revised General Fund revenue budget for 2023/24 is £291.2m. The revised budget includes planned revenue savings in-year of £13.5m and the status of these are set out in Appendix A. There is a forecast overspend of £13.4m against the revised revenue budget at Quarter 2. If sustained until the year end, this would require a transfer from unallocated reserves.

 

Equally, any overspending not dealt with in 2023/24 would, potentially, carry over into 2024/25 thereby increasing the requirement for further savings in that year whilst at the same time providing reduced scope to draw on the Council’s reserves.

 

The seriousness of the Council’s financial position cannot be understated.

 

The scale of the financial challenge for 2023/24 and 2024/25 is such that, in addition to work currently underway to implement savings in 2023/24 and to identify new savings proposals for 2024/25 and 2025/26, the Council will need to implement further measures to control expenditure in order to address the underlying issue that the Council’s net expenditure is significantly greater than available sources of in year funding. Further details on these measures are set out below.

 

Local government is facing the most challenging financial environment for many decades. Many councils are overspending and depleting their reserves; most are experiencing the adverse effects of high inflation, high interest rates and significant increases in demand due to demographic changes. Some are even declaring bankruptcy by issuing s114 notices. Concerns about future levels of government funding are widespread. Against this backdrop, Brent has maintained a strong position in terms of financial resilience and sustainability with a good track record of delivering savings and balancing the overall budget. However, the position for 2023/24 has worsened significantly and the current forecast will require the Council to take urgent actions in the short and medium term to maintain financial control.

 

The main cause of the forecast overspend is within the Housing Service, where high levels of demand due to a rise in homelessness and reduction in supply of suitable accommodation are expected to result in an overspend of over £13m. Section 3.8 of this reports sets out the Council’s strategy in dealing with the  significant increase in costs of providing temporary accommodation for those homeless people to whom the Council owe a legal duty. While Brent is not in the financial situation of those Council’s that have recently issued, or threatened to issue, a Section 114 notice (legally required when the council cannot balance its budget, unlike the NHS and other parts of the public sector councils are not allowed to carry a deficit) all efforts must be focussed on positively changing the financial position.

 

In addition to these actions and the additional oversight provided by the Budget Assurance Panel, further measures are considered necessary to prevent the situation worsening. These will include, but are not limited to, controls on new spending decisions, limits on new recruitment, reduction in the use of agency workers, bringing forward in year savings and other mitigations to reduce expenditure. These sensible, proactive and prudent measures will provide more assurance over the Council’s spending decisions and reduce the risk that the budget position deteriorates further. These measures will remain in place until the end of the financial year, and updates provided to the Cabinet in future forecast reports and budget reports.

 

The report also includes updates on the viability of two major projects:

 

The Wembley Housing Zones project is expected to experience a viability pressure when updating the project plans to meet potential fire safety regulations. Work is already underway with the contractor, Wates, to reduce the impact of any changes required. The Morland Garden project is experiencing significant viability challenges whilst also being subject to a significant delay in the project delivery timescales dependent on the outcome of the public inquiry in relation to the stopping up order.

 

Link to 3.8 on action on Temporary Accommodation

Brent Budget and Council Tax rise approved by Full Council

 

The Mayor bids farewell at the end of the Council Budget Setting Meeting

Last night's Full Council that set next year's budget and council tax proceeded along familiar lines and of course the Labour Group budget and the rise in Council Tax were approved and opposition amendments to the budget defeated.

So many councillors wanted to make their well-rehearsed speeches that the session had to be extended and other items, including the rise in Councillor Allowances and the Borough Plan, were disposed of without debate.

Some Labour members managed to simultaneously argue that the Council's financial base had been devastated by cuts in funding but that the budget was the best thing since sliced bread and would be welcomed by flag waving Brent citizens.  Many seemed to have missed the memo from the Budget Scrutiny Group that when the Council had to make service cuts that these should be acknowledged as such.

Others did not seem able to differentiate between budget amendments, that left most of the proposed Labour budget intact, and a comprehensive alternative budget. The latter was not proposed in the Liberal Democrat amendment but somehow the Lib Dem involvement in the 2010 Coalition meant that their proposals (supported by Budget Scrutiny) on street and road repairs could be dismissed without serious consideration.

The opposition were blamed for not not making their proposals early in the budget making process although one of the main issues, the £2m allocated for the Civic Centre update, was only announced recently.

Speeches were peppered with tributes to outgoing Brent CEO Carolyn Downs who as usual performed her role of whispering guidance to the Mayor over proceedings with quiet skill.

 

 

Brent Tories propose 2% Council Tax, deletion of 2 Cabinet members, ending of Landlord Incentive Scheme and Abolition of Resident Support Fund,

 The budget proposal from Labour Brent Council have previously been covered on Wembley Matters and last week I reported the Liberal Democrat Group's proposed amendment.

Today it is the turn of the Conservative Group with a considerable shorter document and a comment by Brent's Finance Director.

Their main proposals are to limit the rise in Council Tax to the ring-fenced Adult Social Care portion, delete 2 Cabinet positions, end the Landlord Incentive Scheme used to help landlords provide homes to homeless people and abolish the Resident Support Fund that is used to help people facing financial problems due to the cost of living crisis. They do not attempt to justify the latter.

Conservative Group Amendment to the Council’s Budget Proposals 2023/24

The Council is asked to consider the following alternative budget for 2023/24:
Propose to increase Council tax by 2% only, with the full amount ring fenced for Adult Social Care.

This proposal will generate income of £146.6m, compared to £150.8m generated with the planned increase of 4.99%, leaving a shortfall of £4.2m

The proposal means a Brent Council Tax of £1,447.83 at Band D for 2023/24
compared to the Labour proposal for £1,490.31.

The Council notes the following:

· The Conservatives have always been and still are the party of lower rates of
taxation through responsible policies and budgeting, meaning that people will
have more money in their pockets to spend and save as they wish.

 
· The Conservative have always proposed to tax the residents less leaving more
money in their pockets to spend and save as they wish.

 
· Council tax increased by 3.99% in 2016/17, 3.99% in 2017/18, 4.99% in 2018/19, 4.99% in 2019/20, 3.99% in 2020/21, 3.99% in 2021/22 and 2.99% in 2022/23.

Prior to this council tax was frozen. Therefore, since 2016, council tax has increased by over 40% (£431.37) overall.

Propose to remove the landlord incentive and save £1.1m.

The Council’s Landlords Incentive Scheme is designed to give money to Landlords as an incentive to rent their properties to people who have been evicted from their homes and who cannot ordinarily afford to live in the borough. There are many people who work hard, pay their bills and taxes but have to live outside Brent because they cannot afford to live in the borough. We feel that it is wrong to subsidise private landlords in this way. It also acts as an incentive to keep rents artificially high. It is therefore our proposal to scrap this scheme.

Propose to delete two Cabinet members, forego an annual increase in allowance
of 4.04% and save £0.08m.

It is proposed to delete two Cabinet members and re-distribute portfolios to existing Cabinet members. In addition it is proposed to not take forward a planned increase in members allowance of 4.04%. This would save approximately £0.08m.

Propose to discontinue the Resident Support Fund and save £3m.

Councillor Suresh Kansagra

Leader of the Conservative Group

 

Advice from the Director of Finance

Senior finance support has been provided to assist the Conservative Group to
formulate an alternative budget that reflects their policy priorities.

The Alternative Budget proposed by the Conservative Group would be a legal,
balanced budget for 2023/24, although it is recognised that this carries financial risk.

The potential implications for 2024/25 and beyond have not been considered as part of these proposals.

 

The table below sets out the proposed changes to the 2023/24 budget

 

 

The proposals that are considered material relate to Council Tax, landlord incentives and the Resident Support Fund.

It is proposed to increase Council Tax by 2% only in 2023/24, reflecting the Adult Social Care precept where the funding would be ring fenced for Adult Social Care.

Given the current Administration is proposing to increase Council Tax by the maximum amount allowed by the Government of 4.99%, this proposal would create a budget gap of £4.2m.

In order to close this gap, it is proposed to reduce expenditure planned in 2023/24 by removing the landlord incentives budget and discontinuing the Resident Support Fund.

The council currently spends approximately £1.1m per annum on landlord incentives.

The budget is used to procure properties to end the homeless duty, and so move
people out of temporary accommodation which is typically more expensive. It is also used to procure properties to prevent homelessness and therefore stop people going into temporary accommodation in the first instance. Consequently, reducing this budget may result in higher temporary accommodation costs if alternative housing cannot be secured outside of the borough. Therefore, this proposal carries some risk with regards to additional spend elsewhere in the Council’s budget and may require a short term use of reserves to contain additional spend on temporary accommodation.

 

The draft 2023/24 budget allocated a further £3m to continue the current Resident Support Fund. It is proposed to remove this budget and discontinue the scheme to save £3m. While this scheme is discretionary, it may have unintended consequences for residents who experience financial hardship under the current economic environment and cost of living crisis.

Minesh Patel

Director of Finance