Agenda item

THE FINANCIAL PLAN 2024/2028 AND COUNCIL TAX RESOLUTION 2024/25  (Document attached)

 

Pursuant to Minute CAB116: Financial Plan2023/2028of the Cabinet Meeting held on 7 February 2024, the “Financial Plan 2023/2028 and Council Tax Resolution 2024/2025” the document attached as a supplementary to the agenda for consideration and decision includes an updated summary of the Financial Plan 2023/2028, the County Council, the Police and Crime Commissioner - Council Tax for 2024/2025 and details of Parish Precepts and Internal Drainage Boards levies for 2024/2025. 

 

NOTE:In accordance with Statutory Instrument 2014 No. 165, Local Government, England, The Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, any decision taken on the Council’s Budget or Council Tax setting must be taken with a recorded vote.

 

Other Cabinet recommendations from 7 February 2024 with reports also attached as they were updated following the meeting:

 

CAB117: Capital Strategy 2024/25

 

CAB118:  Treasury Management Strategy 2024/25 – to include CAB96: Council Companies Funding

 

CAB119 Capital Programme 2024/2028 – to include CAB106: Lynnsport 1

 

 

 

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube

 

FINANCIAL PLAN 2024/2028 AND COUNCIL TAX RESOLUTION 2024/25 

 

Pursuant to Minute CAB116: Financial Plan2023/2028of the Cabinet Meeting held on 7 February 2024, the “Financial Plan 2023/2028 and Council Tax Resolution 2024/2025” the document attached as a supplementary to the agenda for consideration and decision included an updated summary of the Financial Plan 2023/2028, the County Council, the Police and Crime Commissioner - Council Tax for 2024/2025 and details of Parish Precepts and Internal Drainage Boards levies for 2024/2025. 

 

NOTE:          In accordance with Statutory Instrument 2014 No. 165, Local Government, England, The Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, any decision taken on the Council’s Budget or Council Tax setting must be taken with a recorded vote.

 

Councillor Morley proposed the Financial Plan 2024/2028 and Council Tax resolution 2024/2025.  He thanked the S151 Officer and her team for their hard work on the budget. In proposing it he commented that the budget would assist in delivering the priorities in accordance with the new Corporate Plan.  He informed Council it was a fully funded budget for the years 2024/25 and 2025/26 without cuts to services, and if Business Rates continued to be delivered at the current rate then it could be fully funded un 2026/2027.  It was hoped that Government changes to IDB funding would be made in the future which would assist in building back some reserves.  Councillor Morley also highlighted that the Cost Management Income Generation Plan could present a further saving of £2m in 2026/2027.

 

He referred to the increase in fees and charges which were not increased the previous year, and presented 1 amendment in the parking charges for weekly holiday parking which was omitted from the published schedule, but was taken into account in the estimates.

 

He reminded Members that work was under way to convert the King’s Lynn Area Consultative Committee to a formal area committee which would permit them to have a budget to spend.

 

Councillor Morley proposed the increase to Council tax of £4.50, plus 50p on special expenses.

 

The proposed Budget was seconded by Councillor Parish.

 

The Deputy Mayor asked if there were any proposed amendments to the budget set out.  Councillor Joyce confirmed he had 8 amendments to put.

 

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube

 

1)     £50,000 from the General Reserve Fund as a donation to local foodbanks. 

 

This was seconded by Councillor Everett.  Councillor Morley and Parish accepted the amendment, which then became part of the substantive motion.

 

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube

 

2)     £50,000 from the General Reserve Fund as a donation to voluntary sector organisations that has their main aim to combat domestic abuse and violence

 

This was seconded by Councillor Spikings.  Councillor Morley, whilst supporting the request, but without knowing any detail of where the money would be going, could not agree the amendment.  Councillor Parish concurred that at this stage he could not agree the proposal without more information.  He drew attention to the support given by the housing team working with the Domestic Abuse Alliance.  He explained that the support would be considered as part of the homeless and abuse policies later in the year.

 

Councillor Dark supported the spirit of the amendment, but questioned the late submission of the amendment.  He drew attention to the review of SLAs being carried out.

 

Councillors Kemp, de Winton and Lawrence spoke in favour of the amendment.

 

Councillor Bone, whilst considering the amendment worthy, he drew attention to the lateness of the amendments, as he considered it would be better to give it to a charity to pay their wages.

 

Councillor Rust commented that the donation would not make a body financially stable when they were competing for funding.  She drew attention to the availability of funding currently available for such causes through the Health and Wellbeing Partnership. 

 

Councillor Devulapalli agreed with the expressions of support, but the Council should not be making such decisions off the cuff under pressure to do so.

 

Councillor Spikings spoke in support of the amendment to support those who lived in fear.

 

Councillor Morley, drew attention to the review of the SLAs of charities given funding.  He drew attention to the funding of domestic abuse was already made.

 

The amendment was put to a recorded vote:

 

For	Against	Abstain
Ayres	Anota
Barclay	Beal
Bartrum	Beales
Blunt	Bearshaw
Bubb	Bland
Coates	Bone
Collingham	Bullen
Crofts	Colwell
Dark	Devulapalli
Dickinson	Heneghan
Everett	Lintern
Hodson	Lowe
Humphrey	Moriarty
Jones	Morley
Joyce	Nash
Kemp	Osborne
Kirk	Parish
Lawrence	Ratcliffe
Long	Ring
Rose	Rust
Sandell	Ryves
Sayers	Squire
Spikings	Ware
Storey	De Whalley
Tyler
De Winton
26	24	0

 

The amendment was carried so would form part of the substantive motion.

 

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube

 

Councillor Joyce proposed the following amendment and spoke in support of it.  It was seconded by Councillor Kemp who spoke in support.

 

3)     £30,000 from this year's underspend to the Night Shelter to be paid to the Night Shelter on the 1^st of October with a possible clawback of £5,000 a month for any full calendar months from that date the Night Shelter is closed before 31^st March 2025.

 

Councillor Morley and Parish did not accept the amendment.  Councillor Parish spoke against the amendment and gave background to the issue where there was already money set aside for it providing they amended the way they operated as the Council was aiming to keep people off the streets.

 

Councillor Rust spoke of the detail on the costing of the night shelter and the work underway with partners to provide intensive wrap around support for the homeless.  She explained that if the Night Shelter met the aims and objectives they could access the funding.

 

Councillor Dark spoke in support of the amendment and drew attention to comments made regarding their solvency, which would make getting funding harder.  He commented that King’s Lynn needed the night shelter rather than additional council staff.  He referred to clients being signposted to the Night Shelter.

 

Councillor Rust explained that clients would only be signposted to it if the client specifically requested.

 

Councillor Bearshaw expressed disappointment that the amendment was raised at the last minute when the budget had been discussed for months.

 

Councillor Bone felt it was not appropriate for him to vote on the matter given his involvement with a partner organisation.

 

Councillor Moriarty drew attention to the absence of mention of an SLA, as Councillors had a responsibility to handle finances carefully.

 

Councillor Ring drew attention to the costs per bed within the Shelter and reminded members that it would be supported when it was complying with the Council’s requests to work towards getting rough sleepers out of the situation.

 

Councillor Dickinson drew attention to the fact the amendment was not a permanent adjustment to the budget.

 

Councillor Long supported the amendment.

 

Councillor Ware re-iterated that where tax payers money was being spent it required good governance.  She drew attention to the fact the money was available if there was compliance with the Council’s requirements.

 

Councillor Ryves did not support the amendment which was brought as such short notice requesting the council to randomly spend money.

 

Councillor Devulapalli supported the need to eradicate rough sleeping, but did not agree to the proposed approach which had not been well thought out and was point scoring.

 

Councillor Lawrence commented on different opinions being expressed.  He supported the amendment.

 

Councillor Nash drew attention to high cost of the Night Shelter for the number of beds available.  He considered the preferred policy approach was well considered, so would not be supporting the amendment.

 

In summing up Councillor Morley clarified that the money was already available, but he wanted to help rough sleepers in a constructive way.

 

A recorded vote was taken on the amendment.

 

For	Against	Abstain
Ayres	Anota	Barclay
Blunt	Bartrum	Bone
Bubb	Beal	Collingham
Coates	Beales	Crofts
Dark	Bearshaw	Everett
Dickinson	Bland	Jones
Hodson	Bullen	Rose
Humphrey	Colwell
Joyce	Devulapalli
Kemp	Heneghan
Kirk	Lintern
Lawrence	Lowe
Long	Moriarty
Spikings	Morley
Storey	Nash
Tyler	Osborne
De Winton	Parish
	Ratcliffe
	Ring
	Rust
	Ryves
	Sandell
	Sayers
	Squire
	Ware
	De Whalley
17	26	7

 

The amendment was lost.

 

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube

 

Councillor Joyce proposed the following amendment, seconded by Councillor Everett.  Councillor Joyce spoke in support of setting up such a service as he considered parishes were having problems recruiting clerks:

 

4)     £20,000 from the General Fund to support parish councils who are unable or do not wish to engage a full time clerk.  The full amount to be refunded to the General Fund when parish councils engage the Borough Council's own clerking service which when set up will be self funding.

 

Councillor Beales spoke against the amendment quoting Gayton who had no difficulty appointing a new high quality clerk.

 

Councillors Morley and Parish did not accept the amendment.  Councillor Morley drew attention to the Association of Parish Clerks who provided training for Clerks.  He drew attention to the question of resource.

 

Councillor Parish referred to the meetings he held with parish councils where he had increased the support for parishes on legal and code of conduct issues.  He referred to NALC who had made it clear that they provided support including emergency clerking for parishes and provided them with training and support.  The Parishes present were happy with that resource.

 

Councillor Long spoke against the amendment, reminding members that Parish Councils were sovereign authorities and it was not for the council to provide them with the services of a clerk, or the budget debate to make the suggestion.

 

Councillor Moriarty expressed the view that the problems his parishes experienced were more for getting councillors to stand, or how they were sometimes treated.

 

Councillor Lintern explained that there was a process for parishes to get support from NALC and assistance with finding a qualified clerk.

 

Councillor Dark agreed with the comment regarding parishes being sovereign bodies, and the budget meeting not being the place to discuss the issue.

 

Councillor de Winton reminded members that being a Parish Clerk was a paid job which he felt it easier to recruit for the more affluent parishes, but others had problems.

 

Councillor Kemp did not support the amendment as the service was provided by NALC.

 

The amendment was put to a recorded vote.

 

For	Against	Abstain
Joyce	Anota	Everett
	Ayres	Jones
	Barclay
	Bartrum
	Beal
	Beales
	Bearshaw
	Bland
	Blunt
	Bone
	Bubb
	Bullen
	Coates
	Collingham
	Colwell
	Crofts
	Dark
	Devulapalli
	Dickinson
	Heneghan
	Hodson
	Humphrey
	Kemp
	Kirk
	Lawrence
	Lintern
	Long
	Lowe
	Moriarty
	Morley
	Nash
	Osborne
	Parish
	Ratcliffe
	Ring
	Rust
	Ryves
	Sandell
	Sayers
	Spikings
	Squire
	Storey
	Tyler
	Ware
	De Whalley
	De Winton
1	47	2

 

The amendment was lost.

 

At 18:43 Council adjourned to 18:52

 

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube

 

Councillor Joyce proposed the following amendment, he spoke in support it.  It was seconded by Councillor Everett:

 

5)     £10,000 from General Fund with £7,000 to training budget to train community safety accredited scheme civil enforcement personnel to manage traffic during events such as the Gaywood Remembrance Parade and the Pride Parade.  As a contingency £3,000 to the Civics Budget to cover both parades this year with private CSAS companies for the 2 parades identified should training not have taken place by the time these parades take place.

 

Councillors Morley and Parish did not support the amendment.  Councillor Morley drew attention to the proposals for the King’s Lynn Area Consultative Committee (KLACC) which would be able to consider such funding matters in a scheduled fashion.

 

Councillor Bone also considered that this was not the correct way to consider this matter.

 

Councillor Dark stated that he thought asking local councillors to pay for the event from their Councillors Community Grants (CCG) should not happen again and the allocation of a budget to KLACC was a better route.

 

Councillor Rust declared an interest in the reference to the Pride March, but spoke about the Gaywood remembrance service which she states she was proud to have contributed to from her CCG.   She did not consider that the suggestion to get staff and volunteers to undertake the lengthy and expensive training was a good idea.

 

The amendment was put to a recorded vote.

 

For	Against	Abstain
Everett	Anota	Jones
Joyce	Ayres
	Barclay
	Bartrum
	Beal
	Beales
	Bearshaw
	Bland
	Blunt
	Bone
	Bubb
	Bullen
	Coates
	Collingham
	Colwell
	Crofts
	Dark
	Devulapalli
	Dickinson
	Heneghan
	Hodson
	Humphrey
	Kemp
	Kirk
	Lawrence
	Lintern
	Long
	Lowe
	Moriarty
	Morley
	Nash
	Osborne
	Parish
	Ratcliffe
	Ring
	Rust
	Ryves
	Sandell
	Sayers
	Spikings
	Squire
	Storey
	Tyler
	Ware
	De Whalley
	De Winton
2	47	1

 

The amendment was lost.

 

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube

 

Councillor Joyce proposed the following amendment seconded by Councillor Everett.  Councillor Joyce spoke in favour of the amendment.

 

6)     £70,000 from General Fund to introduce a free collection service of bulky household waste items.  It is envisaged in future years this will have a positive rather negative effect on budgets through £20,000 from the reduction in fly-tipping and £60,000 by the introduction of a paid service to private landowners who become the victim of fly-tipping.

 

Councillors Morley and Parish did not support the amendment.

 

Councillor Squire spoke against the amendment drawing attention to the much higher cost of the amendment than stated in it, along with the contractual issues it would raise.  She drew attention to the need for households to take responsibility for their waste.

 

Councillor Dark supported the spirit of the proposal, but did not consider this the right place to debate it.  He drew attention to the increase in resources tackling fly tipping. 

 

Councillor Beales did not agree with the amendment.  He acknowledged that there would be a cost to low income families.  He considered the proposal put forward ill thought out suggested moving to the vote on it.

 

Councillor Bone commented that it was political posturing by Councillor Joyce .

The amendment was put to a recorded vote.

 

For	Against	Abstain
Joyce	Anota	Everett
Kemp	Ayres
	Barclay
	Bartrum
	Beal
	Beales
	Bearshaw
	Bland
	Blunt
	Bone
	Bubb
	Bullen
	Coates
	Collingham
	Colwell
	Crofts
	Dark
	Devulapalli
	Dickinson
	Heneghan
	Hodson
	Humphrey
	Jones
	Kirk
	Lawrence
	Lintern
	Long
	Lowe
	Moriarty
	Morley
	Nash
	Osborne
	Parish
	Ratcliffe
	Ring
	Rust
	Ryves
	Sandell
	Sayers
	Spikings
	Squire
	Storey
	Tyler
	Ware
	De Whalley
	De Winton
2	47	1

 

The amendment was lost.

 

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube

 

Councillor Joyce withdrew the following 2 amendments he had submitted.

 

7)     £8,000 from the Climate Reduction Budget to renew the former drivers' unit at Lynn bus station and to offer welfare and administrative facilities to police for their usage.

 

8)     £5,000 to promote Alive card to schools doctors surgeries etc.

 

Council then debated the substantive motion.

 

Councillor Dark spoke on the increases to the fees and charges which he considered there was no justification or rationale for the increases.  He made reference to the staff pay award the previous year and its cost to the tax payer.

 

Councillor Bone spoke on the proposed budget which he considered safe and considered.  He commented that the fees and charges hadn’t been increased the previous year as it was an election year, but an increase in income was required and had been factored into the budget.

 

Councillor Kemp did not support the budget, she considered the use of Alive West Norfolk should be maximised, and the budgets should be looked at more carefully.

 

Councillor Long did not support the increase in charges or the budget as presented.

 

Councillor Osborne spoke in support of the budget and drew attention to the inflationary rises incurred by the Council which needed to be addressed.  He reminded members that the additional Council Tax support scheme had been agreed at the last meeting.

 

Councillor Crofts disagreed with the increases to sports facilities.

 

Councillor Rust expressed disappointment that Councillor Joyce had wasted the Council’s time with the number of amendments.  She also expressed disgust that the staff pay award was being openly criticised in open session.  She referred to the feedback being received from staff that they were not being respected or valued.

 

As a point of clarification Councillor Dark considered he was entitled to raise it.

 

At this point in the meeting Councillor Parish proposed that Council continue to sit after 3 hours in order to complete the statutory budget related items.  This was seconded by Councillor Moriarty.  On being put to the vote this was agreed.

 

Councillor Sayers spoke in support of the budget and asked whether those who had voted for the amendments would now be voting against them.

 

Councillor Collingham asked if a cost benefit analysis had been done on the fees and charges as it could end up with less income due to the increases.

 

Councillor Sandell questioned the increase in charges for struggling families, and the level of increase for car parking in Burnham Market.

 

Councillor Dickinson expressed concern on the increase in fees and charges on Hunstanton resort venues and businesses.

 

Councillor Squire drew attention to the rise in council tax this year was the same as the previous year.

 

As a point of clarification Councillor Dark commented that it was the fees and charges that his group disagreed with.   Councillor Squire withdrew her comment.

 

Councillor Lawrence spoke against the increases to the fees and charges including the town hall charges.  He drew attention to the fact that the budget didn’t have to be agreed until 10 March so there was time to reconsider.  He urged members to vote the budget down for more consideration. 

 

Councillor Ryves drew attention to the fact that fees and charges weren’t increased the previous year although inflation peaked during that time, and the additional costs had to be recovered.

 

Councillor Ring reminded members of the concessions available to those struggling families and individuals.  He drew attention to the fact the increases at the town hall were amalgamated and were in line with others.  He drew attention to the knock on ongoing effects on the revenue budget of not increasing fees the previous year. He commended the budget to members in order to take the Council forward to assist with when it was no longer a funded budget to aim to put back into the depleted reserves. 

 

Councillor de Winton commented that he considered the budget was not properly costed, he considered that as a business the council had failed to grow the economy.

 

Councillor Colwell thanked Cabinet and officers for the work which had gone into the budget and commented on the central government policies affecting local government.

 

Councillor Joyce commented that the budget meeting was the platform to raise amendments, that he had the issue with the fees and charges, not the council tax increase.

 

Councillor Blunt commented that he agreed with the increase in Council tax level, but he questioned the need to increase the fees and charges as he considered it indiscriminate with no consultation or assessment of the risks.  He also suggested that the PrP scheme should be reviewed.

 

Councillor Beales reminded members that the budget had been inherited and the budget had to be increased to fill the budget gap.  He criticised the decision not to increase fees and charges the previous year.  He drew attention to the Council Tax support scheme which was approved previously which helped those families in need. 

 

Councillor Parish made reference to comments made on redundancies and confirmed that there were currently no plans to make any.  He also explained that the budget was the start of the journey, with a funded budget which was fully explained and debated at the Joint Panels meeting with no points raised there or at Cabinet.  He drew attention to the large number of hours spent by officers providing information for members many of which were very late in the process and the amendments tabled late in the process.  With regard to the pay award referred to in the debate the comments were that there were no overall financial   or budget implication which was correct at the time, as it was a budget allocation from the PrP budget.   He also confirmed that there was often an issue with the recruitment of senior staff.

 

Councillor Morley in summing up made reference to the size of the budget, and the importance of its sustainability.  He commented that the use of services would be monitored. He commented that he would like to carry out priority based budgeting separating the statutory from the discretionary services.  He commended what he considered was a budget for sustainability.

 

A recorded vote was then taken on the substantive motion (as amended)  as follows:

 

For	Against	Abstain
Anota	Ayres
Bartrum	Barclay
Beal	Blunt
Beales	Bubb
Bearshaw	Coates
Bland	Collingham
Bone	Crofts
Bullen	Dark
Colwell	Dickinson
Devulapalli	Hodson
Everett	Humphrey
Heneghan	Joyce
Jones	Kemp
Lintern	Kirk
Lowe	Lawrence
Moriarty	Long
Nash	Rose
Osborne	Sandell
Parish	Spikings
Ratcliffe	Storey
Ring	Tyler
Rust	De Winton
Ryves
Sayers
Squire
Ware
De Whalley
28	22	0

 

The substantive motion, as amended was carried.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1)              That the revision to the Budget for 2024/2025 (as set out in Appendix 1 of the report as now amended) be approved

 

2)       That the Policy on Earmarked Reserves and General Fund Working Balance and the maximum balances set for the reserves as detailed in Appendix 7 of “The Financial Plan 2023/2028” as reported to Cabinet on 7 February 2024 be reaffirmed.

 

3)              That the budget of £24,731,820 for 2024/2025 be approved and the projections for 2024/2025, 2025/2026 and 2026/2027 (as set out in Appendix 1 of the report) be noted

 

4)              That the Fees and Charges for 2024/2025 as detailed in Appendix 4 of “The Financial Plan 2023/2028” as reported to Cabinet on 7 February 2024 be approved.

 

5)              That a minimum requirement of the General Fund balance for 2024/2025 of £1,236,590 be approved

 

6)              Pursuant to Section 25 of the Local Government Act, have due regard to the statement of the Section 151 Officer at Section 9 of the Financial Plan 2023/2028 as reported to Cabinet on 7 February 2023 (Updated Appendix 3 to the report)

 

The Local Authorities (Calculation of Tax Base) (England) Regulations 2012 contain rules for the calculation of the Council Tax Base, which is an amount required by the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to be used in the calculation of the tax by the Council as the billing authority, and Norfolk County Council and the Norfolk Police and Crime Commissioner as major precepting authorities, and in the calculation of the precept payable by the Council to the County Council and Norfolk Police and Crime Commissioner.  Under Officer Delegated Decision the Council Tax Base was calculated as follows for the year 2024/2025:

 

Number of dwellings in each Council Tax band; taking into account the multipliers, discounts, exemptions, rate of collection and Council Tax Support.

 

(a)    53,748            being the amount calculated by the Council, in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) (England) Regulations 2012, as its Council Tax Base for the year.

 

The tax base for each Parish

 

(b)      the amounts listed in Appendix 4 Parish Taxbases & Precepts, (Column headed - Taxbase) being the amounts calculated by the Council, in accordance with Regulation 6 of the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) (England) Regulations 2012, as the amount of its Council Taxbase for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which one or more special items relate.

 

10)     Approve that the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2024/2025 in accordance with Sections 31A to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended by S74 of the Localism Act 2011):

 

Total expenditure

 

(a)  £103,093,375   being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(2) (a) to (f) of the Act. (See Appendix 2 of the report).

         

Total income

 

(b)  £90,856,890     being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(3) (a) to (d) of the Act. (See Appendix 2 of the report).

 

The difference between expenditure and income

 

(c)  £12,236,485     being the amount by which the aggregate at 10(a) above exceeds the aggregate at 10(b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 31A(4) of the Act, as its total budget for the year. (See Appendix 2 of the report).

 

Average Council Tax for Band D property (Borough and Parish)

 

(d)    £227.67            being the amount at 10(c) above divided by the amount at 9(a) above, calculated by the Council in accordance with Section 31B(1) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year.

 

The total of Parish Precepts and Special Expenses

 

(e)                           £4,262,045  being the aggregate amount of all special items referred to in Section 34(1) of the Act.

 

The Borough Council’s Council Tax for a Band D property (excluding Parish Precepts and Special Expenses)

 

(f)(1)    £148.37         being the amount at 10(d) above less the result given by dividing the amount at 10(e) above by the amount at 9(a) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 34(2) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which no special item relates.

 

The Borough Council’s Council Tax for each valuation band

 

(f)(2)

 

    

 

The Borough, Special Expenses and Parish Councils’ Council Tax for a Band D property in each Parish

 

(g)                          the amounts listed in Col (4), Appendix 5 Special Expenses and Appendix 6 Parish Precepts, when added to the amount at 10 (f)(1) above being the amounts of the special item or items relating to dwellings in those parts of the Council’s area mentioned divided in each case by the taxbases in Appendix 4 calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 34(3) of the Act, gives the basic amounts of its Council Tax for the year for dwelling in those parts of its area to which one or more special items relate.

 

 

The Borough and Parish Councils’ Council Tax for each tax band in each Parish

 

(h)                         the amounts listed in Cols (1) to (8), Appendix 5 Special Expenses and Appendix 6 Parish Precepts, together with the amounts shown above in 10(f)(2) as valuation bands A to H - being the amounts given by multiplying the amounts at 10(g) above by the number which, in the proportion set out in Section 5(1) of the Act, is applicable to dwellings listed in a particular valuation band, divided by the number which in that proportion is applicable to dwellings listed in valuation band D, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 36 of the Act, as the amounts to be taken into account for the year in respect of categories of dwellings listed in different valuation bands.

 

 

11)  Note that for the year 2024/2025 Norfolk County Council and the Norfolk Police and Crime Commissioner have stated the following amounts in precepts issued to the Council, in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each of the categories of dwellings shown below:

                   

 

 

The total Council Tax for each band in each parish (Appendix 7)

 

12)     Approve that, having calculated the aggregate in each case of the amounts at 10(h) and 11 above, the Council, in accordance with Section 30(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, hereby sets these as the amounts of Council           Tax for the year 2024/2025 for each of the categories of dwellings shown.

 

13)     Approve that the Assistant Director Resources (S151 Officer), Revenues and Benefits Manager, Revenues Manager, Revenues Team Leaders, Committal Manager, Committal Officer, Non-Domestic Rates Officer, Generic Revenues and Benefits Officers, Revenues Officers and Revenues Assistants be authorised to demand and recover, in accordance with the Local Government Finance Act 1992, the Council Tax set by this resolution, the Non Domestic Rates payable by Ratepayers and the annual Business Improvement District Levy, and be authorised to appear on behalf of the Council in Magistrates’ Courts in respect of recovery proceedings.

 

14)     Approve that the Officers be authorised to give notice of the setting of the Council Tax in accordance with Section 96 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

 

 

At 20:47 Council adjourned and reconvened at 20:57.