East Sussex County Council’s budget and tax rise agreed after opposition amendments defeated

East Sussex councillors have agreed to increase council tax in the coming year.
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

On Tuesday (February 8), members of East Sussex County Council signed off the authority’s budget for 2022/23, with a cross-party amendment defeated by the majority Conservative group.

The agreed budget includes both a 1.99 per cent increase to the authority’s share of council tax and an extra 2.5 per cent added to its adult social care precept. Put together these translate to a total increase of £69 per year for a Band D household.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Nick Bennett, Conservative lead member for resources and climate change, said these rises were intended to ensure the council was well-prepared in the face of significant uncertainty in the years ahead.

County Hall in Lewes/East Sussex County Council offices SUS-210823-124355001County Hall in Lewes/East Sussex County Council offices SUS-210823-124355001
County Hall in Lewes/East Sussex County Council offices SUS-210823-124355001

He said: “Asking people to pay more council tax for services is never welcome, particularly when this adds to household bills. We would not do so if we didn’t think it was completely necessary. 

“By asking residents to pay an increase, we can prepare for the future and make sure we are in the best position to continue to provide vital services as we come out of the pandemic and work towards implementing national change agendas, particularly around adult social care, charging reform and children’s services.”

Notably, the budget did not include any new savings and even saw previously agreed cuts of £900,000  removed from the council’s early help service. 

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Savings agreed in previous years set to fall in 2022/23 amount to £1.362m. The bulk of this will come from increases to on-street parking charges, expected to bring in around £1m of additional income. 

Overall, the budget is expected to see the council run a surplus of a little under £5m in 2022/23, which is to be put into reserves. 

A further £5.175m (from a one-off government service grant) would be put into a special reserve fund for a number of as-yet-unidentified investment programmes.

At the same time, £5.7m would be transferred from reserves into the council’s capital programme, which Cllr Bennett said would see investment in excess of £750m over a ten-year period.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

This would include an additional £6 million to help combat climate change and £31 million to maintain and improve roads and pavements.

Cllr Bennett said: “While the short term picture looks positive, we are mindful that future funding is uncertain and already know we are likely to face a £10m funding gap by 2025. 

“This is why we need to make decisions now to ensure we are ready for the challenges ahead. 

“The reserves we hold provide some mitigation to these risks and the level of reserves we hold are projected to be £91.7m by March 2026, with only £25m unallocated or held on behalf of others. Compared to our gross budget of £920m, this is not an excessive amount.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

However, it was the surpluses which formed the basis of the cross-party amendment, put forward jointly by the council’s Green, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Independent Democrat groups.

The amendment would have seen £6.176m of extra investment into a wide range of programmes, mostly drawn from the 2022/23 surplus.  

The amendment’s investments included: a £600,000 investment over three years into Vehicle Activated Signage (VAS) to reduce speeding; a £400,000 investment over four years into pavements and dropped kerbs; and a £750,000 investment in a mental health training programme for teachers, among many others.

Moving the amendment, Liberal Democrat leader David Tutt said: “This is, I believe, a maturer form of politics. 

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“Instead of arguing the toss over small elements of budgets, we have come together and put together what we believe is an alternative to the Conservative proposals that Cllr Bennett has just put in front of us. 

“This is a budget for the people of our county.”

Similar words of support were shared by the other opposition group leaders, who argued the proposed investments were ‘fully costed’ and reflected what residents had asked for. 

Labour group co-leader Chris Collier said: “I recall an early conversation when I was first elected when I was told by the administration that if I was prepared to work in a non-combative and collaborative way that I would be listened to.

“Well, now is the chance. You can show the residents of the county that you are prepared to engage in politics in a different way that works for the best in our community at a time where they really need us to.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“I would encourage every Conservative councillor to let this be their choice. Oppositional politics or a shared vision for the county. What would your residents expect?”

Green group co-leader Johnny Denis said: “We are meeting a time when national leadership is failing, when confidence in politicians is at an all-time low and when our residents are being hit hard by the costs of Brexit, fuel costs and National Insurance rises. 

“But politics doesn’t have to be as it is being played out right now. We can do better. 

“We feel that residents do need a better deal and if we speak with one voice, putting differences aside, we will better represent the views of the people of East Sussex.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Independent Democrat leader Stephen Shing said: “Our amendment is to use a very small percentage of the council budget which could have a big, long term benefit to our residents. 

“One of our joint proposals is to use some of the £4m revenue surplus on a range of measures that our residents tell us they want.

“All of this is giving us a real opportunity to make a difference in our local community and this joint approach has put down a real marker in showing opposition councillors are working for their residents as a priority.”

Conservatives, however, questioned how beneficial the amendment’s proposals would be, pointing to the one-off or short term nature of much of the programmes. 

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

There was also criticism that the funding proposals did not come forward through the council’s Reconciling Policy, Performance and Resources (RPPR) process.

Had it done so, Conservatives argued, the proposals could have been scrutinised in detail and may have been included in the main proposals. 

Conservative council leader Keith Glazier said: “Where is the serious analysis around anything in this wish list? Because that is what it is, let’s be absolutely honest, it is an opposition wish list.

“You have probably not read our budget very well, but you will see in there £5.17m for one-off investments in programmes that meet the council’s priorities. 

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“I am not suggesting for one minute that I couldn’t probably find one or two parts of your amendment that warrant further investigation. But let me just ask you, what would the outcome be of investing the sums of money you have suggested?”

He added: “I come back to the fact that what we are providing is a well thought out budget based on many years of difficult decisions taken by an administration that has always delivered on its budget.

“Just look around East Sussex and see how many other councils are [doing]. There are one or two, but the majority of them are not having the success we are. 

“When I talk to people about the thing we really should be discussing this morning, the unfortunate choice that we have of raising council tax by 4.49 per cent or not — £1.33 [per week] on a Band D property or an additional £13m worth of cuts year-on-year — I think the people of East Sussex will understand that.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Following further debate, the cross-party amendment was defeated, largely on party lines, with 28 votes against and 21 votes for. 

With the amendment defeated, the main budget proposal was agreed on similar lines, with opposition councillors abstaining rather than voting against.