Agenda item

The Director of Corporate Services (DoCS) / Treasurer advised that appendices A to D in the Budget Report were linked, with changes in one impacting on the others: A) the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) set out the financial outlook and estimated borrowing over the next five years, B) the Capital Strategy set out major expenditure for investment within the Service (including the ten-year capital programme), C) the Reserves Strategy set out savings and how they were planned to be used over the next 5 years, and D) the Treasury Management Strategy set out investment, borrowing, repayment and how money was set aside to repay borrowing.

 

The DoCS presented the report that set out the Council Tax Precept and Budget for 2026/27 along with the associated appended documents.

 

The Authority was required to set a balanced budget and council tax precept for the next financial year by 1 March 2026. The Authority had to ensure it:

 

·         Considered the link between capital investment decisions and the revenue implications.

·         Considered the results of the Council Tax Precept Consultation.

·         Considered the Treasury Management implications of revenue and capital decisions.

·         Provided value for money.

·         Reflected best practice.

·         Ensured consistency between financial planning and pay policy.

 

The Budget and appended documents in the report formed the Service’s financial strategies which were part of Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service (LFRS) strategic planning activity and governance framework which set out the direction of the Service and how it would achieve the aim of making Lancashire safer. These financial strategies were one of six core strategies that set out how LFRS, would provide Services in line with the following priorities in the five-year Community Risk Management Plan (CRMP):

 

·         Valuing our people.

·         Preventing fires.

·         Protecting people and property.

·         Responding to fire and other emergencies.

·         Delivering value for money.

 

Financial Context

At the time of the report, UK inflation (CPI) stood at 3.4% following a slight rise in December 2025. Looking ahead, leading public?sector forecasters, including the Office of Budget Responsibility and Bank of England, expected inflation to continue easing through 2026, moving closer to over 2% by the end of the year. Economic growth was forecast to remain modest but steady at around 1.2–1.4%, broadly in line with long?term trend levels. Overall, 2026 was expected to bring gradually improving conditions, with lower inflation helping stabilise household finances despite continuing subdued economic growth.

 

Nationally, the Fire and Rescue Service continued to face significant financial pressures driven by funding pressures, rising legislative requirements, environmental and societal changes, persistent inflationary pressures, particularly affecting major capital projects, and above?inflation pay awards, alongside increasingly complex demands on resources.

 

Funding

Funding for the fire sector had changed in the last 15 years. The 2008 banking crisis was followed by a period of austerity in the sector. As government grants fell sharply after 2010, the fire and rescue sector was forced to adapt through a combination of workforce, operational, and financial measures. Nationally, firefighter numbers were reduced significantly, with England losing around 25% of its wholetime firefighters since 2008. In addition, latest comparison figures for On-call firefighter (full time equivalent) numbers showed a decline from 10,768 in March 2014 to 7,967 in March 2024, representing a 26% reduction across England. Changes to the funding methodology during this period also meant that changes in the economy, that impact on benefits claimant numbers or business rates, now impacted on funding levels.

 

Funding for capital schemes had also changed over this period, with the sector now almost exclusively funding new capital schemes from local sources of funding such as revenue contributions, reserves, capital receipts and borrowing (that was repaid from revenue budgets). During this period the Service had funded its capital schemes primarily from revenue resources and had not utilised any borrowing, unlike most of the Fire and Rescue Services.

 

Fair Funding Review

In June of 2025 the Spending Review set out government departmental budgets for the next three years, confirmed a full reset of business rates baselines from April 2026 and a review of the Funding Formula which allocated funding amongst each Fire Authority; the Fair Funding Review (FFR) consultation, launched with the spending review, updated the funding formula for the first time since 2013. Initial assessments undertaken on behalf of the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) identified cuts for the sector and Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service (LFRS); estimated at between £3 million and £4 million were modelled.

 

All Fire and Rescue Services (FRS) resourced to risk which was driven by a range of other risks, most notably deprivation. Unfortunately, the new funding review, rather than increasing funding to match increasing risk, was mainly being redistributed towards areas with higher population growth. There was a perversity in the result, LFRS was experiencing cuts in its share of funding and yet had one of the highest levels of deprivation. If the funding formula continued at this level, revenue resources would continue to decline.

Following a period of significant lobbying both nationally and locally through MPs, locally elected members and the Fire Brigades Union, Government protections were put in place to ensure no FRS lost funding providing a Council Tax increase of £5 was agreed by the respective authorities for each of the next 3 years; note the £5 precept in each year 2026/27, 2027/28 and 2028/29 had been assumed in the MTFS. There was also a promise of a fundamental review of the funding formula for the next Spending Review, effective from April 2029. Whilst the £5 precept flexibility was welcome; it was unfortunately offsetting Government grant cuts rather than an opportunity to invest in the Service.

 

Settlement

The Provisional Settlement announced in mid-December 2025 provided estimated funding levels for the next three years from 2026/27. Revenue funding levels in the provisional settlement, alongside local planning assumptions suggested that funding levels would be broadly in line with the previously set MTFS for 2026/27; an increase of circa 3%. Whilst this was an improvement compared to earlier planning assumptions, due to higher than budgeted inflation in 2025, 3.8% actual in September compared to 2% assumed in the MTFS, the settlement would represent a real term cut. Unfortunately, no capital grant funding was provided again for in the provisional settlement despite continuous lobbying from the sector.

 

The only change in the Final Settlement announced on the 9 February included protection funding; LFRS was one of a few fire Services receiving this funding due to the cut in its share of funding, this totalled just £0.150 million in 2026/27 only and would be earmarked to meet potential in year pressures and future deficits.

 

Proposed Revenue Budget 2026/27

The 2025/26 budget proposals were based on the latest funding assumptions set out in the report and a maximum increase in the council tax precept allowed of £5 at Band D was assumed to give total funding of £45.1 million. The proportion of the budget that was funded by Council Tax had increased again as the percentage of funding from other sources such as government grants reduced. The proportion of the budget that was funded by Council Tax had increased again as the percentage of funding from other sources such as government grants reduced. 

 

The net expenditure budget took account of general inflation, assumed pay awards, previous commitments, required permanent and one-off increases and decreases in resources to give a net budget requirement of £80.5 million. The following table sets out the proposed 2026/27 budget and subsequent paragraphs set out the key changes underpinning the net budget requirement:

 

	Table 2 – Budget Proposals 2026/27	£ million
Budget	Base Budget*	77.511
	Inflation	3.176
	Commitments	1.305
	Permanent increases in Resourcing	0.571
	One-off items	(0.194)
	Permanent decreases in Resourcing	(1.844)
	Proposed Net Budget Requirement	80.525
Funding	Council Tax	45.064
	Business Rates	15.481
	Revenue Support Grant	19.980
	Total Funding	80.525
	Precept (Council Tax – Band D) per annum Precept (Council Tax – Band D) per week	£94.73 £1.82
	Increase from 2025/26 Band D of £89.73 Increase per week Band D	£5.00 10p

 

The proposal delivered a balanced budget as required by law. The £5 increase equated to a 5.57% increase in the council tax precept, if the precept was reduced additional savings would be required, for example, a reduction of 1% would reduce funding by £0.4 million which equated to a loss of £4 million in funding over 10 years.

 

The main elements that made up the Proposed Budget Requirement for 2026/27 are set out below and were detailed in the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) in Appendix A:

 

·         Economic changes

o   Pay - An allowance of 4% for pay awards in 2026/27 had been included with 2% thereafter. If pay awards were higher than assumed they would need to be met from reserves or in year savings in 2026/27 with additional savings made in future years. Each 1% increase resulted in an additional £0.5 million and £0.1 million for Grey book and Green book staff respectively.

 

o   Inflation – Non-pay budgets had been increased by 3.8% in line with CPI and 2% thereafter. Specific increases in price inflation for known areas had been assumed.

 

o   Interest earned – The interest earned on cash balances in the MTFS was updated to reflect the amended use of reserves and gradual reduction in interest rates. The budget in 2026/27 was £1.4 million and then reduced over the period of the MTFS to £0.2 million by 2030/31.

 

·         Commitments – These reflected the impact of previous decisions that had a financial consequence in 2026/27 or were due to policy, legal or regulatory changes. The main adjustment in 2026/27 related to a planned £1 million increase in revenue funding for the capital programme from £2.5 million to £3.5 million. Whilst a comprehensive review of the Capital programme had taken place, and asset life extended where possible, significant inflationary pressures for vehicles, property and ICT meant that without dedicated central Government capital grants, revenue to capital contributions must increase.

 

 

·         Permanent increases in Resourcing - An increase of £0.5 million was required in 2026/27 to reflect the loss of the National Insurance grant; Government had confirmed this had been rolled into Grants now.

 

·         Permanent decreases in Resourcing – In 2026/27 £1.8 million of savings would be realised from optimising crewing arrangements; reducing wholetime crewing levels from 13 to 12 (on 2 pump Wholetime, Flexible Day Crewed and Day Crewing Plus stations [excluding Urban Search and Rescue units]) as the next step in meeting financial challenges, improving efficiency, and aligning Lancashire with sector? equivalent crewing models. This would result in the reduction of the grey book establishment from 636 to 608. The £0.5 million overtime savings realised in 2025/26 from Dynamic Resourcing was built into the base budget and thus assumed to continue.

 

Council Tax Precept

Council Tax funding was based on the estimated taxbase (band D equivalents) provided by each local authority. Compared to 2025/26, the overall taxbase had increased by 0.83% (3,912 properties), last year the increase was 1.43%. The following table shows the number of Band D equivalents and proposed precept for each local authority based on the band D precept increase of £5.

 

Table 1 – Proposed Precepts 2026/27	Number of Band D Equivalents	Precept on Collection Fund
Burnley Borough Council	24,497.00	2,320,601
Chorley Borough Council	39,157.93	3,709,431
Fylde Borough Council	33,067.00	3,132,437
Hyndburn Borough Council	22,183.00	2,101,396
Lancaster City Council	43,832.69	4,152,271
Pendle Borough Council	25,164.44	2,383,827
Preston City Council	45,222.90	4,283,965
Ribble Valley Borough Council	25,853.00	2,449,055
Rossendale Borough Council	21,350.00	2,022,486
South Ribble Borough Council	38,816.17	3,677,056
West Lancashire District Council	38,756.88	3,671,439
Wyre Borough Council	40,088.94	3,797,625
Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council	38,246.03	3,623,046
Blackpool Council	39,477.00	3,739,656
Total	475,712.98	45,064,291

 

Band	Proposed 2026/27 £	Actual 2025/26 £	Change per year £	Change per week £
A	63.15	59.82	3.33	0.06
B	73.68	69.79	3.89	0.07
C	84.20	79.76	4.44	0.09
D	94.73	89.73	5.00	0.10
E	115.78	109.67	6.11	0.12
F	136.83	129.61	7.22	0.14
G	157.88	149.55	8.33	0.16
H	189.46	179.46	10.00	0.19

 

The increase for a Band D property per year was £5; that was 10 pence per week. The precept received from each collection authority was adjusted to reflect any surplus or deficit on the collection fund. This year there was a small surplus of £0.294 million which would be earmarked to meet in year pressures and future deficits on the collection fund. The MTFS included the adjusted precept from each collection authority.

 

Council Tax Precept Consultation

The legal requirements for council tax increases were primarily governed by the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended by the Localism Act 2011. A consultation with the public was launched on 11 December 2025 for a £5 increase in the council tax precept for the year ahead. The consultation ended at 5pm on 4 February 2026 and the results were set out in Appendix E of the agenda pack along with the response from the Fire Brigade Union to the budget.

 

970 responses were received, 75% supported the increase in the precept, 6% neither supported nor opposed the increase and 18% did not support the increase. Less than 1% responded with ‘Don’t know’.

 

Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS)

The purpose of the MTFS was to provide the Authority, staff, the public and other stakeholders with information on the financial outlook and the estimated available funding over the next five years. It considered future estimates on funding and potential high level revenue and capital expenditure over the period. A summary of the MTFS Revenue budget is set out below:

 

Table 2 – Revenue MTFS £ million	26/27 £ million	27/28 £ million	28/29 £ million	29/30 £ million	30/31 £ million
Base Budget	77.511	80.525	82.804	84.999	87.351
Add:
Inflation	3.176	2.162	2.027	2.046	2.013
Commitments	1.305	0.817	0.157	(0.026)	(0.096)
Increases in Resourcing	0.571	0.143	0.932	1.507	1.553
One-off items	(0.194)	0.158	0.079	(0.175)	(0.050)
Decreases in Resourcing	(1.844)	(1.000)	(1.000)	(1.000)	(1.000)
Net Budget	80.525	82.804	84.999	87.351	89.770
Council Tax	(45.064)	(48.036)	(51.075)	(52.747)	(54.475)
Business Rates	(15.481)	(15.843)	(16.169)	(16.493)	(16.822)
Revenue Support Grant	(19.980)	(18.925)	(17.755)	(18.111)	(18.473)
Funding	(80.525)	(82.804)	(84.999)	(87.351)	(89.770)

Note that Council Tax increases were assumed at £5 in 2026/27, 2027/28 and 2028/29 and 2% thereafter.

 

Some of the key financial assumptions and estimates over the period of the MTFS are set out below:

 

·         Inflation – The pay awards for 2026/27 were estimated at 4% then 2% thereafter. Non-pay budgets had increased by the September Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) CPI figures; 3.8% in 2026/27 and 2% thereafter. Income earned on investments was expected to reduce as cash balances reduced and interest rates reduced from 3.7% to 3% over the period of the MTFS.

 

·         Commitments – The MTFS included increases in revenue contributions to Capital, rising from £3.500 million in 2026/27 to £4.592 million by 2029/30, thus ensuring the capital programme was financially sustainable in the long term.

 

·         Increases in Resourcing - The 2026/27 increase reflected the loss of the National Insurance grant; Government had confirmed this had been rolled into Grants now. Increases thereafter related to borrowing repayment and interest costs to fund the major projects in the capital programme; by the end of the MTFS total interest and repayment costs were forecast at £4.1 million per annum.

 

·         Decreases in Resourcing – These were required to balance the budget. In 2026/27 £1.8 million of savings would be realised from the optimising crewing changes; reducing wholetime crewing levels from 13 to 12 (on 2 pump Wholetime, Flexible Day Crewed and Day Crewing Plus stations (excluding USAR units) as the next step in meeting financial challenges, improving efficiency, and aligning Lancashire with sector?equivalent crewing models. New savings were required from 2027/28 of £1 million per annum, each year through to 2030/31, so by 2030/31 cumulatively £4 million of recurring new savings would be required to balance the budget.

 

·         Funding – Detailed assumptions were included in the MTFS, in broad terms the funding was expected to increase between 2% to 3% however, the outcome of the next spending review and review of the funding formula was likely to impact on these assumptions which was expected to be determined during late 2028. This year there was a small surplus on the business rates collection fund of £0.151 million which would be earmarked to meet in year pressures and future deficits on the collection fund.

 

The key variables within the budget were inflation assumptions, in particular pay awards, and funding levels. The MTFS in Appendix A considered a range of risks and scenarios that impact on the MTFS. The analysis showed that whilst the general reserve was sufficient to meet all the worst-case risks in the next three years, with reliance on earmarked reserves, major structural changes would be required alongside government support beyond year three of the MTFS.

 

Capital Strategy

In addition to the revenue budgets a programme of capital investment was proposed for 2026/27, this was set out in detail in the Capital Strategy in Appendix B. The purpose of the Strategy was to provide the Authority, staff, the public and other stakeholders with information on the Capital plans. Capital plans needed to be affordable, prudent and sustainable and treasury management decisions taken in accordance with good professional practice and in full understanding of the risks involved. A summary of the capital programme and funding is set out below:

 

Table 3 – Capital Programme	2026/27 £ million	2027/28 £ million	2028/29 £ million	2029/30 £ million	2030/31 £ million
Vehicles	4.046	2.933	2.650	3.455	2.338
Operational Equipment	1.753	0.174	0.123	0.523	0.109
Buildings	1.066	5.600	14.600	18.500	18.500
ICT	2.376	1.200	0.333	0.723	1.853
Inflation	0.000	0.106	0.166	0.349	0.437
	9.241	10.012	17.873	23.550	23.236
Funding
Revenue Contributions	3.500	4.500	4.500	4.569	4.592
Capital Reserve	5.741	0.912	(0.227)	1.481	1.144
Capital Receipts	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Borrowing	0.000	4.600	13.600	17.500	17.500
	9.241	10.012	17.873	23.550	23.236

 

The 2025/26 five-year capital programme approved by the Authority in February 2025 included four major projects; Leadership and Development Centre Training Facilities (£18 million), Headquarters and Stores relocation (£18 million), Fulwood replacement station (£7 million) and Preston replacement station (£10 million). The focus during 2025/26 had been to obtain planning approval for the Chorley Masterplan. Due to new Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) planning legislation requirements, additional studies, which can only be undertaken during Spring, and changes to the designs were required. The result was that the masterplan had been delayed by approximately one year with planning approval now sought in late summer / early autumn 2026.

 

Progress with the Leadership and Development Centre Training Facilities would continue in tandem with the masterplan application to ensure development was not unduly delayed. The Preston, Fulwood and Headquarters and Stores relocation projects had been programmed for years four and five of the capital programme so the scope could be considered as part of a refreshed CRMP and supporting the Service Review during 2026. 

 

A summary of the major projects was reflected in the updated 2026/27 10-year capital programme, these included:

 

·         Leadership and Development Centre Training Facilities – A modern and progressive Service required high quality facilities to help in the initial training and ongoing maintenance of competency requirements across a broad spectrum of operational activities. The existing facilities were reviewed alongside more modern facilities in the region. The review identified that greater investment was required to meet our requirements and an estimate of £18 million was included in the programme between 2027/28 and 2028/29.

 

·         The following major projects were programmed for 2029/30 to 2030/31, however the scope and timing of these major schemes would be considered as part of the CRMP and Service Review that was due to be consulted on and finalised in early 2027.

o   The Preston replacement station was the busiest station in Lancashire and was in a very poor condition, the budget was £10 million.

 

o   The Headquarters and Stores relocation project combined the Headquarters and Training Facility and relocated the Stores at the Leadership and Development Centre, replacing the current Headquarters at Fulwood and office / training / catering space in Lancaster House (Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC) which required a resolution). The budget was £18 million.

 

o   The relocation of Headquarters necessitated the need to invest in a new station to replace Fulwood either on the existing site or at an alternative location. The budget was £7 million.

 

To fund the Capital Programme, in addition to utilising the Capital Reserve and revenue contributions, £51.2 million of borrowing was required to fund the major schemes. The long-term revenue costs of this borrowing was £4.1 million per annum, this would need to be met from revenue resources. The scope and timing of these major projects would be considered as part of the CRMP and Service Review.

 

Following the capital investment set out above the Authority’s reserves and borrowing levels would be commensurate with similar sized fire Services based on current levels across Services.

 

Reserves Strategy

Section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003 placed a requirement on the Section 151 Officer to formally report on the adequacy of the reserves. The DoCS assessed this in the context of the strategic, operational and financial risks and opportunities facing the Authority.

 

While holding reserves was a recognised and recommended financial management tool, the levels of such reserves must remain prudent, appropriate to the level of risk and opportunity and not excessive. This was set out within the Reserves Strategy attached at Appendix C, which included details of the reserves held and their proposed usage over the next five years.

 

It was good practice for an Authority to review its reserves on a regular basis to consider each reserve. This was to ensure that the level was both prudent and adequate for the current climate, but not excessive. A review had been undertaken based on historical analysis and the current environment and future forecasts; this review had not resulted in any material change.

 

The General Reserve existed to one off cover unforeseen risks and expenditure that may be incurred outside of planned budgets such as major flooding or wildfire events or costs associated with Industrial Action, the General Reserve may not be used to offset annual revenue budget pressures. The minimum level of General Reserve advised by the Treasurer for the 2025/26 budget was £3.85 million. A generally accepted level was one that was equivalent to 5% of the net revenue budget but that must be considered alongside specific Authority risks; 5% of the net revenue budget was approximately £4 million. Considering the risks facing the Authority the Treasurer recommended increasing the minimum level for 2026/27 to £4 million. The level of the General Reserve at 1 April 2025 was estimated at £6 million, this was above the minimum level of General Reserve recommended. Over the period of the MTFS the level of the General Reserve remained above this minimum level. 

 

Treasury Management

Treasury Management covered the cashflow, investment and borrowing activities together with the impacts of budgetary decisions on such activities. The Treasury Management Strategy was included at Appendix D and comprised of four main elements:

 

·         Capital Expenditure Plans and Prudential Indicators.

·         Borrowing Strategy and Prudential Limits.

·         Annual Investment Strategy.

·         Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) Statement.

 

The Strategy reflected the revenue and capital estimates contained in the MTFS and Capital Strategy. Treasury Management in the public sector was heavily regulated and transparency with the Authority on its activities was paramount. The Resource Committee oversaw Treasury activities, but it was a legal requirement that the Authority approved the Strategy.

 

Statement of Robustness of Estimates

Section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003 placed a requirement on the “Chief Finance Officer” of an Authority to report on the robustness of the estimates used in preparing the budget. There was then a requirement for the Authority to have regard to the report of the Chief Finance Officer when making decisions on its budget. At Lancashire Fire Authority, the Chief Finance Officer was the DoCS.

 

The statutory requirement was reinforced by the Prudential Code, which required authorities to have regard to affordability when considering recommendations about future capital programmes.

 

The Authority had a medium term planning process that took account of Service demands and the financial scenario covering a 5-year period to 2031. The aim of the Medium Term Financial Strategy was to provide a realistic and sustainable plan that reflected the Authority’s priorities and anticipated the future impact of current decisions. Alongside this, future capital programmes were planned taking into account forecasted Government funding, borrowing limits and council tax.

 

For 2026/27, full consideration of these issues had led to:

 

·         Policy and expenditure proposals that reflected the Local Government Finance Settlement together with the on-going revenue impact of new capital projects, whilst recognising the outstanding issues and uncertainties.

 

·         A proposed capital financing budget based on the 2026/27 capital programme.

 

In assessing the robustness of the 2026/27 proposals and the estimates on which they were based, the DoCS had been assured that:

 

·         The budget proposals were based on the advice of Service managers (supported by finance staff) or were based upon or supported by information that the DoCS considered reasonable to accept.

 

·         The budget proposals had been fully reviewed and endorsed by the Executive Board and the implications on performance, if any, had been identified and assessed.

 

·         The proposed budget provided for all known future developments either within the revenue budget itself or as part of the Reserves Strategy.

 

When using estimates in preparing the budget every effort was taken to ensure that they took into account the most up to date data. There was, however, always the potential for the actual impact to vary from the estimates used in setting the budget, particularly as a result of:

 

·         Variations in the rate of price inflation, pay awards and pension increases;

·         Service financial performance (i.e. variances on budgets);

·         Ability to deliver policy proposals and/or achieve projected savings; and

·         Unforeseen additional operational demands and activities.

 

The potential for unanticipated events to occur that may impact on the budget, reinforced the importance of prudent financial management including:

 

·         Promoting a robust approach to financial management requiring budget holders to monitor expenditure against budget and to take early action in reporting and responding to projected variances;

 

·         Regular reporting of the projected budgetary outturn supplemented by exception reports to prompt remedial action if necessary; and

 

·         Maintaining an appropriate and proportionate contingency, as part of the General Reserve, to cushion the impact of unexpected events and emergencies.

 

Based on the advice and assurance set out above and the process by which the budget had been constructed, the DoCS was satisfied that the estimates were robust and could be relied upon for approval as part of the proposed budget.

 

Pay Policy Statement 2026/27

In accordance with the provisions of the Localism Act 2011 a pay policy statement for 2026/27 was considered by Members. The pay policy published data on senior salaries and the structure of the workforce and it demonstrated the principles of transparency. The pay policy statement set out the Authority’s policies for the financial year relating to:

 

·         The remuneration of its chief officers;

·         The remuneration of its lowest paid employees; and

·         The relationship between the remuneration of its chief officers and that of other employees who were not chief officers.

 

The statement included:

 

·         The level and elements of remuneration for each chief officer;

·         Remuneration range for chief officers on recruitment;

·         Methodology for increases and additions to remuneration for each chief officer;

·         The use of performance-related pay for chief officers;

·         The use of bonuses for chief officers;

·         The approach to the payment of chief officers on their ceasing to hold office under, or be employed by, the authority; and

·         The publication of and access to information relating to the remuneration of chief officers.

 

It also included the Authority’s policies for the financial year relating to other terms and conditions applying to its chief officers.

 

In response to a question from Councillor J Hugo in relation to permanent decreases in grey book resources, the DoCS confirmed that this would be achieved through natural wastage with no redundancies planned.

 

In response to a question from County Councillor J Tetlow in relation to the variation in pay award percentages in the report, the DoCS confirmed that the local government pay award for green book staff was effective from April and the grey book staff pay award was effective from July hence the change in percentage detailed.

 

In response to a question from Councillor J Hugo in relation to the real living wage, the Director of People and Development (DoPD) confirmed that pay rates would be adjusted in line with any changes to the real living wage.

 

The report was proposed by County Councillor I Duxbury and moved by County Councillor M Clifford.

 

The Authority voted unanimously in favour of the recommendations by a named vote.

 

Resolved: - That the Authority: -

·         Agreed the 2026/27 budget, including the Net Budget Requirement of £80.5 million as set out in Table 2 paragraph 18 of the agenda pack, which took account of adjustments set out and detailed in Appendix A.

·         Agreed the proposed Council Tax increase of £5 for a Band D Council tax precept of £94.73 for 2026/27.

·         Agreed the levels of Council Tax precept as set out in Table 3, paragraph 21 of the agenda pack.

·         Approved the capital programme and associated funding for 2026/27 as set out in table 5, paragraph 28 of the agenda pack;

·         Approved the Medium Term Financial Strategy set out in Appendix A;

·         Approved the Capital Strategy set out in Appendix B;

·         Approved the Reserves Strategy set out in Appendix C;

·         Approved the Treasury Management Strategy in Appendix D, this included the Prudential Indicators and Minimum Revenue Provision;

·         Noted the results of the Council Tax Precept Consultation as set out in paragraph 24 of the agenda pack and Appendix E;

·         Note the Statement of Robustness of Estimates set out in paragraph 40 of the agenda pack; and

·         Approved the Pay Policy Statement in Appendix F.