Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Community Safety to discuss the draft budget proposals.
Minutes:
Councillor Richard Livingstone, Cabinet member for finance, resources and community safety informed the meeting about the budget for the next financial year which would be considered at the Council Assembly meeting on 29 February 2012. He said that Southwark was facing heavy cuts in the grant from central government, and it was more affected than other parts of the country, because the proportion of its budget, which it receives from central government was larger as a proportion than other authorities. He said that there were more cuts to come, but that the three-year framework of the cuts which had been agreed last year was standing, and that there were therefore no new cuts.
The proposal would go to cabinet on 23 January 2012 for the first reading, and for final approval by cabinet on 7 February 2012. He encouraged people to submit their views.
Responding to a question from members, Councillor Livingstone explained that, the council’s contingency fund was £5.5m, and the council would not be adding anything to this year, but would take some money from the council’s reserve to be used in the current budget.
The meeting heard that Southwark Cyclists were going to gather in front of the next Council Assembly meeting, as they had not been able to bring a deputation, that many residents did not want the proposed community council mergers, and that the budget should be devolved to the community councils themselves with the cuts being decided there.
Councillor Livingstone responded that five deputations were likely to be heard at the next meeting of Council Assembly, while normally only three were heard. He went on to say that community councils were facing significant cuts, which amounted to a 25% cut over the next 3 years, in line with the budget reduction of the council as a whole. The Democracy Commission had put forward recommendations, in light of these cuts. It had been a difficult decision, but this was deemed to be the best fit and had been based on which areas had the most cross-border issues in common. There was also going to be a new Cleaner Greener Safer Revenue fund, which represented a new power given to Community Councils.
Committee members suggested that the community council budget should have been devolved down to community councils which could have taken the decision on which parts of their budgets they want to cut themselves. This was supported by some speakers from the floor. Views were expressed that the demographics of the proposed areas were not the same, and that Bermondsey could lose out. Members raised questions about why Camberwell and Dulwich community councils were to remain in their current form. A resident raised the possibility of getting sponsorship or Section 106 money to help fund community councils. The meeting also heard that more figures were needed to inform people’s opinion.
Councillor Livingstone reminded the meeting that this decision had not yet been taken. He said there should be parity in terms the number of meetings, and a solution had to be found which fit all areas. Developers had contributed significantly to the area by putting on apprenticeship schemes, and by providing local jobs. In terms of Dulwich and Camberwell community councils, Councillor Livingstone said that according to the relevant legislation about the size community council areas, only having four areas would not be possible, but that the current proposals seemed to best guarantee democratic accountability.
Simon Hughes, MP asked what the size of the councils reserves were this year, and said that top council officers were overpaid. No officer should be paid more than the prime minister. Funding could be freed up from that source.
Councillor Livingstone responded that the council’s reserves were £86m, which would probably be reduced over the coming years, as further cuts of the government grant were likely. In terms of top salaries, the council was going to be saving £1m on these next year.
There was a discussion about the council’s priorities and alternative ways the money for community councils could be found.
The chair asked for a show of hands from all those in attendance on the following statement:
“The Bermondsey Community Council opposes the proposed merger of the Bermondsey and Rotherhithe Community Council and believes community councils should be strengthened.”
The vast majority of attendees agreed with this statement (with 2 attendees opposed and one abstention).
The chair thanked Councillor Livingstone for attending the meeting.