As often, there is good news and indifferent news. The good news first is that Babergh’s Council Tax for 2025/2026 will increase by 2.99%. This compares quite well with the latest Computer Price Index (including Housing Costs) of 3.5% (Dec 2024) and the Bank of England’s forecast of 4%. The 2.99% has been achieved at the cost of running a budget gap of £633,000 which will be funded from reserves. Everyone knows that I prefer to see low taxes and value for money. Babergh will soon be absorbed into a greater area and so we should ask ourselves why we are still recruiting senior managers, such as an Information Governance Office (salary £43,000 to £50,000). I can understand recruiting a plumber for instant employment but most of the other vacancies can wait until the devolution future is clearer. We should also ask ourselves how much we are going to have to pay when these jobs become redundant and also what quality of candidate will we see whilst the future is so uncertain. Disclaimer: This blog/post is the sole responsibility of its author Brian Riley. It has not been approved nor is it endorsed by Babergh District Council or South Suffolk Conservative Association.
Earlier this month, I attended the November meeting of Babergh’s Overiew and Scrutiny meeting (see YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyDYZcRiM7M ). The main focus was the report on the Council’s Progress towards its net zero commitment. The good news is that we are roughly halfway towards our 2019-2030 target. The bad news is that we have picked the low hanging fruit and meeting the rest of our commitment will become more difficult and more expensive. It is accepted that UK territorial greenhouse gas emissions account for around 1% of the global gas emissions total (based on a range of estimates produced by the UN). Babergh’s population is less than one seventh of one per cent of the U.K. population So, it is a fair conclusion that we can do very little to improve the UK’s pollution position and even less to the world’ pollution problem The presentation to the Committee contained very little information as to how we are going to meet our targets and how much it is going to cost us. (Please see the YouTube video around the 28 minute mark). Faced with the prospect of spending more money without seeing what we are going to spend it on, the Committee resolved to recommend that the Cabinet alongside officers re-examine the financial viability of reaching the Council’s target of net-zero emissions by 2030, with due consideration being given to Babergh’s current financial situation. And then before I could start feeling smug and thinking that we might be on the right track I learned that Babergh are recruiting a Head of Climate & Nature Recovery at a salary between £62,276 and £75,619 plus the usual extras such as pension contributions and other overheads. We already have a Climate Change Manager so I wonder why we need a new Head of Climate & Nature Recovery Disclaimer: This blog/post is the sole responsibility of its author Brian Riley. It has not been approved nor is it endorsed by Babergh District Council or South Suffolk Conservative Association.
On Tuesday (19th Nov) at the Babergh District Council meeting we were treated to the half yearly report on Treasury Management (to 30thSeptember 2024). The paper was full of gems and insights, some overt and others deducible. For example, in 2015 we invested £2 million in a UBS Multi Asset Income Fund. The fund was closed in September and £1.469 million was returned to Babergh with a resultant capital loss of £531,000. The leadership seemed quite relaxed that overall net interest £727,000 had been received over the life of the investment, so that there was no overall loss. Except that, as far as I can ascertain we have received interest on a loss making investment and have not made any provisions for the capital loss. The interest received has gone to revenue and has been spent and so we have been like gamblers spending our winnings but running our losses. The capital loss is expected to be charged to this year’s accounts. What else might there be lurking in the local authority financial swamps? Well, we have a nominal £2 million invested in the CCLA Local Authority Property Fund which was valued at £4,520,000 in March suggesting an ongoing capital value loss of £480,000. Similarly, we have a nominal investment of £2 million in the Schroder Income Maximiser Fund which in March was valued at £1,626,000 showing a capital loss of £374,000. I understand that as a result of revised accounting rules, these losses will need to be provided for next year. Meanwhile there are bright spots on the horizon (spoiler alert: sarcasm) I am reminded that Babergh and Mid Suffolk are passionate about enabling our communities to be more sustainable, resilient and to thrive. Doubtless this is why we are advertising the post of Director of Place at a salary of £85,102 – £97,879. His/her responsibilities include bringing together responsibility for our key levers of planning, communities, wellbeing and the economy. You’d think that this was the job of the Chief Executive and that the last thing we needed was another £100,000+ (including national insurance and pension contributions) of overhead. But the position is being advertised and I wonder who in the present circumstances thought that this was a good idea. Disclaimer: This blog/post is the sole responsibility of its author Brian Riley. It has not been approved nor is it endorsed by Babergh District Council or South Suffolk Conservative Association.
Last November (https://brian-riley.blog/2023/11/03/meanwhile-on-planet-babergh-3/) I reported on a meeting of Babergh and Mid-Suffolk Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee One of the key areas looked at was the Annual Review of the Joint Homes and Housing Annual Strategy. Lurking at the back of the paper was the delivery plan which included the following new task: “Ensure we deliver a quality repairs and planned works service by holding our contractors to account. Making sure they respond to works orders in a timely manner as set out in their contract KPIs and our tenancy agreements.” I was told that we were not checking on contractors’ repairs and the problem was one of resources. In which case we needed a reallocation of resources from writing about work to doing it. I was given to understand that inspectoins would commence in April 2024. So it was with a sense of some anticipation that I attended this October’s Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting. One of the key areas looked at was the Annual Review of the Joint Homes and Housing Annual Strategy and so at an appropriate time I raised the matter of the inspecting contractors’ work. To my surprise I was told that no inspections were taking place. This was due to a misapplication (my word) of resources. It appears that the Housing Department is focussing on Policies, Protocols & Procedures ignoring the obvious that it’s sharp end performance that counts. The inspection regime should commence in January or February and that this timescale was realistic. There was no sense of embarrassment that their focus was inwards and not towards their relationships with contractors. Nor was there any appreciation of the moral hazards of not checking on contractors. The meeting can be viewed on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fhaNOul8wo) and my questions are featured just before the two hour milestone. I confess I had trouble keeping a civil tongue in my head.
This blog/post is the sole responsibility of its author Brian Riley. It has not been approved nor is it endorsed by Babergh District Council or South Suffolk Conservative Association The copyright on the housing image is owned by Oast House Archive
A recent meeting of the Babergh District Council Cabinet revealed two interesting details. First the minutes of the previous meeting showed the comment by a councillor that the anaerobic (waste) digestion was more sophisticated than composting. I suppressed the thought that anaerobic digestion practitioners attend sophisticated parties, enjoying fine wine and having an informed appreciation of ballet and opera but instead I concentrated on the view that the more complicated something is the more likely it is to malfunction. But we expect to learn more in November. Meanwhile lurking in the small print of the General Fund Financial Monitoring 2024/25 Q1 Forecast was the news that interest income was down £723,000. Most of this (£612,000) arose from the unexpected closure of one of the council’s pooled investment funds, which had only recently been announced. I was unable to get further details except that the closure was unexpected. There is an experience of people & organisations going bankrupt slowly at first and then very quickly. But even asteroids give notice of impending doom. Which prompts the question of who was asleep at the wheel whilst this “unexpected” situation occurred? When was the investment downgraded to junk status or worse? What role did our Money Investment Consultants play in this debacle? I’m not suggesting that Babergh is in financial difficulties but I would like to know more and more specifically who was asleep at the wheel.
Disclaimer: This blog/post is the sole responsibility of its author Brian Riley. It has not been approved nor is it endorsed by Babergh District Council or South Suffolk Conservative Association.
At the Cabinet meeting on Monday, Babergh decided to introduce a food collection service, This will be in the form of a third mandatory bin for our residents. There are other modifications proposed to the collection service and these will cost around £1 million in the first year. The figures presented to us did not include possible income from the Government via the Administrator for Extended Producer Responsibility. Also excluded was how the Council will treat the food waste collected. There was talk of composting (for farmers) and the production of fuel gases. However, when I asked about the where, the when and the how much this might cost and why it was not included the figures presented, I was told that this was a separate project and full details would be forthcoming in due course. (I felt as though I had stepped out of an episode of Yes Minister). Disclaimer: This blog/post is the sole responsibility of its author Brian Riley. It has not been approved nor is it endorsed by Babergh District Council or South Suffolk Conservative Association.
Readers of my blog may have noted my absence over the past seven months. The most recent development in my circumstances is that at the end of April I broke my left femur and damaged my left elbow which left me distinctly out of action. I cannot thank enough the ambulance service, Ipswich General A&E surgeons, nurses and the physiotherapists who worked hard to get me back on my feet. I’m also grateful for my social and political friends who did so much to keep my spirits up. I have now started attending meetings of the Council and feel that positive change is not yet in sight and we continue to face a budget gap of £6.7 million over the years 2025 to 2028. The Cabinet Meeting on 2nd August was live streamed and around about one hour and twelve minutes in I asked two questions, one administrative and one political (see https://youtu.be/FdqhcqhwXsc?t=4341). Whenever Council spending or tax raising is questioned we often get the response that there is no alternative. The alternatives are only too clear. They focus on jobs that are not worth doing let alone not doing well. This time for all their defensiveness, it seems that non statutory services will be under the hammer. The preceding debate focused on the proposed new carpark charges. The Cabinet has recognised some previous input from Councillors, residents and local town/parish Councils. One of the problems with this sort of taxation is the effect on the local economies. Babergh takes the position that they are unable to make an appropriate assessment and therefore they stand back from this issue. However, I have heard it suggested that the car parks will experience a 10-15% reduction in footfall. Translate that into High Street visitors then the economic effects will be to turn more tax paying businesses into subsidised charity shops.
There is nothing a Lib Dem likes more than a deficit in spending. It gives them an opportunity to pick the residents’ pockets and impose their will on the electorate regardless of the damage caused to the communities. The deficit in Babergh’s current budget is to be partially filled by the imposition of higher parking charges from Hadleigh, Sudbury, Lavenham and possibly others. The deficit to the end of March is forecast to be £1.5 million (Dave Busby, Leader of Babergh, EADT December 18th). The cost of parking is said to be £425,000. Thus, just under a third of the Babergh deficit will be covered by the motorist. But wait. £425,000 a year is £38,000 a month which is an awful lot of money for lorryloads of cheap asphalt, white lines and ticket machines. Where is the prudent management we need? Who is responsible for the £1.5 million overspend? And why is the first reaction to increase taxes? All expenditure should be reviewed. All staff recruitment should be reviewed and as appropriate deferred. All salary increases and councillor allowances (above the basic) should be withheld. Then we shall see who have the residents’ needs at heart and who is interested in just feathering their nests. A petition against car parking charges can be found on https://baberghmidsuffolk.moderngov.co.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=31&RPID=9027367&HPID=9027367 Disclaimer: This blog/post is the sole responsibility of its author Brian Riley. It has not been approved nor is it endorsed by Babergh District Council or South Suffolk Conservative Association.
There are days when we all have “would you believe it?” moments. The key skill is that one’s reaction should be just below that which irritates the family beyond measure. You only have to be a regular reader of the EADT to be glad that you are not a close family member of some of the regular Europhile correspondents. One such WYBI moment was when I became aware that Babergh-Midsuffolk are advertising for a political assistant to support the new Green Party administration at an exciting time for Mid Suffolk District Council. Now in the normal course of events I have only a brief interest in what Mid Suffolk Greens are up to. But, as Mid Suffolk and Babergh’s expenses tend to be shared I get concerned that we might be paying for this extravagance. So, I put the following question down for answering at the Council meeting on the 21st November. Would you kindly confirm that: No costs for this post will fall upon the taxpayers and residents of Babergh District Council and that any recruitment by Babergh District Council for a similar post will come to full council for approval prior to the post being advertised. You’d have thought that the answers would be simple and that this could be an exercise in discovering something right and reasonable for a change. But, no! The matter was referred the Political Leaders’ Group who rejected the question. Discreet enquiries as to the constitutionality of this action caused the question to be reinstated on the Council’s agenda. The answers were that the costs of Mid Suffolk’s Political Assistant were for them to fund and that there were no plans for Babergh to have Political Assistants. So, what does this mean? Why the fuss, if the matter was innocuous? Were one or more of Babergh’s coalition groups thinking of having political assistants and didn’t want the matter aired before they were ready? Did they change their mind about their perceived needs once the disinfectant of public awareness’ was applied to their ambitions? All in all, I think Babergh has dodged the Political Assistant bullet for the time being and the future requires us to be alert to similar future developments.
This blog/post is the sole responsibility of its author Brian Riley. It has not been approved nor is it endorsed by Babergh District Council or South Suffolk Conservative Association
Often, District and County Council meetings test one’s boredom level as the meetings are often a formality and decision making is often pushed to the side. So it was on Tuesday when Babergh Councillors were asked to note the Council’s Annual Treasury Management Report and the progress and strategy of CIFCO (the Council’s property company). Although the papers presented to us were for noting rather than approval there was some lively questioning About an hour and a half into the meeting we sat down to look at a paper for approval bearing the seemingly innocuous title “BC/23/17 Recommendation from the Independent Review Panel”. This paper suggested that as we now had two Deputy Leaders (one a legal requirement) and the other discretionary (depending upon the wishes of the parties concerned), they should both be classified as political and were recommended to receive 1.25 times the basic Councillor’s allowance as a special responsibility allowance for their respective positions. The paper’s arguments seemed reasonable until the assumptions were tested. The comparative councils with two or more deputy leaders were much larger than Babergh. The range of skills and duties suggested that we would be paying over the odds for a job share programme. Really, this was a ruse to reward political allies. After much discussion in the chamber, I was pleased to move an amendment to the original proposals and suggest that as this was a job share, each of the deputies should receive half of the suggested allowance. The voting went to 11 votes for and 11 votes against with 5 abstentions. The Chair exercised her casting vote against the amendment, even though there was a distinct mood that the original suggestions were not acceptable. We then moved to voting on the substantive motion. 10 voted for and 11 voted against whereupon the original recommendation was lost and the residents won. Taxpayers should not be paying for vanity projects and this whole exercise demonstrated that although the Conservative Group at Council is small (seven of us) we are not without friends. The meeting may be viewed on YouTube and the web address is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQhNAX5Que0 Disclaimer:
This blog/post is the sole responsibility of its author Brian Riley. It has not been approved nor is it endorsed by Babergh District Council or South Suffolk Conservative Association
brian riley's blog 