Agenda item

Budget 2026/27 & medium term financial strategy

Purpose:

To provide the proposed budget for 2026/27, whilst also seeking approval for:

1. The Draft Base Budget for 2026/27

2. The Council’s Capital Programme for 2026/27 to 2030/31

3. The level of Council Tax for 2026/27

4. The Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) for 2026/27 to 2030/31

5. The Capital Strategy 2026/27

6. The Investment Strategy 2026/27

7. The Treasury Management Strategy 2026/27

8. The Council’s Pay Policy Statement 2026/27

Recommendations:

The Executive resolves to recommend the following to Council for approval:

1. The General Fund Revenue Budget 2026/27 as Summarised in Annex A.

2. The Medium-Term Financial Strategy for 2026/27 to 2030/31 in Annex B.

3. The Capital Programme for 2026/27 to 2030/31 as set out in Annex C.

4. The Council’s Pay Policy Statement as set out in Annex I.

5. The Council’s Capital Strategy as set out in Annex J.

6. The Council’s Investment Strategy as set out in Annex K.

7. The Council’s Treasury Management Strategy as set out in Annex L.

Minutes:

In introducing the item, the Chair reminded members that they would not be able to leave partway through the item.

The purpose of the item was to provide the proposed budget for 2026/27, whilst also seeking approval for:

1. The Draft Base Budget for 2026/27

2. The Council’s Capital Programme for 2026/27 to 2030/31

3. The level of Council Tax for 2026/27

4. The Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) for 2026/27 to 2030/31

5. The Capital Strategy 2026/27

6. The Investment Strategy 2026/27

7. The Treasury Management Strategy 2026/27

8. The Council’s Pay Policy Statement 2026/27

The Leader introduced the item, and in doing so thanked the Council’s finance team and officers generally. The Leader stated that the Executive had proposed a prudent budget which allowed the Council to maintain essential functions. The Leader also stated that the Executive had made strong progress against the Council’s priorities, referencing the following projects;

Growth in Marriott’s Walk and strong market attendance, with over 32,000 visitors to the Christmas market.
Significant progress on the Local Plan, supported by over 2,200 consultation responses.
Establishment of the first Habitat Bank at Pudlicote Farm and advancement of the Salt Cross Area Action Plan (net?zero development).
Ongoing work on the Carterton Area Strategy and the appointment of a regeneration lead.
Continued lobbying on sewage treatment investment and the Carterton–Oxford rail link, and submission of a comprehensive response to the Botley West solar farm proposal.
Environmental initiatives including EV investment and solar/low?carbon upgrades at leisure centres.
Adoption of the Community Infrastructure Levy and delivery of 321 new affordable and social rented homes, as well as progress on the Woodford Way housing scheme.
Successful support to vulnerable residents through the Low?Income Family Tracker programme.
Submission of an Oxfordshire local government reorganisation proposal with partner councils.
Over £1m raised through the community grants scheme, with a refreshed platform due.
Development of a new services partnership for waste, grounds maintenance and local services

The Leader highlighted the key elements of the 2026-27 budget:

Investment in homelessness services, including 29 new emergency accommodation bed spaces, reducing reliance on temporary accommodation and generating estimated savings of £350,000 annually.
Strengthened Healthy Communities and Community Funding teams to support local programmes and partnerships.
Further investment in nature recovery and enforcement capacity for fly?tipping.
Introduction of real?time footfall monitoring in Witney, Carterton and Chipping Norton to support economic growth.
Continued strong income from the Council’s investment property portfolio (over £3m), with additional savings from the sale of Knights Court.
Funding set aside for Local Government Reorganisation.
Freeze on garden waste charges and a £5 increase for Band D council tax to protect services while remaining one of the lowest district rates nationally.

Councillor Michele Mead, the Leader of the Opposition, then spoke on the Executive’s proposed budget. Councillor Mead put forward an amendment to the budget, giving the following reasons;

Every pound matters to residents, and the Council should aim to ease the burden on residents wherever possible.
Fly tipping was an issue in the District, and the amendment was to provide funding for two enforcement officers (an additional officer compared to the Executive’s budget).
The amendment would provide funding for improved parking capacity and investment into youth sports.
The opposition’s amendment was fully funded, reallocating funds from the Council’s reserves, member’s allowances and the works on Guildenford Car Park.

The opposition’s amendment read as follows;

“The Conservative Group is proposing a responsible and community-focused amendment to the 2026/27 budget. Our approach prioritises residents, frontline services, and cost discipline, while ensuring value for money.
We propose removing the following allocations:

• £411,726 currently allocated to reserves.

• £100,000 for the Guildford Car Park lighting project. We believe this project should be reconsidered through proper scrutiny due to concerns regarding overall costs and scope, with a view to potentially delivering it from next year’s budget if justified.

• £14,009 increase to member allowances*.

This reflects our belief that residents should come first, and that discretionary spending and internal increases should be carefully controlled during financially challenging times.
We propose reinvesting these funds into the following priorities:

• £353, 803 – Council Tax Freeze (2026/27)

Delivering a council tax freeze to support households facing ongoing cost-of-living pressures.

• £48,433 – Strengthening Fly-Tipping Enforcement

Increasing the proposal from one to two enforcement officers, increasing capacity further to tackle environmental crime and protect our rural communities.

• £50,000 – Station Parking Feasibility Study

Supporting commuters, reducing inappropriate parking in residential areas, and strengthening sustainable transport links. Funding towards a feasibility study into expanding parking at:

o Charlbury Station

o Kingham Station

o Hanborough Station

£70,000 – Youth Sport Grant Scheme
Launching a new grant programme, administered by the Community Funding Officer, to support grassroots youth sport across West Oxfordshire to promote better health, opportunities, and community engagement”

There was one question of clarity over the number of fly tipping officers. The Leader of the opposition stated that the number of fly tipping officers being proposed by the opposition was two, one additional officer compared to the Executive’s budget.

The amendment was seconded by Councillor Liam Walker,

The proposed budget and the opposition’s amendment to it were then debated.

Members of the Administration and the controlling Alliance raised the following points;

West Oxfordshire had thriving market towns, and in particular members made reference to Witney. This was evidence that the Council’s work in this area was successful.
The budget was prudent and progressive, and members commended the continued delivery of socially rented homes within it.
The administration’s prudent financial management had allowed the Council to resource key areas, such as youth development.
Members commended the work of the waste and recycling team, and referred to the amendment, stating that there was no need for additional resources based on the fly tipping numbers.
Members commended the Council’s treasury management strategy.
It was a collaborative budget built on Alliance projects including nature recovery, the Carterton area strategy, expanded social rent and emergency housing, youth services, planning capacity, and climate change work.
There was a need for caution in regard to the Medium-Term Financial Strategy, as levels of inflation remained high, and reserves were needed to safeguard the Council’s budget. Members felt this was not sufficiently addressed within the amendment.
The local plan review was being taken forward by the administration as a key project and the Council had introduced the Community Infrastructure Levy on developments.
Members referenced the work that had been done in refurbishing the Chipping Norton market.
Members stated that the lighting work at the Guildenford Car Park was necessary for improving Public Safety.
The Freezing of Council Tax (as proposed in the amendment) would have knock on effects for funding in future years and therefore compromise services. While the Council would not exist after Local Government Reorganisation, the services provided would need to continue. It was important to safeguard these services for the future.
That the worst-off residents, who might be expected to benefit most from the freeze in Council Tax, would likely be in receipt of Council Tax reduction already.
The increase was £5 per year for a band D property, which would not make a substantial difference to most households’ budgets.

Members of the opposition raised the following points;

The amendment was fully costed and checked by the finance team. In particular, they stated that the Council had a lot of reserves, and that therefore these could be utilised to ease the financial pressure on residents.
The Council’s MTFS was to 2031, which was longer than the duration of the Council.
The amendment provided valuable sports provision.
The administration’s progress on projects was overshadowed by significant delays, for instance on 3G pitches.
The Opposition’s amendment prioritised resident wellbeing.
The Opposition legitimately held the belief that the amendment would improve the budget and was sensible.
Train station parking at Kingham was difficult, and it was very hard to get a parking space. There was a hope that the amendment would enable a feasibility study to enable further growth and progress.
The grant scheme would provide growth and support for small groups.
There was evidence of organised fly-tipping, which justified the need for additional resource.
The Alliance had, in the past, criticised the opposition for not putting forward an amendment.
The Council’s responsibility was to its residents. £5 a year was a lot of money to a lot of people, and the reduction was also about the public messaging, and sending a message of support to these residents.

Councillor Alaric Smith, in reserving right to speak as the seconder of the budget, highlighted the following;

Several of the Council’s recent achievements.
Investment continued in pollution management.
Criticised the opposition amendments, describing them as political posturing and lacking substance.
The leisure contract had previously been at risk; work with officers had increased footfall and stabilised income.
The Council had made substantial investment in its wider investment portfolio, supported by pre?emptive maintenance.
The proposed budget was described as strong and building on investments already made, including at Salt Cross and in services for young people, as well as through the use of Grampian conditions.
The Administration argued that the Opposition’s amendment would reduce the Council’s future revenue base.
The proposed increase in Band D council tax amounted to only 11p per week.
It was stated that the Opposition’s approach would put the Council’s finances at risk for the sake of virtue signalling.
The Administration emphasised that delivering services required a legally balanced budget.
The proposed budget would provide an appropriate financial buffer.
Overall, the budget was presented as one that built on strong foundations.

The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Michele Mead, summed up the amendment and:

Stated that Marriott’s Walk was costing the Council £600,000 per year.
Made reference to investment providing a boost to sports provision.
Argued that some of the housing being claimed by the Liberal Democrats had in fact been delivered by the previous Conservative administration.
Raised concerns that green waste charges were too expensive.
Highlighted Burford car park flooding, with the view that the Council should be focusing on fixing existing issues.
Suggested that a Carterton area strategy would be unnecessary if the administration were not pursuing current levels of housebuilding.
Noted that the amendment had been submitted the previous week in accordance with the constitution.

Stated that consideration should be given to other sports and facilities, not only football pitches

In summing up the Leader stated that the message sent to residents was important, but there was support available in other way. He expressed support for the proposed budget and rejected the amendment, arguing it was submitted at the last minute, had not been developed through the established six?month consultation and scrutiny process, and lacked seriousness. He stated that signalling without action is ineffective and that the amendment would lead to a significant financial shortfall. He highlighted the budget’s focus on supporting residents, including funding for community larders. They also challenged comments made by the opposition regarding market support and the financial position of Marriott’s, pointing to figures in the papers. The Leader added that existing feasibility work on rail issues is already underway with local partners. They concluded by commending the budget and recommending the amendment be rejected.

Before the Chair proceeded to the vote the Chief Finance Officer stated that there were alternate mechanisms for dealing with some of the requests that the Opposition had made but that the Council Tax freeze would only make a difference of £5 a year in a Band D property.

Council resolved to approve: