The West Berkshire Budget is set for another year

The main news this year is that, to avoid raising council tax by more than the 5%, the LIberal Democrats chose to instead borrow.

In real terms - based on the budget papers which contain a total of £150million of borrowing at over 5% per annum, residents now face

• Total interest over 20 years: £90.7m

• Total cost to taxpayers: £240.7m

• Annual repayment when all loans overlap: approx £12.0m per year

• Every £1m borrowed costs £604k in interest

FYI I brought an amendment to council (the only one as it happens) to try and think around the issue. No other ideas of any kind were presented. I was accused of being a business man only and not community minded. This was meant as an insult, but as a business man, if I did what the council is doing I would be beaking the law and personally liable to repay the money.

The Leader of West Berkshire Council stated that "they were taking a leaf out of the government's playbook and borrowing for day to day activities". That's just pushing the problem onto future residents.

For transparency my full speech and original amendment (before advice from officers to amend) is below.

Local plans can take a decade to come through. In that time we can easily get a change in ideology in Westminster. This is what has happened to the West Berkshire Local plan

Ever since Angela Rayner imposed Labours new targets on the UK population in July 2024, we have had 1 planning application after another, where the lack of a 5-year housing supply is used as the justification for approval. In many cases officers suggest approval for only that reason. The “tilted balance” is engaged.

It is worth noting that Angela Rayners constituency saw a significant reduction in their building targets. In fact, 19 out of the top 20 areas with significantly reduced housing targets are Labour constituencies. In London, the other 1 in the top 20, which is split between Labour and Conservatives, has seen an 18K target reduction. No wonder areas like West Berkshire have a doubling of housing numbers to be built each year.

Even the appeal for eagle quarter had this in as a reason for why permission should be granted.

During several WAP meetings recently, things that would normally be rejected are suddenly down as recommended for approval.

Why? Because without a plan we must build 1070 homes a year, with one, its just 515. It’s a completely artificial number. Is it any wonder at all, we have sites now coming in a local plan that will harm communities. Also lets step back and look at how Local plans are developed. It starts by asking for land. That land almost exclusively comes from developers or from others who have arrangements with developers. I think we have a word missing from Local Plan – It should say local developer plan.

When our Labour MP for Reading west, says she is against Pincents Hill I find myself struggling. Her Bosses are the ones imposing mandatory targets, what has she managed to do for Pincents Hill for instants (net to Reading), Reading got a big reduction! The moment Labour set the target lead directly to the problem associated with approving the local plan.

I said at the meeting that “if we approve tonight, we hurt whole communities, Pincents Hill and North Thatcham being 2 of the biggest.

If we don’t, we hurt West Berkshire as a whole and the same communities.”

I take little solace from now having adopted local plan, but we now have some measure of control back. Therefore, we most likely have time to force a change in Westminster. That is critical to having a community led building program rather than mandated one by remote bodies.

Why do I think we have time? Because just look at the time frames associated with Sandleford starting around 2006. We may get spades in the ground next year i.e. 2026

I reserved my final decision on which way to vote until I had heard from others . IN the end I had to vote for it or risk uncontrolled development by appeal.

I can only apologise to the people of North Thatcham and Pincents Hill that there was no other choice.

FYI here are top 20 areas where housing targets have dropped significantly, along with the political party representing each constituency:

1. Manchester – Labour Angela Rayner
2. Birmingham – Labour
3. London (Outer Boroughs) – Mixed (Labour & Conservative)
4. Leeds – Labour - Rachael Reeves
5. Sheffield – Labour
6. Bristol – Labour
7. Nottingham – Labour
8. Liverpool – Labour
9. Cambridge – Labour
10. Oxford – Labour
11. Southampton – Labour
12. Newcastle – Labour
13. Cardiff – Labour
14. Glasgow – Labour
15. Edinburgh – Labour
16. Derby – Labour
17. Coventry – Labour
18. Reading – Labour
19. Leicester – Labour
20. Portsmouth – Labour