PRESS RELEASE - BRACKNELL BUDGET CONSULTATION EXERCISE FLAWED (Bracknell Liberal Democrats)

Bracknell Liberal Democrats <info@bracknelllibdems.org.uk>

PRESS RELEASE - BRACKNELL BUDGET CONSULTATION EXERCISE FLAWED

February 3, 2008 10:00 PM

PRESS RELEASE

BRACKNELL BUDGET CONSULTATION EXERCISE FLAWED

Lack of information precludes proper examination, say Lib-Dems

Local Liberal Democrats have fiercely criticised the style and content of the public consultation documents produced by Bracknell Forest Borough Council for the 2008-09 Budget. A copy of the response made by the Local Party to the Council is attached.

These documents are totally unsuited to public consideration of the issues involved or the merits of individual budget proposals. In addition the options for making savings are not outlined in sufficient detail and there is no mention of the options that were either rejected or ignored.

In the circumstances it is hardly surprising that the public response is minimal and without the telephone surveys carried on the Council's behalf, it would have little or no feedback on the level of support for the measures proposed. The Council's barely used web-site questionnaire seeks only the broadest of responses, which may be neither indicative nor representative of the community as a whole.

Yet again the Council finds itself in a position of having a significant budget shortfall despite earlier assurances that the transfer of the Council's housing stock to a new locally-based housing association would ease the Council's financial difficulties. Improvements in waste disposal arrangements and continued investment in 'Invest to Save' schemes were also expected to lead to considerable savings in revenue costs!

Commenting on the proposals Lib-Dem Prospective Parliamentary Candidate, Ray Earwicker, said 'the budget proposals were very much in line with what residents had come to expect from this Council. Controlling costs continued to be a major problem and although the Government grant settlement could have been better, it was clear the Council was still not living within its means!

A low tax base was not proving very helpful and he had little doubt that once again the maximum permitted council tax increase would be imposed on local taxpayers. Given the anticipated income from the housing transfer and the priority still being accorded to 'Big Brother' type technologies and inflated publicity budgets, any cuts in essential front-line services or council tax increases above the rate of inflation would be unacceptable. Once the final Government grant settlement was known, any residual shortfall should be met by further efficiency gains and other savings, as appropriate.'