Warwickshire County Council's budget has been set for 2025-26 without any of the adjustments requested by opposition political groups. 

The Conservative-led authority is putting up council tax by the maximum permitted under normal circumstances – 4.99 per cent – and approved a framework that plans to for the next five years, something that could change in future budgets but seems unlikely to given the pressure on local government finances. 

The need to raise more money to fund big-ticket services such as social care, special educational needs (SEN) and home-to-school transport has been cited with the council's employed financial experts also aiming to either save or create extra income to the tune of almost £80 million over the five-year medium-term financial strategy (MTFS) period.

Council tax

This financial year, those in a Band D property – deemed to be the average – paid £1,736.19 to Warwickshire County Council, a figure that becomes £1,823 for 2025-26. There are extra, albeit much smaller, parts of the bill that fund district and borough councils and Warwickshire's police and fire services. 

If the county's portion continues to go up as planned, it will hit £2,215.87 by 2029-30 – £479 more than it is today – but things could change amid plans to move one new overarching council for Warwickshire by April 2028. 

Cllr Peter Butlin, deputy leader of Warwickshire County Council and the politician in charge of finance and property, talked in his introduction about other councils that had to ask for special permission to go beyond the maximum rise.

"As much as I dislike putting up council tax, we have done our best to keep it to a minimum," he said. 

Cuts, savings and higher costs

Each political group represented on the county council has the ability to put forward counter proposals. The matters are then debated with votes on which plan to go with. 

The Tories have an overwhelming majority at Warwickshire County Council and as has been the case in recent years, their plans got waved through without amendment despite impassioned pleas to save certain services or add in spend-to-save extras. 

One of the permanent spending allocations suggested is the medium-term financial strategy risk provision, a £38.8 million pot to cover "future unknown and unquantified spending need". It is there to insure against the need to dive into other savings pots if demand-led services continue to be a problem. 

That money would be put aside gradually over the next five financial years with Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party all proposing to reduce that by a little to save or aid services current primed for cuts – the Greens wanted to eat into that by the largest amount, £1.375 million overall.

They advocated not going ahead with "reviewing and repurposing" children and family centres by 2028-29 to save £900,000, putting back £100,000 of the £245,000 proposed to be saved on street lighting, halt £25,000 of the £414,000 cuts to public health spending on adult weight management, domestic abuse and sexual assault victim services and putting back all £150,000 that the council hopes to save on cuts to library services. 

Labour wanted to avoid putting up the cost of resident parking permits, missing out on more than £450,000 worth of revenue, and wanted to save all £414,000 worth of public health services as well as stopping the move towards volunteer-ran libraries.

The Lib Dems wanted to maintain Sunday library opening, uphold some of the public health services and reduce but not get rid of planned parking permit price increases. They also proposed limiting the cuts to children and family centres to £200,000 rather than the full £900,000.

The conclusion

Cllr Butlin reflected on a debate that "wasn't as lively as I'd normally expect", citing the lack of wiggle room any group had to come forward with significantly different spending plans. 

"Judging by the amount of variation proposed by the opposition groups, less than one per cent (of the overall budget), primarily you agree with the budget we have proposed," he said. 

"A lot of the questions asked by the opposition have already been answered by a lot of the portfolio holders. They have explained where we are as a county and the fact we continue to deliver good services despite the financial constraints."

He argued "only about five per cent" of the £80 million in savings should be seen as cuts as opposed to efficiencies or income generation schemes. 

"We take those cuts very carefully and look to see where we can procure or push (any needs) over to another service," he added.

"Most of them are done through a better methodology in how we procure those services and deliver them."

Addressing Cllr Jonathan Chilvers, leader of the Green group who had accused the Tories of pursing "false economy", Cllr Butlin said: "Jonathan, you said there is always more we can do and I agree.

"I would love to have far more flexibility in my budget, to allocate pots of money, do things better or have more money where we recognise things that need it but we are not in that ball game any more. 

"We have to make sure the statutory services that we have to provide are there and look after the most vulnerable in our society. I think this budget does that."

How they voted

All councillors present voted along party lines all the way with 36 Conservatives in the chamber at the time gunning down the alternatives. 

Labour's plan was supported by the Greens and the single independent Cllr Judy Falp but the Liberal Democrats joined the Tories in saying no. 

The Lib Dems had no support from Labour but again, the Greens and Cllr Falp were on board.

The Greens then gained support from Labour and Cllr Falp but not the Lib Dems for their plans. 

All 14 non-Conservative councillors voted against the original proposal but it was nowhere near enough to change things.