Consultation Responses

Please find below a representative selection of responses to the Budget Consultation so far. For full copies or further details of the correspondence summarised below please contact Sarah Harwood, Policy Assistant.

A. General

A1. ‘I understand that an 11.1% rise in Council tax is planned for 2004/5. This is on top of rises well above the rate of inflation for the next six years, totalling an increase of about 70% since the 1998/9 bill! I feel your advert is unfair in laying the blame at the door of government. How can the required budget for MK rise from £140m in 1997/8 to £240m now? The local population clearly hasn’t risen anywhere near this proportion. The people of MK are virtually blackmailed emotionally by having stark choices presented to them’ A Member of the Public

A2. ‘The proposed increase is excessive in the extreme. Any increase should not exceed inflation and preferably there should be none at all with the Council pruning its costs and curtailing its, often unnecessary, interventions. If the Council believe it can make £1m of efficiency savings, surely it has significantly overspent in earlier years. In light of this, there must be substantial room for further cuts. Demand on services should not be allowed to increase and the full economies available from increased growth utilised, also increased pension costs should be reduced by ceasing the current pension scheme arrangements. Further to this: Why provide black sacks at all? Cease purchase of audio-visual equipment for libraries, reduce grants for voluntary organisations, restrict payments to councillors, reduce payments to the MK theatre to zero. The savings suggested indicate that the Council is a grossly over-manned and inefficient organisation – increase internal savings to seven figures’ A Member of the Public

A3. ‘It seems that Central Government is continuing to cheat Milton Keynes with regard to funding. Increasing Council Tax to cover such cheating is no longer the way forward. All you will do is maintain the status quo which will continue to worsen things year by year if MK is forced to expand as proposed by Government. It seems you have only one choice – increase tax by 3.1% and refuse to provide the services demanded by the Government once the available money runs out. The current process of double-digit increases has to stop. I will be cancelling my direct debit and will be happy to join any protest the Council care to arrange’ A Member of the Public

A4. ‘I’m strongly convinced of the inadequacy of the Government’s settlement for 2004/5. It is a matter I will be taking up with Brian White MP as I am getting fed up with our MPs failure to achieve the sort of settlement MK needs.’ A Member of the Public

A5. ‘Why not raise Council Tax higher than 11% and make no cuts? In my opinion the people who want council tax as low as possible are also the ones who moan about cutbacks. You have done a good job of analysing where cuts can be made, but they are all essential services, except perhaps the Theatre & Gallery. I object in particular to plans to reduce Stony Stratford Library – it is a

1 wonderful place. I think that tax should go up so that we can all have decent services throughout the community; the benefits would be far reaching.’ A Member of the Public

A6. ‘I think it is disgusting that you are setting tax at 11% - it is nearly all my pension. No way will I be able to afford what you are asking even if it means I will have to go to prison. I am just not going to pay it because I can’t but you should be targeting the wealthy who can afford it.’ A Member of the Public

A7. ‘The lobbying of Government is vital – put as much effort into this as you can. I believe that cuts affecting people directly should only be made after cuts on material maintenance and non-essential services’ A Member of the Public

A8. ‘I write to protest about the raise in Council tax. I am on a less that average wage, 45% of which will go on rent and council tax. Take a look around this estate (Heelands) - it is a mess! Where does the money from parking go? Not on public transport, that’s for certain. I hope everyone in this city protests to let you lot know that we are simply fed up with paying council tax and receiving nothing in return’ A Member of the Public

A9. ‘I find the tax increases totally unbelievable. The Government which is representing the people expect us to take pay increases of 3.5%, so why should we pay nearly 7% increase to the council? Every year you increase above inflation and we just sit back and pay it. Why do you expect people to manage their finances when you cannot manage yours? I will only pay the 3.5% increase that I will be getting. You always blame number 10 and they always blame you – so will we ever get a true answer to the shambles of the UK council system? I think not!’ A Member of the Public

A10. ‘In the last 2 years Milton Keynes residents have seen rises many times more than inflation and I am interested to hear when this will stop? This is in a time of instability in the Global economies so we are all expected to work harder for no pay rewards to carry us all forward into future prosperity. It appears these factors can be either overlooked or ignored when it comes to public sector financing. To explain it away as insufficient grant from the government due to outdated population figures is not showing any compassion for the existing and long- standing population within Milton Keynes. Why should I fund new schemes to increase the population at Milton Keynes to ensure that I will end up paying more for poorer facilities in the future? I feel that as a married couple we are being victimised for investing in the future to give my wife and I stability by purchasing the best home we can possibly afford. Although we have a four bedroom house there is only the two of us we have no children and do not intend to have any and so we are funding schools and colleges etc assuming that we have a household full, due to the size of house we own. A fairer system would be on the head count within the house as it is the people who are being provided for and not the property. Why should those looking to provide for themselves in the future be taxed disproportionately to fund those who don’t and are a drain on the council’s services/budget?’ A Member of the Public

2

A11. As a householder in Milton Keynes I have no alternatives with regards to paying for my Council Tax unlike the modern market where I can shop around for the best service at a competitive price. Therefore I am expected to accept the increases without negotiation and will be imprisoned if I fail to pay. At what point will it be acceptable for Milton Keynes residents to refuse to pay after next years over inflation increase: or the year after? ‘Have seen the proposals for a 11.1% rise I think this is diabolical, especially as I only get a cost of living rise that is supposed to match inflation. I thought I paid enough tax as it was. In addition how can the government even consider expanding Milton Keynes if Milton Keynes cannot cope with the demands already placed on it?’ A Member of the Public

A12. ‘An increase of 11.1% is totally unacceptable! An increase of half this would also be unacceptable. Can’t someone realise that the money is not there. The Council Tax payer does not have limitless resources. I cannot knock on my neighbour's door and ask him to help. Similarly, the Council should spend within a realistic income. I realise the government appears to be passing obligations down the line without providing the means. I suggest the Association of Local Authorities tells the government that the limit has been reached. Taking care of the environment should be the first priority i.e. good repair, cleanliness and safety. People should be encouraged to provide their facilities directly from their own pocket. I cherish books and buy them out of my own pocket but I do not expect someone else to pay if I want to visit the library, likewise the theatre. No doubt it will be said that these things are the mark of a civilised society but it seems as long as someone else will pay. Compounded increases are exacerbating the situation and bringing nearer the prospect of civil disobedience. Matters are getting serious which will only be rectified when local and central government lives within its means.’ A Member of the Public

A13. ‘I have a number of concerns, especially since I helped vote you in, but will focus on what has raised my blood pressure the most. In the article in The Citizen, under the heading 'Could services be cut further instead of increasing council tax?' in one of the bullet points you say 'Stopping provision of free rubbish sacks.' My question is - since when has the Council been giving out free rubbish sacks? Forgive me, but I thought that these were budgeted for in the Council Tax I already pay! What else do you class as free? Fire Service? Police? Community Care? When will you be cutting out these free services? Please don't play with words. The electorate are well-informed enough to see through this and this doesn't help the image of politics.’ A Member of the Public

A14. ‘I feel the information given is not very well balanced. For example I don't think many people will have any interest, except in principle, concerning the suggested reduction in the supply of black sacks from 56 to 52 which appears to be totally trivial!! However, you say that the government are 'holding back' £4.9M of their grant to MK. Considering you say that we would be paying less than the national average even after an 11.1% rise and considering that we are paying less than all the neighbouring council's charge, I would say that it is highly interesting to

3 know why they are holding this back and I cannot understand why this hasn't been explained. It sounds as though the government have decided we don't pay enough or could it be that they consider that the money that is already available is not used efficiently. Of course I wouldn't have an opinion as I don't know any of the facts. I want to make it clear that my interest is not political, it is just that Council Tax rises have been far greater than my wage increases for many years, indeed in some years I did not even get a rise. This means that each year my standard of living has been eroded and I genuinely don't know what benefit is being achieved from these high rises to balance the erosion. Finally, consider this, you talk about a series of possible reductions in services, but how can anyone except the Council themselves know what position of importance each service has in our community and whether the money currently to be consumed by each individual service is reasonable for next year (perhaps it was for last year). In other words perhaps a reduction somewhere could actually be desirable because the need is not at the level that the expenditure would cover. To comment on monetary reductions as listed in the paper really requires an initial acceptance that the amount allocated is correct and used in the best possible way at the moment - a grand statement if it could ever be made.’ A Member of the Public

A15. ‘I have been a Liberal Democrat voter both in national & local elections, since the party was formed. I have not been voting for privatisation & cuts. Unfortunately since we have had Liberal Democrat Council this has been all we have been getting. What really worries me however is that once again it is those in society who can least help themselves that are going to bear the brunt of these cuts. I know that Adult Mental Health is never going to be a vote winner, but in our evermore hectic & stressful environment it is essential. It isn’t until you have suffered some form of breakdown, that you realise how pitifully under funded Adult Mental Health already is. On a lighter note it does seem somewhat strange to apply for a Lottery Grant for our superb new theatre, & now propose to cut its funding. If we are going to be asked for our opinion on where we think cuts should be made, then we need to know how the entire budget is being allocated. Only then can we judge whether the proposed cuts should go ahead or be replaced. I would be really interested to learn what part our local MP’s have played in lobbying Parliament, or do we assume that Party Politics are playing a part now? Thank you for canvassing our opinion, please let it count & don’t just ignore it.’ A Member of the Public

A16. ‘On the face of it the proposed measures which were recently published in the local press appear to be a reasonable response to the current situation, however the comments are those of the people who are proposing the budget and are therefore bound to reflect their views. Central and local government often seek to present very different perspectives of the same situation by using carefully selected facts or statistics, is that the case here? I would be interested to know what response, if any, has been received from the government regarding your lobbying for a better deal for MK. Are the population figures agreed or disputed by central government, also how is the reallocation of money to other councils arrived at?

4 I would also be interested to hear the views of our local MP’s regarding the proposed budget. Finally, a related matter is the money raised from parking charges. I know this is dealt with separately but I have seen no discernable improvement in public transport, so where has the significant amount of money raised been spent?’ A Member of the Public

A17. ‘This must be one of the most unfair taxes that we have to pay. Because of the tax band that is placed on my property I already pay nearly £1500 per year, £29 per week. I am a pensioner and after a lot of scrimping and saving during my working life I was able to top up my State Pension with a small annuity which does not increase with inflation. Too small to pay income tax on I never the less have to pay this unfair council tax in full just the same as someone with a high income. Now you are increasing it by around 13% further eating into my pension. No wonder pensioners all over the country are talking about refusing to pay. I live in Tyringham, and wonder what I even get for all this money. No street lights, don't want them but that's not the point, no amenities, never even see a policeman let alone being able to get one if I needed one. It seems to me that all I get is my refuse collected, well for 30 odd pounds a week don't bother, I'll take it to the tip myself. In short you can't just keep increasing this tax forcing the disposable income of people like me down so that eventually they too become a burden on the State. It's not as though we can do a couple of hours overtime to increase our income, we're just stuck with what we get. I hope you've been listening.’ A Member of the Public

A18. ‘As a young man who has lived in Milton Keynes for over 25years and having only in the past 2 years purchased my first property in Milton Keynes, I must say I am disgusted that yet again the powers to be want to impose another hefty rise in Council Tax. I am completely against this as for people in my situation this is financially very bad news. I would welcome the following reductions in services/grants in order to keep C Tax rise to a minimum. 1. Ceasing operation of Mobile Library - There are two library’s in MK both have easy access via public transport or taxi - for those who are homebound and are in desperate need of a book etc… I’m sure their care or home help can oblige. 2. Close day centre for older people - Let them organise their own venue and activities with voluntary or admission charge run by the elderly who want and use current day centres. 3. Yes reduce Library opening hours - I’m sure the public will adapt. We have seen and experienced many places that have reduced opening hours over the years - we will cope! 4. Reduce grants/funding to Neighbourhood Services Directorate to voluntary organisations - My experience of having been a Council Tenant for over 5years before exercising my right to buy is that the Neighbourhood Services are a complete shambles right down to the level of training for local housing officer at all levels. I am so glad that I have now purchased my ex council home so I need not have to waste my time in wasted calls to NSD. What is even worse is the Locally run organisations for which my money is wasted by the Council giving grants so these ‘so called local do gooders’ can enjoy drinking cups of tea and eating biscuits at my expense. I live in Conniburrow and my Volunteer local organisation is useless - Please do not re-fund or at least complete a regular audit as to how this money is spent and what bearing if any it has on the local residents.

5 5. Stopping provision of Black refuse sacks - I’m sure we will all cope. 6. Yes reduce Adult mental health services - Most are in receipt of high levels of benefit compared to unemployed - Introduce a pay as you go type service or impose, for those who are not able to determine properly if they really want help for their problems. 7. Reduce Stony Stratford library to 1 level, the most affluent of MK live in the Stony Stratford area, I’m sure they could afford a small travel fee to visit CMK - especially with good bus links and times to the Centre MK. 8. Reduce Councillors/Consultancy Budgets - Yes please do for those councillors who care and want to improve MK, will pay some expenses themselves, I’m sure they could look upon it as the same as what you would pay to go to the gym, club or hobby. This would weed out the rotten councillors as I’m sure for those who are genuine candidates wouldn’t mind some small expenses. Plus only genuine future candidates would run and public would have more confidence in their integrity. 9. Reduce other internal costs, Holding Vacancies, reorganisation and refocusing of services. Having worked for a recruitment agency which supplied temporary staff to MK Council for over two years I must say how disgusted I am on the amount of temporary/permanent staff the Council received through recruitment agencies as a whole. Perhaps a review of the HR team is in order, the charge rates paid to recruitment agencies for staff are just another long line of monies being wasted. Please review senior members of staff and their usefulness in their present role, I’m sure some of them would quake in their comfy slippers at the thought of an outside independent audit on possible redundancies. To many of them have become complacent and do not warrant their present salaries or for some their jobs. I understand some of my points are quite strong and maybe not all as easy as they sound but I sincerely hope this conveys my anger with my experiences of MK Council, Services and the proposed increase of council tax as a genuine and proud MK resident of over 25 years.’ A Member of the Public

A19. ‘I am not, as you know, involved in the day to day administration of our city, and I cannot comment sensibly on the various options outlined in the Citizen article, nor can I judge how these proposed service cuts would effect the lives of those residents who rely on the provision of these services. However, I am a concerned citizen who has lived in MK since 1976, and I offer a number of comments arising from this information and the proposed increase in Council Tax. I'm sorry that I cannot be more complimentary, but this is how I feel, and I believe I must say so. 1 We know that a number of MK citizens do not pay their Council Tax or are Council tenants with substantial arrears of rent. You do not tell us how much is owed to MK Council, and what the effect the collection of such arrears would be on the proposed Council Tax increase. Are such non-payers subject to sanctions, and can we be assured that actions are pursued to recover these debts? 2 In addition to established residents, there are those who are, as it were, passing through, such as travellers and asylum seekers, for whom MKC provides support services but who do not, to my knowledge, pay a Council Tax. Can we be told what is the annual cost of such support? While many would agree that this is a necessary responsibility, should the residents of MK not be asked if we are prepared to meet this cost through our Council Tax? 3 I believe we are approaching the first full year of the application of parking charges in CMK. Would it be reasonable to believe that this project has been

6 profitable, and if so, what is the contribution of parking charges to MKC's budget? 4 Because the information provided on possible savings does not show the proportion of the budget for these particular services that each figure represents, it's impossible to judge their significance. The possible saving of £13,000 on Councillors' budgets does, however, seem vanishingly small. While I would not wish to suggest that Councillors do not earn their allowances, this would not appear to be an appropriate time to substantially increase such allowances, as I believe is currently proposed, if not already implemented. 5 MKC's major expenditure will, of course, be on staff costs. I worked many years for a large publicly funded organisation, and I know how difficult it is to ensure the efficient use of human resources. I have also worked in the commercial sector, and would suggest that if MKC were a commercial organisation facing an equivalent shortfall in income, it would first look for possible savings in staffing rather than take the easy option of passing its losses onto its customers. (To be fair, the most substantial of your figures does suggest an examination of staffing, but this is still small in relation to the sum that you require.) In the case of local services, your customers have no choice since MKC has a monopoly which it has for some years exploited to the full. I've been retired since 1997 and live on a modest occupational pension added to my state pension. For pensioners in general the excessive increase in Council Tax over the past five or so years has become an unfair attack on our living standards. Pensioners include many of the most vulnerable residents of our city, and while I do not count myself amongst the most vulnerable, I do live on an income well below the national average, and feel a mounting anger that a monopoly public authority which pays its senior executives six figure salaries, has proved itself so deficient in its financial management that it must year on year demand unreasonable increases in local taxation. If, as you suggest, the problem lies with government, then the remedy must be sought with government. MKC must have the courage to take on the government, and refuse to implement legislation to the point where it can live within its income, as all responsible citizens are exhorted to do. If this means breaking the law, then so be it, for this inexorable escalation of demand is putting pressure on individual citizens that may result in their breaking the law. A final point. I'm sure that most residents would be prepared to pay more for an improving service. But this is not the situation, rather the reverse. It is not just that our once fine city has become victim to increasing vandalism, graffiti and litter, largely unchecked it would appear, it is also that in almost all aspect of public service, locally and nationally, we are experiencing a gradual deterioration of service quality while the responsible authorities demand an ever increasing proportion of our personal income. This is not a situation that can be sustained indefinitely.’ A Member of the Public

A20. ‘TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE! To even contemplate an increase of this magnitude demonstrates how out of touch most forms of government have become. How did you arrive at 11%?, why not 15% or 25% or any other figure. Inflation is running at less than 3% - surely your target figure should be restricted to this or some independently approved formula. Restrict the spend to only CORE ESSENTIALS and withdraw from all other areas or charge a 'point of use' no profit fee. Council tax might even be reduced - now there's a novel idea! An increase of this size on top of the previous several years of significantly above inflation rises will ultimately lead to a revolt which could actually result in a lower tax take than a more modest rise.

7 I, for one, intend to object most strongly to any above inflation increase - it has reached a point where normally quiet, law-abiding socially responsible people feel they are forced to take action.’ A Member of the Public

A21. ‘It is possible to spend a lot of time commenting on your document but at the end of the day it must be your job to manage within the RPI. If I did not in the businesses I operate in I would get my contracts terminated.’ A Member of the Public

A22. ‘I do not agree with any of the cuts suggested. I am in favour of an increase in our council tax. I am not proud of the fact that MK has the lowest council tax, as per your example set out, if low council tax means shoddy provision for the community. Leadership sometimes involves difficult decisions, be brave, go for it. I am not unaware of how this decision effects low income groups, this should be addressed in both benefits and rebates, however, hopefully the government is looking at this one since it is an unfair tax.’ A Member of the Public

A23. ‘Council Tax is again to be increased well in excess of the rate of inflation. Last year I moved to a smaller house partly in order to reduce costs. It appears that the Council Tax element will not provide any saving. Milton Keynes has for years suffered, very unfairly in my opinion, from central government funding being determined by population figures that are at least two years out of date. Now there appears to be a further substantial deduction by central government from this allocation. Why? To what purpose is this deduction to be put? Surely we are entitled to know this if it is coming from us. To further compound this iniquity it looks as though Milton Keynes will be providing a major share of the Government’s requirement for extra housing in the South East with the inevitable population increase. This, presumably, will not appear in any grant figures for a number of years even though services will still require to be provided and paid for. I am extremely concerned that this combination of factors, not the least of which is time, will result in a lack of planning as well as funding. Having worked and lived in Milton Keynes since 1975 I am proud of the way it has developed and now in retirement I have no wish to live elsewhere. Despite criticism, the MK Development Corporation was responsible for this beautifully landscaped and balanced community. After the optimistic years the “Garden City” developments in the South East subsequently deteriorated with ill-planned overcrowding. There is a distinct danger that unless these Government housing requirements are properly funded and developed along the lines which has given us the present Milton Keynes then we too will follow the fate of the earlier developments. The attitude of our Members of Parliament appears to be less than supportive of these needs. I sincerely hope that press reports do not reflect their true attitude to the city and population they represent.’ A Member of the Public

A24. ‘My view is that all taxes are far too high. There are fewer and fewer of us in “wealth generating” jobs and more and more in “wealth absorbing” jobs. Although it’s not a local council’s position to tackle this dilemma, you can do your bit by eliminating waste, becoming more efficient and not raising council tax by 3-5 times inflation EVERY YEAR. Nowhere in your literature is there any reference to you becoming more efficient. We regularly hear of industry laying

8 off staff and implicitly expecting the remaining few to do more work – public servants should accept similar pressures. I strongly object to tax rises in the region of 10%, when I have not a wage rise for two years (and then it was only 2%).’ A Member of the Public

A25. ‘I am glad to have the opportunity to comment as follows. I trust that the exercise is not a hollow gesture. I am a pensioner. My pension increases in line with RPI, however, most of my expenses increase more in line with the earnings of those still working. The lifestyle of the population at large is changing and seems to need costly toys (cars, electronics, travel/holidays, entertainment and exotic food) - I have no hope of expanding my lifestyle, but must become ever more frugal and withdrawn from current society. The grotesque annual increase in Council Tax in this context is a disgrace. It causes hardship and is building powerful resentment among pensioners. It is a malaise that is not unique to Milton Keynes, but I believe that Milton Keynes should put very much greater pressure on Central Government to make changes. There is already some civil disobedience in regard to Council Tax - to date largely in the West Country - but when are we to see some municipal disobedience? We need a council that refuses to undertake some of the expensive activities demanded by Whitehall and Brussels. Council savings: Clearly there has been some thought here, and while I have some minor objections, I am prepared to accept the proposed levels of savings where the Council intends to make such. Council service cut avoidance: Some of these should not have been avoided. Street Lights: Important to reduce these costs, not only for financial reasons but to reduce light pollution and other environmental damage (including atmospheric warming) Day Centre closure: Close it, but retain premises for community voluntary activity - see next point. Social Worker Posts: Delete say 30 posts, retaining a few to provide skilled assistance to voluntary organisations and charities. The retained few would be required to be facilitators/helpers and not monitors/inspectors. Mobile Library Keep this!! Library Hours: As a pensioner I would encourage this - but since it would be a nuisance to many others and is a small item I can see why the Council has let things stand. Voluntary Organisation Grants: Adopt a policy of maximising these as they are a very cost-effective way of delivering services that might otherwise have to be paid for at 100% of cost! They also enhance the "ownership" of the activities by the community. Have clear published criteria, and also guide lines to indicate what new voluntary initiatives the Council would welcome. Rubbish sacks: Continue to provide "on ration" - cheaper than encouraging fly- tipping! Road (and footpath?) maintenance: Safety issues here - also perhaps leading to premature major maintenance work - but probably worth reviewing criteria for undertaking work. Police and Fire Services: These are other areas where local councils need to be much more assertive with central government. The staff in both services are paid very highly and conditions of employment are on the whole enviable - they both need to be managed firmly and not allowed to set their own work parameters.’ A Member of the Public

9 A26. ‘I think that the 11.1% increase in council tax bills for the coming year is absolutely scandalous. Over the past few years inflation has been very low, central government has encouraged modest pay increases in both public and private sectors, in fact I have just received 3.5%. During all this council tax charges have continued to rocket at inflation busting levels. I am afraid that I do not seen any improvement to my services - recycling is a joke and we are still using silly black sacks instead of wheelie bins. How can citizens continue to accept these steep increases when salaries are not keeping pace? Up until three years ago I worked in public services and know at first hand the huge waste of resources and lack of efficiency that bureaucracy brings. I am sure that MK council, Thames Valley Police, MK Bucks Fire & Rescue to name but a few, is no different. Perhaps instead of bleating to MK citizens, you should place most of your efforts into lobbying (and encouraging your citizens to lobby) the Government over the missing grants. I am a law abiding citizen who has always paid his dues to society without question, but I am afraid that the time has come when I am seriously considering my stance in regard to this years council tax increase.’ A Member of the Public

A27. ‘Your proposal to increase the Council Tax by 11.1% in the new financial year 2004/5 and reduce the services is frankly appalling. Your double figure increases over the last few years in Council Tax has to be looked again. The Council appears to have a right to demand whatever rises it thinks fit without the residents having a hearing at all. As residents our incomes do not rise by the rate of amount the council tax seems to go up every year. We as residents do not ask our employers (or pensioners for that matter) that we will do less work/time as our incomes do not keep up with increases in expenditure. What you have to remember is that there is a growing band of people not only in Milton Keynes but throughout the country that is now beginning to think that modern day councils are behaving more and more like Dick Turpins! There will come a time in the future that with rate of increases happening in the past few years residents will not be able to afford to pay. Remember Poll Tax of 1990s! The Council has got to be able to manage the services from the revenue generated from the residents and the grants given by the Government. Just as we have to budget our household finances in accordance with our income/expenditure, surely the same rules to the Council as well. We are rather baffled by these high increases every year, which are nowhere near the rate of inflation, for example. One is led to believe that there is either significant wastage, or increase in services which I am not aware of. I'd also like to mention that over the last couple of years when you have raised the council tax by 8, 10 and now possibly 11 per cent, my income has halved. Those of us who have been paying on time and in full should be permitted to continue paying at the current rate. If you were to collect all that is owed to you, you probably wouldn't have to put it up at all. I am fed up of subsidising the non-payers. The bottom line for pensioners like ourselves is that 11% is way ahead of current inflation and in view of previous years increases, again during years of low inflation, why do you keep increasing services if you can't afford them? Anyone on fixed incomes or very low pension increases simply cannot find the extra monies demanded. Please set an increase in percentage terms and then plan services accordingly. Anyone can justify most of the things councils do but you are starting from the wrong end of the telescope.’ A Member of the Public

10 A28. ‘Most councils are faced with large budget increases this year so MKC is probably not in a unique situation. So we were not expecting an increase in- line with inflation. However to reduce the impact could not MKC: - Use its 'windfall' from the parking charges imposed in CMK last year. I understood the amount is some £7m; this could be split between the shortfall in the budget AND go towards the MK Primary Health Care Trust shortfall. This money raised from the parking charges ought to be used to preserve the current services for everyone and not used to improve the bus service provision until the 'day to day' activities (street-lighting!) are sorted out. - Hold the Government to ransom. The ODPM wants to double the MK population but seems reluctant to fund it now! MKC needs to withhold further co-operation until the Government comes up with the 'missing' £4.9m. - Ask Developers for an increased contribution towards infrastructure spend (e.g. road surface dressing). Of those 'potential' services that could be reduced to make more savings we feel that the highway-related services could be reduced. Switch off the streetlights and stop surface dressing for 12 months. Re the Social Worker posts, are they looking after genuine MK and UK citizens or refugees, cut them if the latter.’ A Member of the Public

A29. ‘In this household, we believe that the proposed council tax increase of 11.1% is far too high. If necessary, Milton Keynes Council should cut services to keep the increase in line with inflation and halt the expansion of the city until central government provides adequate financial support for growth. We do not believe that it is right to enforce increases which, in our case, will be approximately SIX times the expected salary increase of this household for 2004-2005. Last year's council tax increase was almost FIVE times the salary increase in this household. You cannot expect the residents to continue to fund such massive rises. It is a great shame that some services will be reduced and others cut, but we also believe there are areas of unnecessary expenditure that should desist. For example, the Christmas park and ride scheme cost £30,000 and yet appeared to be hardly used. The painting of bus lanes in the city centre seems massively wasteful in a place with no serious congestion. Both activities received adverse comments from local people and yet the council did not appear to listen. Where is the £7.8 million derived from the introduction of parking charges being spent? Perhaps some of that cash influx can be used to off set the proposed rise in council tax. We also believe that there should be a reduction in the number of jobs the local council advertises. Many of these, in the local newspaper, seem to have vague role specifications and significant savings can be made by reducing recruitment.’ A Member of the Public

A30. ‘I must say that I was quite shocked by the where does all the money go section - 580 pensioners in care, 1200 more receiving 24/7 home care, 118,625 on hot meals… This seems entirely wrong-headed. These are the members of our society who have had longest to sort out their lives and already receive the benefit of national pension safety nets; free TV licences; free fuel etc. Where is the priority for supporting our youngsters? I couldn’t see anything for them except less library books and less support to their sports clubs. Surely you don’t need reminding that young people are our future and that their success is necessary to fund the shortsightedness of the previous generation’s

11 responsibility for itself. No wonder they’re stopping voting for all this stuff if this is the best that can be done for them.’ A Member of the Public

A31. ‘I think that it is scandalous that the Government is short-changing Milton Keynes in the way that they are. I am very disappointed that our two Labour MPs and our Labour councillors are not doing more to fight for a fair deal for MK. Why should MK Council Tax Payers fund Prescott's extra houses? It has left the Council with very difficult choices to make on our behalf. You have obviously chosen the 'lesser of two evils'. A Council Tax larger than anyone wants over severe cuts in services. I have been very impressed in what the Council has done over the last year or so to get recycling rates up. Well done. It is also nice to see you trying to tackle the graffiti issue. If anything I think MORE resources should go into cleaning off graffiti, picking up litter and tackling dumped rubbish.’ A Member of the Public

A32. ‘It is clear that Isobel Wilson places the blame on lack of funding from central government and no doubt Central government will place the blame straight back to Ms Wilson's council, and so on. I don't honestly know who is to blame and I perhaps see the situation too simplistically but from my perspective central and local government need to be locked in a room together and told to come up with a different solution to passing an 11.1% rise to the residents of Milton Keynes. My family income has in 2003 risen by less than 0.5%. Neither yours nor the council's problem I know, but even if it had risen by the rate of inflation the proposed rise is still some four and a half times this. Since moving into my current property in 1999 I have seen my monthly payment to the council rise from £69 in 2000 to £94 in 2003, and will now go up to around £105. My calculations are rough but I make that around 35% in four years. I'm not prone to writing letters of complaint. I consider myself very much Mr. Average. Now though, for the first time in my life I'm at the placard wielding, go on a march stage. I never thought I'd feel this strongly about anything. How do we continue to find this money? At what stage should I refuse to pay? Now or when it goes up by double figures again next year? I have to pay, I have no choice, I don't want the Council's bailiff's on my doorstep, but at what stage will the people of Milton Keynes have been bled so dry that they simply CAN'T pay? This really cannot go on. I will be writing in a similar vein to Phyllis Starkey MP and to the press. Though I doubt it will change a thing, if enough of us do so at least those people in positions of elected authority who are responsible for this situation will realise that they will have little to look forward to when they next canvass the population for their votes.’ A Member of the Public

A33. ‘In my view, I would prefer not to receive black plastic bags than for there to be cutbacks in Adult Mental Health Service. I think that in many areas of the country people already buy their own plastic bags. I would like local libraries to be open on Saturday all day but I do not think it is necessary for them to be open during the week. Most working people cannot visit the library during the week and when I have been there (Newport Pagnell and Olney) during the week it is not that busy. Milton Keynes Central Library should be open all the time though.’ A Member of the Public

12 A34. ‘The funding issue is as old as the city and it's about time councillors were able to persuade national government that an expanding city needs to be assessed using projected figures. Professionally I have always found support is more forthcoming when supported by verified data rather than vague whinges. I wonder how forcibly our case has been argued? Little comment can be made on the statistics regarding the need for an 11.1% increase as they're not broken down but I do wonder how inflation can add 9 million pounds to a budget when the 4.9 million being with held by central government is responsible for 8% of the proposed increase. Inflation in Britain is at a low level so me thinks some one's got their sums a bit wrong here. I'm pleased to read that 1 million can be saved by efficiency; pity it wasn't done before. Out of hours Environmental Health Service -please don't allow cuts to cause suffering or danger. Black sacks - rethink delivery - could refuse operatives deliver on an organised rota basis - they used to deliver individual sacks. Would 4 sacks less per household really save that much or would it create more litter? I believe we were told that pink sacks were unlimited in supply to encourage recycling! If highway maintenance is slowed down further I believe the council would be guilty of neglect. Most of the other proposed cuts seem to be removing opportunities of self- improvement from the more vulnerable members of our society, although I fully support a fair application of criteria for eligibility of services. I am pleased that there is a proposal for internal rationalisation. Further cuts: Street lights off - probably not - security in our modern world. Elderly day centre closure - what alternative is available? - stimulated people can be less of a drain on medical resources; therefore possibly a false economy. Mobile library - not everyone can get into a town - think of an alternative e.g. use local community centre/school; train volunteers to run. Abolish free rubbish sacks - NO NO NO I'm sure this would a be counter productive and lead to even more mess around the city. Refuse is one of the few services taxpayers can actually see for their money. Surface dressing of roads - do you mean the stones that are thrown onto the road surface on a blazing hot day to cover up the need to resurface properly? If a job's worth doing... Then this cosmetic surgery wouldn't be necessary. One idea I have that would save a huge amount of taxpayers money is to reduce or even abolish some of the local authority directorates. There do seem to be too many layers of administrators keeping each other in work, reducing forests (paper), farming out services they did provide to private enterprise (like paying my salary) but little else. The other comment I would like to make is that whilst councillors obviously feel they work hard for their community and deserve some perks, it really was most galling to read about their huge expenditure for accommodation at a local conference centre well known for the way it pampers its guests and that it was within walking distance of some councillors' homes. This is not a party biased view as I am sad to say I no longer have faith in or allegiance to any political party. I have valid views but no one to vote for now.’ A Member of the Public

A35. ‘I am disabled and 80 years old and I have been greatly helped by a reduction in my community charge, with changes to my house, occupational therapy and by the sympathy and kindness I have received from the people involved. With the increase of the numbers of the elderly I would think the money required will increase rather than decrease…

13 We are spoilt in the supply of black and pink bags and once yearly delivery – or no free sacks would not cause any hardship – and save a little, a very low percentage. I feel very strongly that the only real solution is for the government to change the way the amount of the grant is calculated. With the growth of Milton Keynes it is financially idiotic to calculate the grant on population figures that are two years out of date – if families and private businesses planned their finances based on expenditure from two years ago the rate of bankruptcy would escalate quite hopelessly. Maybe our two members of Parliament need to use some pressure based on common sense statistics.’ A Member of the Public

A36. ‘As the annual round of budget crisis comes around, it is time for another basic review of services to establish exactly what the Council should be doing. In December, there was a whole page of job ads. in the Citizen; the total of the median salaries was over £500,000. They were all except perhaps one or two for totally meaningless, amorphous jobs with all manner of titles like policy/strategy/ liaison/ partnership development manager/officer etc. etc. which were of no practical use whatsoever. We citizens want our children taught, the bins emptied, the streets cleaned, the grass cut and the potholes mended. We do not wish to pay for esoteric think tanks sitting around thinking about how best to fill in useless government target league performance tables or how to invent another useless partnership strategic opportunity. For once the cry of "back to basics" has a very real ring of truth about it. When times are hard the luxuries have to go. Luxuries are not things like library rooms or street-lights.’ A Member of the Public

A37. ‘An 11%+ increase in council tax is unacceptable as was the increases in each of the previous two years. 11% takes up my entire state pension increase less tax. I have a private pension with a government-regulated company, today they wrote about ‘further reduction to income payments’. As a reward for serving on various councils over 35 years with allowances unheard of (with councillors in charge) my standard of living GOES DOWN each year. I read of the many who fail to pay council tax and local authority rent – even a MK councillor (I bet her allowances were not stopped). Your first priority must be to aggressively bring council tax, business rates and council rent payments up to date. Bringing debtors into line will save money and staffing can be reduced, contracting the job out is a cop out. I visited your environmental call centre – what a waste of money that is! My experience is that it does not work, the figures they quote are a fallacy – a message passed on is easily ignored. Close it down and make the separate departments deal with their public. Threats of reduced services with special cruelty to the elderly are par for a course prepared by civil servants wanting to hide inefficiency elsewhere. There are huge savings to be made, for example I pick litter, and if I see litter dropped I ask the offender to retrieve it and they do – but I have never seen a litter inspector acting thus. I NEVER park on a pavement, it damages the surface and hampers the partially sighted and blind – thousands of cars are parked on pavements causing hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage and inviting huge compensation claims – but no-one takes money-saving action against them. Local centres built as a ‘development tax’ on housing development are expensively subsidised when they should be self-supporting via local committees. Most provide cheap accommodation for commercial enterprise

14 such as pre-school playgroups, slimming clubs etc. few are large enough to provide true community activity. All subsidies should be curtailed unless true community use is demonstrated. We live, so it appears to me, in an automatic inflationary circle. I sit on a parish council that cannot even attract full membership, but again we see the inflationary habit. Our precept could be easily reduced without causing distress or affecting efficiency, but no, we must go for 10% more or less and fill in the slack with nebulous expenditure. So if you tried, really tried and didn’t bend to your employees’ aspirations, you could prevent council tax steaming up inflation. Of course you won’t and pay increases and increases in allowances and waste will reduce the living standards of those on fixed (or reducing) incomes that are disciplined members of your society. Ask a MK councillor to receive the weak reply ‘it’s the government’s fault’. A Member of the Public

A38. ‘I would like to make the following comments and suggestions. This council like many others needs to act like a business which in effect it is with two major differences: 1. It has a guaranteed annual income, enforceable by law! 2. It can put up its charges irrespective of the rate of inflation and the ability to pay, again enforceable by law. What business would not accept those terms? Clearly we have a council run by a group of incompetents who really do nothing except play at party politics. The result I am afraid is just the same as in central government, constant bitching. At this level party politics should never enter the equation. One golden rule in any money management is that 'you can't have what you can't afford!' For example, we couldn't afford a theatre, but we had one, and it is only used by a minority of the population, at the same time the education and housing budgets went seriously into the red. We appear to spend thousands on so called public transport improvements, yet the buses still seem to empty most of the time. There are many arrears where the council is wasting our money, and I would simplify it by saying that anything which is not considered absolutely essential should be axed until a time when we can afford them. Examples would include: 1. The acres of grass cutting, libraries, supporting the arts etc. (make an annual charge to join the library, it doesn't have to be free). 2. Review all staff posts. Every week in the Citizen we see council jobs advertised at very high salaries. Why do we need these posts? 3. Add to that a concerted effort to collect all arrears of rents and taxes. 4. Analyse how tasks are actually carried out and study examples from elsewhere. A good example is refuse collection. The methods used in MK are primitive and cannot be cost effective. Other countries do it much better and for a lot less money. 5. Question the amounts demanded by parish and town councils. Wolverton has for example had a 'town trail put in by MKC funded by various government sources, and for what? No one understands it. We have had to pay for Christmas lights, put up and never worked and then taken down. How much money are we going to waste in the future? I know just maintaining what you are mandated to do isn't very glamorous, neither does it get councillors photo's in the paper, but when finances are as bad as yours, it is time for desperate measures and radical changes. The public cannot keep on supporting these rates of increases forever. If you were to show us that you are serious in making ends meet and to secure a sound financial future, I am sure the public will be behind you. Stand up to the government

15 where necessary and get the local MP's to do something, but please, let common sense prevail and not party politics.’ A Member of the Public

A39. ‘It appears to me that most of the cuts/reductions are inevitable. I have to blame 'New' Labour in calculating what the grant to council should be, and then snatching back almost £5million to give to other councils. They are so scared of losing the vote next time around. I see that the biggest item in the list of services that could be cut futher is a saving of £0.75million by deleting 35 social worker posts. I would like to see this sort of saving, but I do not know enough about the involvement of these social workers, or what the 'knock-on' effect would be if these posts were lost. Re: slowdown in the maintenance of bridges, highways etc. I suppose that the inspection and maintenance of bridges go hand-in-hand, but I think one should guard against reducing the frequency of inspection of these structures, in view of our increasing traffic loads and the stresses imposed on them.’ A Member of the Public

A40. ‘It would appear that from the comparisons made in the Budget Consultation leaflet that you are doing a good job. Do keep up the pressure on Government to give MK money due for the present population and not figures of previous years. If delivering our recycling sacks once a year would save money – that would make a most acceptable scheme – and can a saving be made on partial reduction of lighting – selected areas or time switches. Best wishes as you tackle such a difficult job.’ A Member of the Public

A41. ‘Please resist the temptation of raising ready cash for supporting council commitments and initiatives at the expense of thousands of ordinary residents. Some facilities may HAVE to fail because they are not sufficiently cost effective at inception, and almost everyone would prefer this to their own failure to afford their current occupancy.’ A Member of the Public

A42. ‘My comments below fall into the range of 'general comments' based on observation as a citizen of this town. They include comments about saving money, as well as effective expenditure of money. (a) Council publications: MKLive Savings can be made by reducing this to black and white print, change in paper quality, less frequent publication and hence fewer delivery costs. The content of each publication does not warrant the frequency of publication, and in some cases local newspapers could be used effectively to describe some of the Council's changes in strategy, policy and achievements. We do not need repetitive lists of who to contact - provision of this information once or at most twice a year would be sufficient. (b) Road construction and maintenance I am amazed by the continuing use of 'decorative paving' in areas where there is very heavy traffic. This kind of surfacing is inappropriate for road surfaces, for traffic calming 'humps' and other kinds of surfaces which take very hard wear. As a result there is a continuing repair and maintenance problem. For instance, take a look at the roads fronting The Point where it faces northwards towards the Shopping Centre. This fairly new surface is breaking up very quickly so the decision to put in decorative paving here was misjudged. There are other examples. At the same time, there is considerable deterioration in the quality of

16 the original beautiful basic design and materials of many road edgings, underpassess, etc., where the lovely granite stones are gradually being destroyed whether by wilful vandalism, by youthful skate boarding, by inappropriate parking etc. of vehicles which rips out the kerbstones. My view is that we should be seeking to maintain the original carefully designed and high quality fabric of the town, and should not be installing inappropriate road surfacing or other decorative materials as we cannot afford to maintain them. (c) Street cleaning: Wolverton While street cleaning is extremely important, to be worth the expenditure it has to be carried out a time when it is effective. Thus, in areas where there is a great deal of on-street parking, it is pointless for the contracted company to send around mechanical street cleaners on a Saturday or Sunday when the streets are lined with cars. This should be done on a weekday when the roads are clearer (people have gone to work). (d) Bus stop changes Recently, it appears that across the city the bus stops have been very expensively re-engineered to raise the kerbside. Perhaps this should end for the time being and be completed in a staged manner across the City over a number of years, rather than in one financial year. It is a welcome provision but perhaps done more slowly. (e) Black and pink sacks Delivery once a year would be acceptable but perhaps would need to be reviewed if we ended up with increased dumping and litter problems if some citizens were reluctant to provide additional sacks (most households seem to use more than one sack/week in my street). (f) Recycling Having noted in a recent MK Council communication that 'plastics' showing the recycling logo with a number '2' were the only kind that could be recycled, I started looking at every piece of 'plastic' in my bin. A vast number had no indication of their recycling category. This needs to be taken up through national legislation - can MK Council raise this as an issue in discussions in local newspapers as well as through local MPs? This could improve the quantity of materials recycled - although whether this would produce savings is a moot point. The ultimate problem here is packaging, which the UK national government seems incapable of tackling (whatever their political hue). (g) Library services I am against reduction in what I consider to be a very important service to the whole community. We forget at our peril the importance of being able to 'self- educate'. (h) MK Theatre and Gallery vs Grants to voluntary organisations, sports clubs and Town/Parish Councils While I am a supporter of the theatre from time to time, I think the subsidy could be reduced, even if it means a price hike, although one would have to be careful that prices did not exceed those in London. Our prices are already higher than theatres in adjacent towns (e.g. Northampton) but this does not seem to have affected the size of audiences (obviously anecdotal and would need to be supported by evidence from the Theatre management) while friends who live in Bedford for instance speak highly of coming to the theatre in MK. As far as the Gallery is concerned, I am quite disappointed in this and now rarely visit it. The kind of exhibitions are not to my taste, and I speak as one who regularly goes to commercial galleries, to exhibitions in London, etc. On the other hand, I would disagree with constraining local budgets: it is very hard creating a sense of community in MK at the local level, the cuts in these kinds of budgets would undermine what are quite fragile 'senses of belonging' and of being able to do something about local problems at the local level.

17 (i) Income from the parking schemes and road maintenance There is an argument for a hypothecated link between this parking income and maintenance of streets and pavements (I include the latter because they are rapidly becoming places where vehicles are driven and parked, and which results in the breaking up of the surfaces). In particular I would like to see the income generated locally, such as in Wolverton, passed back to the local W&G Council for their use in managing vehicular and pedestrian traffic. It seems inevitable that an increase in local tax will occur, particularly as central government has offloaded so many responsibilities to the local level (in the guise of local democracy). We cannot eat our cake and have it, at the same time. The level of council tax should perhaps be linked not only to property bands but also to income - on a broad basis - as it is clear that for many OAPs/senior citizens there are real problems.’ A Member of the Public

A43. ‘Refuse - black and pink sacks should be delivered on a annual basis. Libraries - cut purchase of audio/DVDs/Videos. Books are essential for the community, but people can rent videos elsewhere just as cheaply. Mobile libraries could be cut too as most people are able to get to their local library. Cut small branches like Westcroft - which is has very limited opening hours anyway. Reorganising Stony Stratford library would be a good idea. A review of the whole library service needs to be undertaken to make it relevant to today's needs. I agree with most of the proposals except for the reduction in road and landscape maintenance. We should be proud of our City and already a lot of the roads and community areas are in a bad state of repair. This should be a priority - if areas start to look neglected it engenders petty crime.’ A Member of the Public

A44. ‘Our belief is that Council tax should be used solely to provide mandatory council services as efficiently and effectively as possible and at the lowest cost. Any additional payments need to be specifically identified and voted on by tax- payers, not council members.

The council's list of savings does not give details of ANY efficiency savings, nor pay limitation targets or staff reduction targets. Having neither allows the council to grow and increase its cost without limit. NOT acceptable. On this basis we would like to see: 1) No grants to any private organisation -e.g. Milton Keynes Theatre, voluntary organisations, all clubs. 2) All council employee /management pay must not be increased by more than RPI each year. Pay scale increases must be earned and not automatic. 3) Staff must be reduced by 5% per annum (not counting outsourced services). 4) Services delivered should be compared against other council deliveries as to their importance/need. Do we really need to upgrade all of the bus stops in Milton Keynes to allow wheel chair access to buses? Is this what other councils are doing?’ A Member of the Public

B. Transport, Roads & Street Lighting

B1. ‘The council should give consideration to switching off 14,000 streetlights in order to cut council costs. This would be without doubt the least painful of the

18 cuts proposed. The reduction of streetlights would also help with the problem of light pollution and help the environment by using less energy. There will be concerns about crime because of the reduced lighting, but I'm sure that £175,000 would be more effective if used by the police rather than polluting the skies and atmosphere. ‘ A Member of the Public

C. Waste & Recycling

C1. ‘I very much support the Graffiti Busters initiative and would like to see an increase in operatives and equipment assigned to this valuable department’ A Member of the Public

C2. ‘Are the savings identified by this line item in the leaflet purely the result of not supplying black sacks - or is the council expecting to charge for sacks instead and to refuse rubbish that is not in a sack? If it's the former, I think it should be done - most people use bin liners anyway - the "black sack" is probably unnecessary and wasteful. If its the latter - you would require people to purchase "official sacks" and refuse rubbish not in a sack, I feel that is very retrograde and would worsen our problems of fly-tipping, etc’ A Member of the Public

D. The Arts

D1. ‘I note you are reducing the payment to MK Theatre & gallery by over £350000 but it is not clear what the total spend currently is but presumably more than this. The price of theatre tickets makes it elitist already so why not cut the grant to it totally & make it pay for itself by raising the price of tickets if necessary?’ A Member of the Public

D2. ‘We can now look back to the 1980/90's when Shaun Hennessey led the Arts Team at the Borough and I, for a time, was chair of the Arts Association as a golden age! Which is pathetic, as even then, the arts were strapped for cash - when I say arts, I mean creative activities that enable people and enhance their lives - things they do, participate in and own. But golly, look at us now!! I plead with the Council not to cut further the arts grants to the organisations which genuinely involve people. If you must, cut the grant to the Gallery - I am very dubious about it's claims for attendance, whenever I've called in it's been empty (except, of course, on preview nights when what passes as MK's glitterati turn out, sorry for the cynicism) - and cut the grant to MK Theatre and just fund it's Education Programme. Those of us who occasionally attend, will have to pay a non-subsidised price for tickets. Those who said we must have a 'theatre' to make MK a town, have already done great damage to the arts community, as the theatre/gallery have taken more, oh, much more, than their proper share of art's funding. With recent government news re: MK, if the theatre is so core to the town, perhaps they should pay for it!! Please, Milton Keynes Council, as representatives of the people, protect community arts.’ A Member of the Public

D3. ‘Following the Learning, Community & Economic Development committee meeting I would like to contribute the following thoughts:

19 1. I applaud your openness about non-statutory services being a 'soft touch', they are and always will be and those of us in this sector have to live with this reality. 2. I share the sentiment of relief that the voluntary sector's cuts are being minimised to ‘no increase for inflation' 3. My concern is the obvious difficulty in communicating to the general public the value of the services that the Public & Voluntary Sector's provide. When given the choice of reduced services or increased Council Tax, a reduction in services is always most likely to be the popular choice as the concept of 'services' is abstract - particularly in the case of the often barely visible but vital services provided by the Voluntary Sector. How do you communicate the complexity of these issues without confusion? I know that you are very aware of the tremendous value for money that the Voluntary Sector offers, but I would like to underline this fact again. For example, for every £1 that Living Archive currently receives from MK Council Grant Funding, Living Archive raises and then contributes a further £9+ toward the cost of the services that we provide.’ A Member of the Public

D4. ‘Please add my voice to the protest. Please, please no more cuts in Arts funding! MK is a thriving cultural community and needs to stay that way!’ A Member of the Public

D5. ‘I have heard with significant concern that it is possible that the Council grant to the MKCO may be cut or removed in the coming year. In view of the important part that the orchestra has long played in the cultural life of the city and the even greater need in future years as the city rapidly expands, I feel that this would be a foolish, if not dangerous, risk to take. This is particularly true in view of the fact that the orchestra is currently trying to re-establish its financial position following its development over recent years.’ A Member of the Public

D6. ‘I would like to voice my concern over the planned cuts in the future grants to be given to The Milton Keynes Orchestra and other similar voluntary organisations. The Orchestra has contributed much to the cultural life of the city through its concerts in the area and its education and outreach programme. A further cut to its grant would restrict future work through local schools and amongst older residents and could reduce the number of well performed concerts, bringing popular classical music to MK Theatre goers. The theatre brings people to Milton Keynes, who would previously have had to travel to London and pay high ticket prices, because of the high standard of ' shows '. MKCO also offers this high standard but relies strongly on partnership funding for which the Council grant carries an enormous amount of weight. If grants are cut, cultural development for community groups and theatre-goers will deteriorate.’ A Member of the Public

D7. ‘I write as a Patron of the Orchestra and someone who is very concerned about the cultural future of Milton Keynes. I believe there is once more a chance that the grant for the orchestra and those of similar organisations will be cut. This will seriously affect the cultural life of the city, which at present is lucky enough to have such a fine orchestra identified with Milton Keynes. The planned concerts and its education and outreach programme should not be underestimated. The orchestra is in the process of extending its work through schools and to older residents in the area. Any further cut must put this work

20 under pressure. We would urge you to do all that is possible to continue the Grant at least at its present level to try to achieve a great cultural City.’ A Member of the Public

D8. ‘We, the people of Milton Keynes, simply cannot accept or be subjected, to further budget cuts in the area of the much needed cultural development. As I understand it, Milton Keynes is entering its 2nd growth phase. Without real financial support for its cultural needs it could well become a dormitory town. To restrict our grant, and for that matter other similar voluntary organisations too, would put Milton Keynes into the dangerous situation of becoming a 'cultural desert'. The contribution that the orchestra makes to the life of Milton Keynes through its planned concert series and its education and outreach programme should not be underestimated. The orchestra is in the process of significantly extending its outreach work through schools and also to the older residents in the area. The MKCO relies strongly on partnership funding for which the Council grant carries enormous weight. Any further cut to its grant would put significant pressure on the workings of the orchestra.’ A Member of the Public

Please also see comment from Milton Keynes City Orchestra (item F22 below).

E. Libraries

E1. ‘I read with horror your proposal to reduce the size of the library in Stony Stratford. You might as well close the place down completely as it would not be viable as a single storey library. No doubt this is your intention. What is the situation with the big budget spenders such as housing, what is the current rent arrears? What is the situation regarding non-payment of council tax. These are the issues the council should be addressing before threatening an important public service. I note with interest the failed ALMO bid, how much was the total cost of that fiasco, probably many times higher than the cost of Stony library and the entire book fund for Milton-Keynes. I understand that the council has to balance the books but tinkering with the relatively small budget of the library service that has already seen significant cuts, is not the way. The big money spenders are the ones to be targeted for waste.’ A Member of the Public

E2. ‘I am e-mailing you to express my outrage at the proposed cuts to the library service in Stony Stratford and also the proposed reduction in the purchases of books and audio-visual equipment in the Council’s Budget. As regards the Stony Stratford branch proposals. I live in Hanslope but work in London so I am reliant on my local library having opening times that enable both myself and my family to use it. We are not a two-car family and so the only access to library facilities I can make is late at the end of the day or at weekends. The present opening hours enables me to use the libraries facilities, any proposals to change this would make using the library difficult. I have used the central library before but would prefer to use the local library as it is better for the environment (less journey distance and also no parking costs). I cannot see any sense in moving Stony Stratford’s library to one floor either, as you would find it difficult to use the space created for anything else! As regards the proposed cuts to the library budget purchases, although films can be hired from other sources books cannot. If you are to cut this budget then

21 it should fall squarely on the audiovisual side and not on the books part, if anywhere.’ A Member of the Public

E3. ‘I have lived in MK for 20 years, the last two years in Stony Stratford and very much enjoy the facilities in the Stony Stratford Library. Will you please reconsider your proposal to shut down part of this library? The population of Stony Stratford warrants a larger library not a smaller one. Why has the Council Tax money been spent on improving the lighting in the Library when proposals are in the pipeline to close half of it down?’ A Member of the Public

E4. ‘I write as a regular user of Milton Keynes libraries. Reading is the key to all learning and communication. Books are a primary tool for this. Information and learning are essential for this country's future. Access to computers and the internet is still limited and involves travel which does little for the environment. What many citizens object to is wastage of resources and manpower. Having recently spent money on much-needed lighting for Stony Stratford library it would seem illogical to reduce the library to inhabiting merely the ground floor thus reducing the available space for books. This is what will happen if the upper floor is converted into a business centre. Since separate entrances for the library would be required the separation of the upper and lower floors would not be a cheap project. As regards saving money, it would be interesting to see the "entertainments budget. How many lunches or dinners are unnecessarily paid for or subsidised? Giving more power to people actually working in or affected by the Council' services and listening to their ideas might be more effective than spending money on Consultants, who don't have to live or work with the system. There is already a shortage of doctors in the area because of the large numbers of people moving into the area. This will worsen because of the new building programme imposed by central government .It would be a retrograde step to ensure that they and we are also short of books. I send this e-mail in the hope that some of the issues I have raised will be discussed at the appropriate meeting.’ A Member of the Public

E5. ‘I have read your helpful leaflet 'Have your Say' on the Council's Budget 2004/05 with great interest, and my thoughts are with you as you face a well-nigh impossible task. My impetus to write was in response to the threatened closure of half Stony Stratford's library. I wonder whether it is time to make a nominal charge (25p?) for borrowing each book/video etc? As fines are already collected it would not be a new situation for the librarians to handle money. The usual concessions could apply. I think it would be accepted if it were clearly understood that the charge would be devoted to the library purposes you are needing to cut. The only item I would query in your list are the payments to the Milton Keynes Theatre and Gallery. The Theatre is a spectacular success and surely should be able to run without subsidy. I rarely visit the Gallery but looking down the list of other proposed cuts I feel it should not have a high priority. In gratitude for the work of the Council’ A Member of the Public

E6. ‘While I appreciate the dilemma facing the Council, I very much hope that the proposal to reduce the activity of the Stony Stratford Library will be rejected.

22 The Library has great potential to develop as an invaluable resource for the local community; and at a time when very considerable expansion is planned for this part of MK, it would seem unwise to reduce the facilities available. With the closure of the Community Centre in Stony Stratford, there is a major need for a centre catering for adult learning. With appropriate modifications, Stony Stratford Library could offer a self-financing centre where local groups could meet. The Learning & Development Committee will be aware that Stony Stratford Library is already one of the busiest in MK. There is an opportunity to build on this success. Rather than looking to reduce the activity of the Library, what is needed is a plan for the development of the Library which builds upon its role as a community resource in a cost-effective way.’ A Member of the Public

E7. ‘I am writing to protest most strongly at the council considering the reorganisation of the Local Studies and Business areas of CMK Library and moving Stony Stratford Library to one floor. I also protest at any reduction of purchases of books and audio-visual equipment in our libraries. Our libraries are important and need to be maintained. As for suggesting where the cuts should be made; I would like to see a detailed analysis on exactly what 'special expenses' are. I would like to see less expenditure on cleaning up other people's mess, i.e. dumped cars, traveller's mess. I would like to see a reduction on ' other corporate costs' (a HUGE increase agreed 2003) and I would like to see the council actively pursuing and recovering the debts owed (rent arrears etc)’ A Member of the Public

E8. ‘I am writing to object very strongly to the proposal to close the top floor of Stony Stratford Library. The library is an excellent and well-used facility. New housing has recently been built in and around the town and expansion of MK is planned near Stony, so this should be a time for expanding public facilities not reducing them. You must know that this proposal is extremely unpopular. If savings have to be made and the council wishes to retain the support of Stony residents, they should be achieved in some other way.’ A Member of the Public

E9. ‘I am emailing you on behalf of the children of Hanslope. We were shocked when we read that you were going to moving Stony Stratford library to one floor. We have discussed this at our local guide unit and we all think that it would be a tragic loss for the community. Many of us rely on this resource for homework and those who are unable to go into Central Milton Keynes regularly need this for educational purposes. We also get a lot of enjoyment out of fiction books and a large part of our livelihood would be torn away from us. We would be very bored without them! It will only save £59,000 and in the great scheme of things that is not very much.’ A Member of the Public

E10. ‘I am writing to express my concern with your proposal to eliminate services on the first floor of the Stony Stratford Library branch. I am a research student at the Open University, and have lived in Stony Stratford for two years. In an average week, I visit the Stony Stratford library 2-3 times. In addition to using the internet resources and selecting books for borrowing, I also find the first floor a pleasant place for quiet study. In my experience, the resources on the second floor receive steady use from citizens. The consolidation of library

23 services on one floor would lead to a severe, and in my opinion, unacceptable, reduction in service at the Stony library. I urge you to consider other options for balancing the MK budget.’ A Member of the Public

E11. ‘I feel compelled to write after reading your piece in the Citizen. You state that you have not been given enough funds I struggle to understand how this was allowed to happen. You are the council in charge of the Milton Keynes area, you have been put in place and take pay to manage these issues, and a lack of management should not then simply be excused by cutting services. Having allowed this situation to arise you should be held responsible for finding a proactive way out of it, rather than simply taking the easiest way out and cutting the services you provide. To cut services is to start a trend that cannot be recovered from, next years funds will simply be based on the fact that you managed with less this year. With this in mind that I must oppose most strongly your proposal for moving Stony Stratford Library to one floor, what a revoltingly stupid idea. Has the person responsible for this ludicrous suggestion actually been to the site? On the whole I doubt it, if they had they would have seen that it was completely infeasible. Apart from the fact that small children and adults studying simply don't mix the variety and choice for both children and adults would plummet. Both my children love going to the library, to change the set up would only smother this enthusiasm and surely you as a council can see why that is unacceptable. I would like the council to carefully look at all the professional costs it incurs for consultancy etc and justify all expenditure of this type before it carries out the raft of punitive cuts proposed. To close, I oppose the cuts mentioned as ill thought, short term, insignificant gains, particularly relating to Stony Stratford library. I would like the council to state the costs and areas of its professional/consultancy fees with a clear non political view and ask themselves if that expenditure is actually necessary.’ A Member of the Public

E12. ‘I heard your Deputy Leader in early morning discussion with 'Big George' on 3 Counties Radio regarding the planned savings by closing the top floor of Stony Stratford library. When quizzed about such a severe reduction in size it became obvious that he'd never been in the Stony Stratford premises. He disputed that it would amount to over 50% reduction in size. In fact it amounts to nearer a 70% reduction in size. This is not however the point of this communication. How is closing one floor of a small library going to save £25,000? This can only be achieved by making one member of the staff redundant, I notice this is not indicated anywhere. The actual cost of continuing to run this library at its existing size is minimal. The lighting and heating cost of the upper floor is very small. Maintenance of property is already at an almost non-existent level, with most work at 'emergency' only schedule. So please tell us how such savings are estimated? Releasing the upper floor for 'rental' is not an easy proposition as stair entry is via a centrally located stair well. To make this suitable for rental Capital Expenditure would be required to remove this, rebuilding the upper floor as necessary. Then another more suitable access for the separated upper floor would also become necessary. If you don't have the money for running it in it's existing state how are you going to find the necessary funds to convert? Removal of the stair well would increase the useable space on the ground floor,

24 however a complete re-development would be needed at high cost. Such a severe reduction in size, down to 30% of what there is now would squeeze out Audio Visual rentals which in fact brings income into the Library and therefore the council. Perhaps not spending over £1 Million on legal/consultancy fees to go into PPP would have been the answer. Whatever political party destroys Stony Stratford library the people will not forget or forgive.’ A Member of the Public

E13. ‘I appreciate the leaflet that I have received summarising the 2004 budget decisions. It is very clear and informative. I understand the budgetary problems, especially the lag between population numbers and associated budgets from Government, and the effect of £4.9 million being held back for other councils. However, I disagree with the logic of closing the top floor of the Stony Stratford Library, which I guess will remove over half of the available lending space, and/or which will require additional spending to reduce the space taken up by the admin and borrowing desk/area. Whichever way, the impact will be very harsh on the service that can be provided. Such things will be difficult or expensive to reverse in the future, but almost certainly they will need to be reversed, and quite soon. The significant new developments being planned around Stony will inevitably increase demand for services in the town, by at least double. Milton Keynes will need it to do so to take pressure off the centre. For the money being saved I strongly feel that the decision about Stony's library is wrong. It also comes at an appalling time, when Stony - with Countryside Agency and MK Council support - is just embarking on a community-wide Market Towns Health Check, looking at how the town will grow over the next 20 years. That started last night. This decision queers the patch and frankly looks utterly inconsistent with even a medium term strategy for Stony.’ A Member of the Public

E14. ‘I am emailing to object to the proposed cuts to Stony Stratford library. My family are regular users of this excellent local library which I know is greatly valued by the local community. It is particularly wrong to cut an essential public service which contributes to the vitality of a successful High Street - too many of England's town centres are being sapped of their vitality at present and it is perverse to make a decision which places at risk one of our successful examples. There must be a real risk that having reduced the service this year the library will become vulnerable to complete closure in future thus increasing travel into the already over-loaded city centre. I would also draw attention to the current planning proposals for major development around Stony Stratford - if we are to build "sustainable communities" then we need to invest in our public services not cut them just at a time when demand is likely to increase. In short, this is a short-term and misguided proposal which should be rejected.’ A Member of the Public

Please also note the contribution of a petition, organised by Phyllis Starkey, with 213 signatures and a petition organised by Stony Stratford Town Council with 800 signatures (see item G2 below). See also items F6 and F9, comments from local organisations with regard to the closure.

F. Local & Voluntary Organisations

25 F1. ‘Age Concern’s FIRST RESPONSE TO BUDGET CONSULTATION DOCUMENT Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond to the council’s proposals to manage the budget deficit for 2004/5. Please accept this as our initial response as we may wish to respond further once we have had the opportunity of consulting with our Board and our membership. We wanted, however, for you to have some feedback before the committee meeting of 15th January. 1. Overview We would like to put our response in the context, first of all, of understanding that the local authorities influence over the budget available for Milton Keynes is limited as the greater proportion of the money comes from the central government allocation. This allocation is clearly insufficient and Milton Keynes has suffered a “double whammy” from both the redistribution of funds to the north of England and the fact that central government does not allow for the real size of the population of MK and those adjacent areas that access MK services. We strongly feel that the time has come for local MP’s and Councillors (of every political persuasion), to come together with organisations like ourselves and use every means possible to tell people the truth about the central government funding policy and the resulting inability of our services to meet the needs of the current population of MK let alone any growth. To really campaign and raise the stakes with central government that unless this situation is addressed there is no doubt that the citizens of MK will rise up together and oppose any future growth. If central government does not listen, then lets plan our campaign, mobilise our communities and not passively accept what is dealt out to us. 2. Specific comments on proposals for savings. Bearing in mind what we have already stated above. We would prefer to see an increase in council tax rather than a swingeing reduction in services. We believe that an increase of 11.5% would not be, in reality or psychologically, any worst than 11.1% and may give a bit of extra room for manoeuvre until we can achieve a policy change from national government towards us. We strongly feel that there is no room left to cut services to vulnerable groups of people in MK, particularly the elderly. We are thus extremely concerned about the proposed reduction to Home Care and Mental Health Services. In addition no inflation increase to voluntary organisations providing services to these groups of people does also mean a cut in services. The criteria on Home Care, particularly, has already been tightened to a level where you cannot, in all conscience tighten it any further without serious repercussions to people who need support being at risk of ending up in hospital, nursing/residential care or dying. The number and level of need with referrals, particularly into our own home services, has increased significantly over the last six months which is another reflection of the tightening of statutory services entitlement and provision. If there is any waste or inefficiencies in the system we would suggest that these lie within possibly two areas: The inability to match services commissioned from external domiciliary care providers with the actual service delivered v what is charged for. The heavy cost of financial assessments, invoicing and collecting payments– one wonders if it is not more cost effective to offer home care free of charge based on need? Clearly the extra income forecast from these assessments in last years budget was never realised as 75% of people receiving MKC commissioned home care do not pay or pay very little. Those who can pay the higher prices tend to buy privately and a number would continue to do so to secure the services they want rather than having to rely on an assessment of need.

26 We would also propose that rather than cut services to the elderly and vulnerable it would be far more acceptable and moral to stop the provision of free black rubbish sacks which are cheaply and freely available from supermarkets than cut homecare and other services to vulnerable people. Some system could be put in place to ensure that sacks are taken to those people who are housebound. This saving plus the extra 0.4% on council tax should provide sufficient income to hold services at current levels.’ Age Concern, Milton Keynes

F2. ‘I am aware that Milton Keynes Council in the process of making difficult budgetary decisions regards its support for the voluntary arts sector. I write to request MKC to continue to support the MADCAP Trust and recognise the valuable contribution its makes to cultural health and well being of the people and particularly the young people of Milton Keynes. I believe that support for voluntary arts projects such as MADCAP is a cost effective way of enhancing the quality of life of communities. Through the impact on self esteem and confidence of participants and some say whole communities, it can support individuals back or into first time employment, it can help people gain experience and skills to support career progression, it can help individuals build better relationships within their home and wider communities. The loss or reduction is the services MADCAP can offer will have far reaching effects. I feel it its worth noting the positive impact MADCAP has had on mental well-being for all those involved in the project and consider any cut as not simply a cut to the 'arts' but a cut which will have wider impact on general community and individual well-being. Although, arts for arts sake has a real value in its self, the combined value of participatory arts, rooted firmly in the community is widely recognised and increasingly evidenced as effective intervention to improve health, increase social capital and reduce exclusion. On a personal level as an individual who spent 11 years involved in MADCAP, first as a member of the Youth Theatre, later as a drama workshop leader and finally as a member of the Board of Trustees, I can now reflect 10 years on, on the valuable contribution MADCAP made to my life. MADCAP is part of the history and cultural life of Milton Keynes. Its past and continuing contribution to City is one that should be valued for what it is... unique and very special.’ Madcap Theatre

F3. ‘At MKCVO we understand the difficult position that the Council finds itself in due to the local government finance settlement for 2004-05. We are signatories to letters to both the Deputy Prime Minister and Lord Rooker taking up these issues and will continue to bring what influence we can to change the status quo. Whilst we welcome the fact that grants to the voluntary sector are not currently planned to be cut in cash terms the effect of a standstill budget should not be underestimated. Milton Keynes has a diverse and vibrant voluntary sector, members of which are involved in innovative work of national significance. Much of this work attracts external funding but this does not diminish the importance of core, or strategic funding much of which is provided by the Council. The erosion of core funding through both the growth differential (experienced by voluntary organisations in exactly the same way as statutory services) and lack of inflation undermines the foundations of organisations providing key services that contribute to the quality of life in MK. As an illustration, MKCVO belongs to a national umbrella body, NACVS, who have been working with the Active Community Unit to establish a framework for

27 the delivery of local infrastructure services. Part of this work has established that a core budget for a CVS to deliver the required services in a local unitary authority area would be £181,000. MKCVO currently delivers around 80% of the required services for approximately 60% of the recommended budget. The need to compensate for the shortfall through project funding is a constant challenge that requires immense staff effort that might be better employed in service delivery and undermines any attempt at long term planning. MKCVO is committed as an organisation to be actively involved in developing a Community Strategy and all that is involved in its implementation but this will be undermined if there are insufficient funds to maintain our core services.’ Milton Keynes Council of Voluntary Organisations

F4. ‘MK FORUM thanks you for circulating to us a copy of your Budget Consultation document and inviting us to comment. We do so as follows. MK FORUM- the only Civic Society in Milton Keynes- is very concerned that, in pursuit of securing an appropriate range of high quality services for the MK community, the tax base be sufficient to fund such services. From the information that your consultation contains it is evident that there will be a shortfall in funding and hence the usual cheese-paring of services will result. This is highly unsatisfactory. As you have indicated in your consultation document, the level of the MK Council Tax compares poorly in relation to adjacent areas and hence MK raises a smaller sum per capita than, say, Aylesbury Vale or South Beds. Clearly this gives the MK Council less revenue to finance all its services properly. There is therefore a strong argument for a one-off upward adjustment to bring MK in-line with adjacent authorities and give itself a sensible level of income. This would require a level of political courage but we feel that it is the duty of the Council to lead a public debate on this subject. The Council administration could, for also seek to build in all-party consensus among Councillors. While no one wants to pay more tax reasonable members of the public would understand that a low tax base, however superficially attractive, results in poor quality services- which no one wants. When MK broke away from Bucks County Council in 1997 it inherited from Bucks. An unsatisfactorily low level of Council taxing setting. MK needs to break out of this cycle of inadequate self-funding. People understand that their community can only do what needs to be done if it is prepared to raise the money to pay for it.’ Milton Keynes Forum

F5. ‘Milton Keynes Play Association is an independent charity supported by grant aid by the Council. We are grateful for the support given which pays directly for 3 staff salaries. We would like to register our concern that grant aid will not be receiving any increase including any rate of inflation. This affects the level of work we are able to carry out on behalf of the Council and affects the whole organisation with regard to cost of living increases for staff. We will be unable to offer any increases either incremental or inflationary. This is unjust and unfair and devalues the voluntary sector. The Council have an obligation to offer inflationary rises for its own staff, yet voluntary sector staff paid through MKC grant aid re not entitled. Within our Service Level Agreement both parties have signed to agree to TUPE Transfer of Undertaking (protection of employment) Regulations 1981. As this is so, I feel that the Council have an obligation to support our staff paid directly from Grant Aid.’ Milton Keynes Play Association

28

F6. ‘E-mail on behalf of Stony Stratford Women's Institute At their meeting on Tuesday 6th January the members of Stony Stratford Women's Institute expressed a strong objection to the above proposal, on the following points: - 1. The Tenants of the top floor - how will they obtain access? There is only one staircase and one lift, both rising from the ground floor. 2. There is only one wash-room/toilet, both on the ground floor - will the office tenants share these facilities? 3. Parking - where will the office tenants park? Parking is restricted to two hours on the Market Square, therefore we shall have more parking problems in the town, and more pollution. 4. There will be a severe cutback in reference books and computers, so students will suffer. Cutbacks in purchase of books so that townsfolk will suffer, and where will our small children sit for their Story Time? 5. From the WI point of view we will lose our display units, as will many associations throughout the year. All members present at our meeting said that they used the Library. We strongly urge the Council to abandon this plan.’ Stony Stratford Women’s Institute

F7. ‘I will give you an immediate saving. Let our Club, Heelands Rangers FC, MK's only all female LARGE football club, take over Heelands Playing fields and run it. This will save you thousands on work that is needed anyway. This needs to be done because of overuse after your Council closed Denbigh to let one club take advantage of it.’ Heeland Rangers FC

F8. ‘I realise that there cannot be money for everything but we could not meet as a Guide unit in Newport Pagnell without the grant we get from MK Council under the Wider Use of Schools scheme.’ 4th Newport Pagnell Guides

F9. ‘Rumours are rife that Milton Keynes Council, in their wisdom are considering the closure of the upper floor of the library referred to above. I have been asked by members of the Hodge Lea Good Companions club, (some 22 members), to register our objection to this proposal. The elimination of the top floor of this facility would invariably lead to a reduction in shelf space and books. There would obviously be a considerable cost to the Council in building operations to convert the property suitable for commercial occupation " i.e. stairs, toilets, car parking etc. We will be interested to see the outcome of the Council meeting.’ The Hodge Lea Good Companions Club

F10. ‘Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment, however as a voluntary organisation covering the whole of Buckinghamshire county funding from MK for our work is vital to us. As you know we have many Adults and young people from the MK area in our organisation who gain a great deal of benefit from your local council funding so any initiative that increases financial help to us is of huge importance, so it follows that any decrease will deny us the opportunity to continue our work at the current level. We do look forward to hearing from you in due course with regard to our Annual Grant, and we can assure you that the sum received is very much appreciated.’ Girlguiding Buckinghamshire

29 F11. ‘Thank you for your letter of 15 January reminding us about the consultation exercise. I think the point I would like to make on behalf of the voluntary sector in Milton Keynes generally and the CAB service in particular is one of capacity. We are already seeing 25 - 30,000 people a year, dealing with 30 -35,000 issues. If the city grows at the speed and to the size that is anticipated whilst our budget remains stationary we will simply not cope. The social cost of an inadequate or non existent voluntary sector and particularly an advice agency such as ours (which is recommended as a resource on the bottom of every DWP / LA/ IR /Court Service etc. letter ever issued these days) is going to be far greater than any Council Tax rise I can think of. I think the growth of Milton Keynes is really exciting but not at any cost. If the ODPM are serious about an additional 70,000 homes over 30 years then there has to be some serious new money to accompany it. The voluntary sector cannot continue to absorb the slack endlessly and for nothing.’ Milton Keynes Citizens Advice Bureau

F12. ‘I am responding on behalf of the Milton Keynes Council for Voluntary Youth Services to Milton Keynes Council’s consultation The Council’s budget 2004/05 – Have your say, following discussion at MKCVYS Executive Committee on 14 January 2004. MKCVYS recognises that difficult budgetary decisions have to be made, but wishes to speak on behalf of the young people of Milton Keynes, who have no direct voice through the vote. The voluntary youth sector makes a huge contribution to their health and well-being by providing a wide range of services at very low cost. Our 117 members range from the uniformed groups to dance, football and the Young People Befrienders Scheme. Voluntary services reach large numbers of young people. 18 of MKCVYS’ 117 members (15%) replied to a recent questionnaire. They work with 1,436 young people. 784 are aged from 5 to 12, so our services complement the Council’s Youth Service, which focuses on young people over 13. MKCVYS members in all work with about 13,640 young people, but we are less than a third of the voluntary youth groups registered with the Council in 2003. The services are provided at low cost, largely by volunteers. Our sample had 139 volunteers, and only 15 staff (all but 3 part time). Voluntary youth services therefore represent huge value for money. More importantly they improve the self esteem and confidence of young people, thus helping the Council to meet Government targets for education and employment. Voluntary youth groups also help to harness young people’s energies constructively, thus helping to reduce anti social behaviour. This in turn helps to improve the quality of life of local communities as a whole. All this activity depends on the modest levels of support which youth groups receive from MK Council, not least the Wider Use Grants which enable groups to afford Council premises for their activities. MKCVYS therefore requests MK Council to continue its support to the voluntary youth sector. Because so much is achieved with so little resource, even a small reduction in support will have far reaching effects on the services voluntary groups offer young people in Milton Keynes. MKCVYS itself is an example of this. It depends on Grant Aid for its core funding, which enables MKCVYS to provide services, advice and support to the membership, and to be an advocate at local, regional and national level. The first newsletter has recently been produced, to improve communication with members and partners. MKCVYS has just bought a minibus, which will help to lessen the effect of cuts to Youth Service minibus provision. It is planning to develop services in 2004, e.g. a funding information event for members. Such development will not be possible if our grant is reduced.

30 MKCVYS also receives a Wider Use Grant to rent a room in the Central Library for the YETI project (Youth Education Technology Initiative). This provides an affordable suite of computers plus volunteer help to enable young people to improve their skills, and aims to involve young people in the running of YETI itself. The charity spent over £9,000 of its reserves on upgrading the computers in 2003, but if the grant is withdrawn or substantially cut, we will have to close the project.’ Milton Keynes Council for Voluntary Youth Services

F13. ‘Thank you for allowing us to air our view on this subject. As a charity that is managed by unpaid volunteers, we provide many low cost, high quality Chinese Language Classes to thousands of students over the years. Our students are of all ages and come from all walks of life and racial origin. Our organisation relies on funding from council grant, donations from local businesses and private individuals. The school fee we collected only contribute to a portion of the running cost. We also act as a binding force for Chinese Community and promoting good citizenship among the younger generation. In order that we may continue to provide our services, it is essential that we continue to receive financial support from MK Council. Please take our view into consideration.’ Milton Keynes Chinese School and Community Centre

F14. ‘Thank you for your letter re the budget consultation. We had a meeting of trustees at Relate yesterday evening and so I am now responding on behalf of Relate. RelateMK works to support individuals, couples and families with their relationships. We do this through our traditional relationship counselling service focusing on the adult couple relationship and also through our family counselling service where we can work with any members of the family including young people. We also deliver a sexual problems service and education and training to the general public, statutory and voluntary organisations. Thanks to the funding we receive from MK council we are able to provide accessible services to everyone in MK. Our interventions can help to reduce the strain on other social services and health services and improve attendance and engagement at work and at school. Relationship and family breakdown puts pressure on housing, benefits and health services to name a few. Whilst we seek funding from a variety of sources the MK council grant remains vital to the continuation of our services and in particular the ability to provide those services to people in communities who are in most need. As MK continues to expand and indeed double in size there will inevitably be increased demand for our service. New families moving into the area are often without extended family networks or networks of friends and the strain of moving home, new jobs, and living in a new area can have a huge impact on relationships. Whilst the lack of extended family networks is a common theme across the country this is particularly true of MK - we launched our family counselling service around 18 months ago here in MK. Whilst take up of the service here has been considerable, our neighbouring centre in Aylesbury Vale has seen little take up. We greatly appreciate the support of the local authority to our organisation and hope that the level of support continues, and we can work together in the future to support the new families who will be coming to live in MK.’ Relate MK

31 F15. ‘I am writing to say that under the current circumstances I am supportive of Milton Keynes Council increasing Council Tax to prevent cuts to local services. The Voluntary Sector provide terrific value for money in terms of the services they provide and bring in considerable additional money for the residents of Milton Keynes. Therefore, it would not make financial sense to cut grants to the voluntary sector. I would like to say that although standstill is not what the voluntary sector wish to see - as we all know this represents a cut - I am very pleased to see that this is the option being recommended under the circumstances. Thank you for your continued support.’ Inter-Action MK

F16. ‘I am writing with regards to the Council’s proposal not to add any allowance for inflation to our grant this year. We are already facing cost pressures because of growing demand for our service over the last five years (6004 visits in 97/98, 11,626 in 02/03), where we have seen no permanent increase apart from inflation to our grant aid funding. We are a growing service and have seen a 20% increase in visits this year, we are running a very tight budget with regards to our core funding and it is only because we have continued to be successful in obtaining project funding that we have been able to maintain our core service for the increasing number of clients we see. To be able to deliver a quality service with trained staff we need an increase in our core funding to meet pay increases and the increased cost of our lease due to the necessary expansion into larger premises. This is crucial and we will have no alternative but to cut services if an increase in funding is not received. We are providing a much-needed service for the young people in Milton Keynes and as a result teenage pregnancy figures are falling. Teenage conception rates for the under 18’s have fallen from 53 per 1000 in 1999 to 43.7 per 1,000 in 2001 and are recognised as being the main provider of contraception to young people in Milton Keynes. I understand the cost pressures that the Council are facing but I am concerned that short-term savings could cause major cost pressures in the future if services such as ours are cut because no increase in funding is granted this year.’ Brook Advisory

F17. ‘We at the CCC understand that the Council will not be able to make any allowance at all for inflation under the present financial constraints. This will mean that the Centre will have to raise additional funds through extra fundraising activities in order to provide the same level of service. In an already very stretched situation our volunteers and staff will be asked to spend more time and energy in this direction. The voluntary sector saves the Council thousands of pounds by providing high quality services on a very tight budget. As residents of Milton Keynes an excessive percentage rise will also prove to be very difficult as many of our volunteers at the CCC are pensioners. We do appreciate the very difficult decision that the Council have to make as a result of Government action and policy.’ City Counselling Centre

F18. ‘Thank you or your letter of 15th December regarding the Milton Keynes Council Budget for 2004/05. I was delighted with the news that your draft budget proposes that the Bucks & Milton Keynes Sports Partnership will receive the same level of grant next year, despite the budget pressures the Council is under. I would like to take the opportunity to update you with some of our work.

32 As you may be aware the Bucks & Milton Keynes Sports Partnership was formed in 2000 to bring together all local authorities to co-ordinate the development of sport across the county. It was formed initially to provide a structure through which to implement the Active Sports programme which has been hugely successful and as a result the Partnership is going from strength to strength. The ‘core’ partners are the six local authorities in the county and as such Milton Keynes Council are clearly one of our key partners, playing a major role in the development of sport in the city and the Partnership. We now have a large number of partners from the public, private and voluntary sectors including over 30 funding partners. The following is an indication of the value of the Partnership and its associated programmes to Milton Keynes: Funding - the Partnership is able to access significant funding - MKC contribution this year is equal to 3.15% of the total budget, with the Sport England Lottery fund being the largest contribution (53%). We have accessed 9 Lottery Awards, each of five years, plus additional funding streams being identified. 32 other funding partners also contribute. Milton Keynes is approximately 1/3 of the population of the county and therefore receives an excellent return for its investment which is increasing year on year. Due to the requirement to find partnership funding any reduction in our funding has significant effect on the external funding we are able to access. Other partners/officers are also contributing to the development of sport in the city, adding value and capacity to that of the sports development team. Local activities focus on raising participation, supporting more young people, in particular priority groups to join local clubs. Thames Valley Youth Games - approximately 200 young people represented MKC at the Thames Valley Youth Games and the quality of the event and value for money for partners is increasing year on year Voluntary sector Club Development and supporting clubs to develop and achieve accreditation Milton Keynes District Development squads – have now been developed in a number of sports including girls football, hockey, rugby, cricket and basketball in Partnership with NGB’s and county associations, providing a real development opportunity for the youngsters involved and a clear pathway, widening access into county squads. 261 young people took part in player assessment activities and 125 took part in district squad activities in MKC last year. young people with disabilities from 2 special schools took part in the first disability sport festival 125 coaches from MKC benefited from the programme last year 34 coaches attended generic club/coach education workshops last year and 72 places have already been taken on coach education courses in the first half of this year with many of these courses linking with and supporting the MKC Coach Registration scheme. 65 coaches attended NGB coach education courses. The Partnership is currently evolving and taking on a wider remit Implementing other initiatives and development work. ‘Game Plan’, the ‘Governments Plan for Sport’, was published in December 2002 involving a complete review of the delivery of sport. It highlighted amongst other things that there are too many uncoordinated organisations and advocated the 45 County Sports Partnerships across the country as a key delivery mechanism. Many national agencies including the Government, Sport England, Youth Sport Trust, Sports Coach UK and National Governing Bodies of sport are advocating and increasingly using the County Sports Partnership infrastructure.

33 The retention of Milton Keynes Council financial contribution to the Partnership at the current level is vital in order that the benefits highlighted above can be retained and the future of the Partnership can be secured. If this contribution were to be reduced it would inevitably have a significant impact on the Partnership and on the development of sport in Milton Keynes. Once again I am delighted that the contribution to the Partnership is to be maintained and thank you for your continued support of this key Partnership.’ Bucks & Milton Keynes Sports Partnership

F19. ‘Please accept this e-mail as part of your public consultation. I would like to put the case forward for continuing grants to the voluntary sector using artworks-mk as a case-study. Artworks-mk have been in existence for 30 years, originally called the Arts Workshop Trust. Our aim has always been to engage with different communities and ensure that the visual arts and crafts make a valuable contribution to people's lives through education. We do this by: Helping all sections of the community to engage with the visual arts as 'Learners' in a physically and intellectually accessible, welcoming and friendly environment Providing opportunities to develop their expertise by training, advice and support in practical craft-based skills and appreciation Providing high quality facilities in an inspiring heritage setting that stimulates and nurtures creativity Supporting networking and social opportunities for professional artists and learners Helping to promote and publicise the visual arts and crafts Supporting links and synergies between professional artists and the wider community for the benefit of both Last year we provided: 24,115 positive experiences to local people; 7,788 to young people and schools and; 4,304 to disabled or disadvantaged people. Our grant from MK Council enables us to provide low-cost and therefore accessible activities and resources to the people of Milton Keynes. Our workshops, facilities and studios are subsidised and all of our events, festivals and exhibitions are free. We target our programme to those who need it the most and our new audience development study provides a 5-year plan to further encourage hard-to-reach groups to access our activities and resources. We value our grant from MK Council and our users value our services and provision. For every £1 MK Council give us, we raise another £2 to further build our projects, activities and resources. As a not-for-profit organisation, we consider this to be a good use of public money and a worthy investment for MK Council.’ artworks-mk

F20. ‘I am replying to your request for responses to the budget consultation. Women & Work enables socially excluded women to make informed choices about employment and training needs, providing them with a pathway that is tailored to their individual needs leading to paid or more suitable paid work. It enables them to access vocational guidance, training and work experience opportunities; raise their skill levels, qualifications, motivation and confidence to compete more effectively in the labour market. Our activities benefit the people of Milton Keynes in 6 ways: 1. We help disadvantaged women of Milton Keynes become socially included

34 2. Women are up skilled to enable them to enter paid employment or further training. 3. Women are motivated to join the path of lifelong learning. 4. We help the families of these women financially and personally. 5. Employers in the area are helped to combat their skills shortages 6. Improve economic activity in Milton Keynes and therefore the people of Milton Keynes as a whole. Milton Keynes Council grant covers 50% of our core costs. Without the grant funding we would be unable to provide any of our services. We therefore see it as essential that we continue to be supported by Milton Keynes Council.’ MK Women & Work Group

F21. ‘On behalf of Stantonbury Campus, I am writing with our views on the current budget consultation. We recognise the very difficult situation for Milton Keynes Council created by the shortfall of funding from central government which fails to match the increase in population with a corresponding increase in finance for local government. We also appreciate the need to keep any increase in Council Tax to a level which the people of Milton Keynes can afford. Therefore, we understand the tough choices which have to be made by Milton Keynes Council when setting the budget and balancing the competing claims upon limited resources. However, we believe that the education of our young people is of paramount importance and this service to the people of Milton Keynes should not be subject to cuts or limitations in the current round of budget decisions. If that policy requires an increase in Council Tax in order to fund education and related services, then we believe that the extra costs would be supported by the people of Milton Keynes on behalf of their children.’ Stantonbury Campus

F22. ‘I write in response to the budget consultation. As Milton Keynes is entering its second growth phase it is extremely important that it avoids becoming a dormitory town. To do this it needs realistic cultural development. To restrict our grant, and those of similar voluntary organisations, to this extremely low level would put Milton Keynes into danger of returning to a cultural desert. The contribution that the orchestra makes to the life of the city through its planned concerts in the area and its education and outreach programme should not be underestimated. The orchestra is in the process of significantly extending its outreach work through schools and to the older residents in the area. Any further cut to its grant would put significant pressure on these activities. The MKCO relies strongly on partnership funding for which the Council grant carries an enormous amount of weight. As always, in a new city, efforts have to be made to support the continuance of the community groups which benefit the whole area and help to build a sustainable community.’ Milton Keynes City Orchestra

F23. ‘My wife and I are the Youth Pastors of Kings Church (formerly Milton Keynes Covenant Fellowship). We have been running youth activities and events for approximately 10 years. Kings Church meets in the Radcliffe School Wolverton. The Church has a number of organised youth groups, pretty much spanning all ages of youth from the very young up to around 23 years old. My wife and I primarily have

35 responsibility for the Youth aged 13 to 23. We meet 3 times a week. We have particular events for the guys and girls including regular football night on a Tuesday, youth meetings on a Friday and an organised youth activity or event on a Saturday/ evening. On Saturdays we organise larger events such as trips to Drayton Manor Park, a trip to Oxford to see a band, trips locally around Milton Keynes, trips to Hemel Hempsted swimming pool, Bedford Oasis, to various day youth events/ conferences and recently a weekend when we took our Youth to a conference in London. We have also planned another trip to Drayton Manor park, an organised trip to Alton Towers and also another conference in London. In all honesty the provision of the mini bus has been a lifesaver, and one of the main reasons why we have been able to organise events that include an element of travelling… In the organisation of any event, money is of course a big factor to consider, particularly when you are dealing with youth, and even more so when the youth come from poor backgrounds. Our Youth have benefited greatly from the Council’s provision of a mini-bus in that we have been able to organise good, fun events at a reduced rate due to the great benefit of reduced travel costs. If the mini-bus service is terminated we simply will not be able to arrange the events that we have done because travel costs would increase greatly. Hiring a mini-bus is not cheap and this is the only mini-bus that we have access to on this basis. This would have a knock on effect on the Youth and in the end it would be them that would suffer. Our group has used the mini-bus greatly. We have already organised events that depend on our being able to use the bus in the future. Without the bus the events must be cancelled as the young people would not be able to afford the increased costs. We offer young people a fantastic opportunity to have fun and to get out and about and attend events that they may not normally be able to do. I would humbly but strongly request that the mini-bus service is funded for many years to come on the basis that it is an ideal and proportionate investment into the young people of Milton Keynes. In this day and age, it is my opinion that the Young people of Milton Keynes should be given every opportunity to enjoy life instead of removing resources and benefits that if taken away leave a young person with not much more to do than hang about in the streets. Young people need events and activities that they can look forward to otherwise boredom and lethargy can set in. The provision of a mini-bus is a great resource and I would implore you to continue funding this service. Our youth group has made great use of the service and wish to continue to do so. This is your opportunity to invest in the young people of Milton Keynes. I truly believe that the implications of this simple resource are far more reaching than perhaps can be seen on face value only.’ Kings Church

F24. ‘I have been reading the consultation budget for Milton Keynes Council for 2004/5 and although I am aware that this year many councils across the country are going to be faced with difficult decisions regarding budgets and how best to provide a quality service to the communities we all work with I was surprised to note the projected cutting of the out of hours environmental health service. A service which has over the years ensured the partnership working of both the emergency services and the local authority by being able to support operational commanders with technical and logistical backup at the scene of incidents when they most need it. This of course is not the only partnership working that both the Fire Service and Milton Keynes Council have and the

36 abandoned car scheme demonstrates how joined up working can make a difference to the safety of the community. From April 2002 to October 2003 there have been a total of 12 incidents which have occurred out of hours where the support of the environmental health officers have played an integral part in bringing the incidents to a successful and safe conclusion. Incidents ranging from Fires involving Hazardous Chemicals and Chemical spillages, to others involving High Levels of Asbestos and Tyre Dump Fires. I would find it difficult to imagine how those incidents could have been concluded if the support of environmental health officers out of hours was removed. I have also discussed the proposal with my Chief Fire Officer who shares my concerns and who will be writing in the next few days to make his views known. In closing I would like to stress that over the years both the Fire Service and Milton Keynes Council have worked in partnership to provide a very professional service to the communities of Milton Keynes at any time of the day or night and if part of that service was removed by suspending the out of hours availability of the environmental health officers the communities of Milton Keynes may be put at risk.’ Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service

G. Parish Councils

G1. ‘I have been asked to write on behalf of Haversham cum Little Linford Parish Council to express the Parish Council’s strong objections to the proposed double figure increase in Council Tax for 2004/05. This Council feels such a rise unwarranted especially at a time when services to the Parish are deplorable and are generally felt to be much worse now than they were a few years ago. Examples of this are that roads and footpaths are in a general state of disrepair and little is seemingly done to rectify the problem, street cleaning services, including drainage clearance are negligible, police presence in the villages is now hardly evident unless there is a 999 call and landscape maintenance irregular and at times poorly carried out. These are just some of the real concerns that local councillors have expressed over the last few months. Added to this the fact that many of the residents in this Parish are pensioners and/or are on fixed incomes and are already struggling to meet current levels of Council Tax and will find it impossible to meet the high level of increase being proposed. This especially so when they see so little in the way of benefit from these taxes. Whilst the Parish Council appreciate that increases in inflation have to be reflected in Council Tax charges, the levels of increase being proposed are exorbitant. This Parish Council would be grateful if the Milton Keynes Council could think again about the levels of increase in Council Tax being proposed.’ Haversham cum Little Linford Parish Council

G2.1. ‘Enclosed with this letter is a petition that reflects the disgust felt by residents and users of the Stony Stratford Library at your proposals to reduce the library to an unworkable single floor operation. Almost 800 people, including some of the most needy residents of the borough, have signed this petition. These range from children who rely on the library for their main source of reading materials, as parents cannot afford to spend money on books, right through to the elder members of our community who find the current environment of the library such a welcoming place that it forms part of their social life. All this would

37 be lost if your preposterous proposal is turned into reality. Please reconsider the impact on this vibrant community and its surrounding areas that your proposals would have, and all for such a minimum of savings.’ Stony Stratford Town Council

G2.2. ‘At its January Council meeting held earlier this week, Stony Stratford Town Council considered the ‘Budget 2004/5 – Have Your Say’ document and wishes to lodge the following objections/observations to your proposals. This council is appalled to learn of your proposal to reduce Stony Stratford Library to a single floor operation. This facility, which provides much more than just a library service to the community, is a vital and integral part of the life of the town and its residents. It is a short sighted proposal that takes no account of the future need for these types of facilities when your aspirations for development in the vicinity of the town come to fruition. This council would like to identify to you the need for more adult/ continuing education programs within the town and feel that better use of the library facilities could be made to this end by using the building in the evenings when the library is not open. This would of course provide you with another revenue stream. This council considers that the unilateral decision to close down the s136 arrangements with parishes was shortsighted and whilst arrangements might have needed fine tuning, the arrangement would have meant that parish councils would not have needed to increase precepts to cover for revenue shortfalls caused by scrapping the scheme. This council is concerned that the level of increases proposed may lead to capping on your tax increase. Should this be the case, we ask that a serious and meaningful consultation be undertaken with all parishes as to how cuts are to be made. This council asks you to reconsider the specific points made above for the good of the residents of Stony Stratford’ Stony Stratford Town Council

38