THURROCK Council's cabinet will tomorrow (Wednesday, 13 June) have to make a decision to rubber-stamp a range of increased fees and charges in the borough – and will do so with words of caution in their ears after the meeting this evening of the authority's cleaner, greener, safer overview and scrutiny committee.

Members of the committee all said they were unhappy with the range of breadth of the charges and the general feeling was that residents were being expected to pay more – probably for less; and it was particularly unfair that they were having to do so against the backdrop of having just received a 9.9 hike in council tax – and others a further hike in council rents.

Interim Chief Financial Officer Steven Mair presented his report and said it was not a punitive budget, but a realistic attempt to get the council back on a sustainable footing.

He was speaking against the financial catastrophe that has effectively bankrupted the council and forced the hand of financial experts brought into the try and salvage cash from every possible opportunity.

But Mr Mair  said it was not a case of the council 'money-grabbing' but protecting the future.

He told members: "This is not money grabbing it is trying to get the council into a sustainable financial position. You clearly have a very large financial challenge to deal with, that is why we are doing this, to sustain services in the future."

He said that the aim of the council going forwards would not be to have subsidised services, but to ensure 'full cost recovery'.

Quizzed about why services which made a profit, including the Grangewaters Activity centre, still faced increases, he said: "The policy is about full cost recovery."

He also suggested that the impact of the council's poor accounting and the legacy of Covid-19 clouded the issue and that the council would need a better, longer term strategy in the future.

He said: "The point about subsidies we need to address is that until you have a policy, we cannot discern if something is making a profit or is making a profit as a consequence of not charging costs.

"None of this is intended at all to make anything close, it is to preserve the future."

He said the council was determined to have better consultation with residents going forward, adding: "The point about the consultation, this is a reflection of the work we have done to help its financial sustainability. Stage two will allow us to do more consultation in the future."

The Thameside: It will suffer becasue of increased charges.

One area that brought concern from councillors was a plan to increase charges at the Thameside Theatre.

Officer Steven Taylor told members: "Prices at the Thameside have not increased in line with inflation."

Committee chair Cllr Val Morris-Cook, who said she was very concerned about the report and the impact on residents, said the budget review for the Thameside was unfair because the theatre had been closed down during Covid when it was unable to generate revenue but the overarching inflation increase included the years when the Thameside was closed – therefore the figures were out of kilter.

Cllr Morris-Cook said: "I would really challenge you to include that inflation when the Thameside was closed. It's not particularly fair is it."

Cllr Joy Redsell said: "On the whole I don't think people mind paying for something that is better than what we have now but if we are going to up these charges and have nothing to make people want to go there, it's not comfortable.

"We have to address this if we increase charges, that has to go back into the pot to improve the building."

Cllr Alex Anderson said: "I understand and I want to see the council sustainable in the future but I am upset about these charges. I am not happy about this, but I will be voting for the recommendations."

Cllr Cathy Kent condemned the rises and said it was unfair, saying she was really shocked by the increases. She said: "With the current cost of living crisis nand the fact we have put council charges up 10 per cent, people just don't have the money. There is a big impact on residents. They have had enough. I just don't think this is right. We just seem to be money-grabbing."

Summing up Cllr Morris-Cook reiterated the concerns of members that the increases were generally unfair and residents did not deserve to suffer because of mistakes that they were not responsible for.

She questionned the fact that officers on high salaries and consultants had been drafted in at huge cost to residents - "We are having to take that money back from our residents", she said.

And she challenged officers to take a stronger approach to pro-active revenue generation, particularly through enforcement and fines.

She said: "There seems to be a lack of consequence for unacceptable behaviour, ie bad parking. We see HGV vehicles breaking weight rules, and unlicensed people collecting waste.

"Are we missing trick here?. Realistically we should be looking for much more enforcement to stop people having to pay the price for other people's bad behaviour.

"We should really be looking at that.

"We all understand the financial position, but residents are frustrated, angered and irritated and are feeling the strain and suffering the cost of living and there is nothing they have done wrong."

She also asked the cabinet to consider staggering some of the increases asking: "I would ask if it is possible to look at some pay journey, it won't make a huge difference to the budget, but it could mean some services closing."

Cllr Redsell called for more enforcement on people using sports facilities, saying: "We are losing revenue, for example on people coming from London and using sports pitches without paying for them."

Members noted all the recommendations before them, which can be viewed via this link, but stressed it was important that cabinet were briefed on all members' concerns.

Cllr Morris-Cook concluded: "I don't want our residents to think this has been waved through easily."

The meeting can be viewed online here: https://thurrock.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/778133