2025/26 Stirling Council Budget: consultation and engagement process

by Communications TEAM | Jan 31, 2025 | announcement, announcementspage, News, webpage

The Chair of the Bridge of Allan Community Council has sent the following letter to Stirling Council:

OFFICIAL

Date: 31 January 2025

Dear Stirling Council,

2025/26 Stirling Council Budget: consultation and engagement process 

In addition to our individual residents’ responses to the current budget engagement exercise, Bridge of Allan Community Council is writing on behalf of our community to express our concerns regarding both the process and the options being presented.

 We appreciate that generating savings options for consideration is a challenge, however we feel that the information provided has been insufficient to allow residents to fully consider options and provide informed feedback to support Elected Members to decide on the budget for 2025/26.

 On your engagement platform you state that £2.6m of savings are being consulted on with residents, and that a range of other savings, totalling more than £8m, have been identified which will not have a direct impact on the services resident’s use. No detail is provided on the £8m plus of savings identified, but we are struggling to understand how any savings made by Council will not have a direct impact on the services provided to residents.  Whether the savings are being generated from back-office functions, from restructures or from another route they will ultimately impact on the quality and efficiency of the services provided by Stirling Council to its residents.  We ask you to share publicly all information on the detail of these savings and an assessment of the impact, both positive and negative from these.

The savings presented for engagement are not supported with information on the potential impact should the saving be made, with detail instead describing the service as it is.  There is no detail of the impact assessments you have undertaken in relation to equalities, children’s rights, environment, or the Fairer Scotland Duty.  Without this level of detail, the engagement exercise you have undertaken feels tokenistic.  Unless you are willing to support residents to give an informed view it is hard to see what value you place on this exercise.  While we feel that asking respondents general questions about possible disproportionate impact of savings on people with one or more protected characteristic is positive it is not enough.  It does not give any opportunity to consider how factors such as poverty may exacerbate impact on some households, or how the cumulative impact of different savings may have a disproportionate impact on specific individuals, households or families.

Many of the options presented seem to relate to services aimed at supporting those most in need, such as services specifically aimed at supporting children and young people to engage in education, community and culture; supporting families; providing access to libraries and community facilities; homelessness and housing support; business development; and volunteering support. These are often the areas targeted on an annual basis for savings, which provides uncertainty for both those who use the services and the staff who provide them.  It also suggests they are valued less than services not being presented for consideration.

 While we recognise that savings must be made, and that the budget requires to be balanced, we do not feel that the options presented represent areas of true efficiency within the organisation.  Many of the options proposed will have a significant detrimental impact on members of our community who require most support and will have a cumulative long-term impact on outcomes for the communities who make up the Stirling Council area. 

 As a representative body for our area with a statutory basis, we have a role in supporting Council to engage with residents.  We have shared information on the engagement exercise with residents and urged them to have their say.  However the lack of detail on the options themselves, and the likely impact on residents is an area of significant concern for the Community Council and we would welcome a discussion on how this approach can be improved.

Regards

Amanda Coulthard

Chair, Bridge of Allan Community Council

Bridge of Allan Community Council

OFFICIAL