The Finance and Procurement Select Committee of Wiltshire Council met on 18 February 2026 to scrutinise an alternative budget proposal for 2026/27 and two amendments to that proposal. The committee noted the alternative budget and amendments, and their comments will be taken forward to the Full Council meeting.

Wiltshire Council's Budget 2026/27: Amendments and Alternative Budget Proposals

The committee considered an alternative budget for the 2026/27 financial year, put forward by Councillor Richard Clewer, which differed from the Cabinet's proposed budget in several key areas. Councillor Clewer's proposal aimed to provide additional revenue funding for highway maintenance, find savings in staffing, and re-profile capital spending. He argued that his budget offered a coherent three-year financial plan with an additional £10 million in savings over the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), focusing on boosting productivity, reshaping services for efficiency, and concentrating on statutory areas of delivery.

Key areas of discussion regarding Councillor Clewer's alternative budget included:

• Adult Social Care: Proposals to review commissioning strategies and introduce outcome-based clauses for care contracts were discussed, with the aim of saving £2.5 million in 2026/27. Concerns were raised about the potential impact on vulnerable residents and the use of spot purchasing.
• Highways: The alternative budget proposed funding £15 million of highways investment from revenue rather than capital borrowing, which Councillor Clewer argued would save £0.33 million in interest costs over two years. This was contrasted with the Cabinet's budget, which proposed borrowing for this investment.
• St Stephen's Multi-Storey Car Park: Councillor Clewer's proposal sought to remove a £2.7 million capital allocation for maintenance and resurfacing, arguing that essential safety work could be funded differently and that a strategic pause was needed to review the site's future. Councillor Helen Belcher OBE, Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Regeneration and Assets, sought further clarity on these plans.
• Melksham Bypass: The alternative budget proposed re-profiling allocations for the Melksham Bypass scheme until the government confirmed its readiness to progress, reallocating Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding to depots and freeing up £1.2 million annually for highways investment. Mr Andrew Griffin, a resident of Melksham and town councillor, spoke against the deletion of funding for the bypass, citing concerns about traffic congestion and air quality in Melksham.
• Staffing and Savings: The budget included an additional £2.5 million in savings related to staffing for 2026/27, with Councillor Clewer asserting that a strategic framework and lessons from other authorities would ensure deliverability. Concerns were raised about the precise quantification of the impact on service delivery.
• Income Generation: The introduction of a Lane Rental scheme was proposed, with an anticipated income of £1.2 million, £750,000 of which could be invested in highways in 2026/27. The feasibility and timeframe for implementing such a scheme were discussed, with comparisons made to other councils.
• Reserves: The Section 151 Officer reported that the risk assessment for the General Fund Reserve had been updated, and the Risk Contingency Reserve, along with the General Fund Reserve, adequately met the risk assessment level for 2026/27.

Two amendments to Councillor Clewer's alternative budget were also considered:

• Amendment D – Green Energy Tariff: Proposed by Councillor Mike Sankey, this amendment sought to remove the green energy tariff paid on purchased energy, aiming for a modest saving of £0.03 million in the MTFS 2027/28. The committee discussed potential savings in later years and whether alternative measures would be needed to meet climate targets.
• Amendment E – Residual Waste Collections: Proposed by Councillor Ed Rimmer, this amendment sought to reverse the administration's budget proposal for three-weekly residual waste collections. This would incur a budget pressure of £1.306 million in 2027/28 and £2.096 million in 2028/29, which would be mitigated by Risk Contingency funding. Councillor Rimmer argued that the cost pressure could be managed within the contingency reserve.

At the conclusion of the discussions, the committee resolved to thank members for their budget proposals and noted that they had been scrutinised. They also resolved to ask Full Council to take note of the committee's comments, as presented in the attached report¹.