Peterborough City Council Budget Simulator 2023

Your target is to reduce spending by £5.1m to balance the budget.

You have balanced the budget.

Council tax

Council Tax

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

4.9%.

£0

An additional 4.9% would generate almost £4.905m in additional income, on top of the 4.99% already agreed. This would cost the majority of households in Peterborough (Band D households) an extra £1.52 a week. The council element of the council tax bill would be £1,745 per year with that option.

Please note that to do so would require a referendum asking residents if they supported paying more than 5% council tax.

In the council's Medium Term Financial Strategy which was agreed in February 2023, members agreed to increase council tax by 4.99% in 2024/25. This includes a 2% adult social care precept, providing ringfenced funding to provide adult social care services.

The Government has set out that it will allow councils to increase council tax by up to 5%, unless a majority of residents vote for a higher amount in a referendum. Would you be in favour of holding a referendum to agree an additional council tax rise of 5% (totalling 10% overall) if it were ringfenced for adults and children’s services?

Adult social care

Commissioning - longer term care

-50%.

£0

In addition to the cuts previously outlined, we would have to cut care packages by 40%, meaning that we would not be able to provide care and support for about 1,100 people every year who have been assessed as having care and support needs. This would be against the law, as we would be acting illegally by cutting people's care and support packages based on affordability.

This would leave people in need of care and support at extreme risk. It would also lead to the closure of care providers, meaning people’s care would have to be moved to other providers or stopped completely.

-25%.

£0

In addition to the cuts outlined in the 5% and 10% budget cuts, we would have to make further cuts to our statutory services, making the social work function of the local authority completely untenable and we would not be able to meet our legal requirements under the Care Act.

We would have to stop providing care and support for 270 people every year who really need it, which would be illegal, with a significant number of people left without care for a long period of time.

A significant number of people would be left without care for a significant period of time, meaning they won’t be able to get out of bed, wash, eat, drink, or address their medical conditions. This will put people at risk of harm, or even death.

-10%.

£0

In addition to those impacts outlined in the 5% cuts, we would have to make further cuts to our statutory services. This would include cutting all our prevention and early intervention services which keep people independent at home for as long as possible.

There would also be cuts to voluntary sector support offering information, advice and support to older people, those with learning disabilities, mental health issues and physical disabilities.

Social workers would not be able to adhere to their professional standards and would leave for alternative employment.

We will see an increase in safeguarding concerns as people’s care and support needs won’t be being met.

-5%.

£0

We would have to cut some of our statutory services, which would be illegal and mean we would face judicial review. We would have to spend a lot of time supporting the process for these judicial reviews, meaning less time for staff to support people who need it.

We would not be able to provide support for people to purchase the care and support they need (which would be discriminatory as some people lack capacity to make their own decisions) and we would have to cut some of the support we offer to informal carers.

All of the above would lead to a poor rating from the Care Quality Commission which regulates social care services and staff departures.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

Increasing the budget in adult social care commissioning would ensure we are able to provide and commission more essential frontline services for vulnerable people.

10%.

£0

Increasing the budget in adult social care commissioning would ensure we are able to provide and commission more essential frontline services for vulnerable people.

Reablement and therapy

-50%.

£0

The service would potentially become too small to be able to operate, therefore meaning that around 500 people would not be able to access this support to help them recover from a stay in hospital or period of ill health.

-25%.

£0

We would have to provide reablement to around 120 fewer people.

In the long run this would lead to greater costs with a high percentage of these people needing a long-term care package in the short-term future.

People would potentially be stuck in a hospital bed awaiting a care package where they would be less able to do things for themselves.

-10%.

£0

We would have to provide reablement to around 50 fewer people. In the long run this would lead to greater costs with a high percentage of these people needing a long-term care package in the short-term future.

People would potentially be stuck in a hospital bed awaiting a care package where they would be less able to do things for themselves.

-5%.

£0

We would have to provide reablement care to around 25 fewer people. In the long run this would lead to greater costs with a high percentage of these people needing a long-term care package in the short-term future.

People would potentially be stuck in a hospital bed awaiting a care package where they would be less able to do things for themselves.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

An increase in budget would mean the council could enhance community engagement, implement more measures to reduce accidents in the home, invest further in the reablement and physical therapy teams to ensure more people live independently and reduce the number of people admitted to hospital unnecessarily.

10%.

£0

Community services - day opportunities, short breaks

-50%.

£0

There would be around 180 less overnight breaks for carers to allow them to rest and focus on other aspects of their lives. This would impact the wellbeing of the carers and might lead to physical or mental ill health and might lead ultimately to carer breakdown.

Around 70 less carers would receive the regular non-overnight breaks they need to support them to continue working and carrying out day to day activities such as shopping.

This would impact the mental, financial and physical wellbeing of the carers affected and might lead ultimately to carer breakdown.

The carers sitting services might become unviable leading to a lack of provision for an even greater number of carers, with all 140 either having no daytime break or having to rely on more expensive home care services.

-25%.

£0

There would be around 90 less overnight breaks for carers to allow them to rest and focus on other aspects of their lives. This would impact the wellbeing of the carers and might lead to physical or mental ill health and ultimately carer breakdown.

Around 40 less carers would receive the regular non-overnight breaks they need to support them to continue working and carrying out day to day activities such as shopping.

This would impact the mental, financial and physical wellbeing of the carers affected and might lead ultimately to carer breakdown.

-10%.

£0

There would be around 40 fewer overnight breaks for carers to allow them to rest and focus on other aspects of their lives. This would impact the wellbeing of the carers and might lead to physical or mental ill health and ultimately to carer breakdown.

Around 20 less carers would receive the regular non-overnight breaks they need to support them to continue working and carrying out day to day activities such as shopping.

This would impact the mental, financial and physical wellbeing of the carers affected and might lead ultimately to carer breakdown.

-5%.

£0

There would be around 20 fewer overnight breaks for carers to allow them to rest and focus on other aspects of their lives. This would impact the wellbeing of the carers and might lead to physical or mental ill health and ultimately to carer breakdown.

Around 10 fewer carers would receive the regular non-overnight breaks they need to support them to continue working and carrying out day to day activities such as shopping.

This would impact the mental, financial and physical wellbeing of the carers affected and might lead ultimately to carer breakdown.

We would have to cut funding to the local carers support services, potentially impacting the support provided to the 500 plus carers supported by them.

Statutory services could include closing all our community-based day services. These provide a range of support to more than 180 people who have statutory assessed care and support needs, including those with dementia, learning disabilities and mental health needs, as well as their carers.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

With additional funding, we could expand the array of choices available to people. It would also enable us to extend support to a larger number of caregivers and offer a more extensive range of care and assistance, thereby assisting people in sustaining their family support over an extended period.

10%.

£0

Children’s and young people services

Education support services

-50%.

£0

We would likely see an increase in maintained schools going into special measures by Ofsted. This would lead to fewer children reaching the expected standards in their education and we would be unable to meet our minimum duty for the education of children in care.

The council would not meet its contractual or statutory duty for historical teacher pension costs or the Public Finance Initiative (PFI) for schools, leading to legal action against us.

We would not have the capacity to set the schools budget, another statutory duty.

-25%.

£0

Standards in schools would decline and our support for headteachers would be significantly reduced. We would be unable to meet our minimum duty for the education of children in care.

The council would not meet its contractual or statutory duty for historical teacher pension costs or the Public Finance Initiative (PFI) for schools, leading to legal action against us.

-10%.

£0

We would have less capacity to support our schools, leading to fewer children reaching the expected standards in their education. There would be reduced support for overseeing the education of children in care.

The council would not meet its contractual or statutory duty for historical teacher pension costs or the Public Finance Initiative (PFI) for schools, leading to legal action against us.

-5%.

£0

We would have to reduce our support for English and Maths in primary schools. This would all lead to fewer children reaching the expected standards in their education.

The council would not meet its contractual or statutory duty for historical teacher pension costs or the Public Finance Initiative (PFI) for schools, leading to legal action against us.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

An increase in budget would give us more money to spend supporting schools which would see more of them receive better Ofsted ratings. Children would receive more support to achieve the expected standards in key subjects such as Maths and English.

10%.

£0

Special educational needs and inclusion services

-50%.

£0

We would not meet any of our statutory timescales for assessing special education needs and would be at risk of government/Ofsted intervention.

-25%.

£0

We would not meet the majority of our statutory timescales for assessing special education needs.

-10%.

£0

We would likely have to reduce support for SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) services, meaning fewer children receiving help to overcome learning difficulties and social/emotional problems, thus affecting their progress in schools.

Our timeliness would reduce significantly for statutory assessments. We would look to reduce our support for special education needs transport and look to lengthen our transport journeys through using the same bus for multiple routes.

-5%.

£0

We would have to cut any early intervention work with children with additional education needs by our Education Psychology team which may lead to needs not being identified early. Our timeliness for statutory assessment of special education needs would decline. We would increase the costs of all paid transport.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

With an increase in budget, we could increase the support that we offer children through Special Educational Needs and Disabilities services. Statutory assessments would be completed quicker.

10%.

£0

With an increase in budget, we could increase the support that we offer children through Special Educational Needs and Disabilities services. Statutory assessments would be completed quicker.

Social work and child protection services

-50%.

£0

In addition to the 5%, 20% and 25% cuts, we would have to make 50% cuts to front-line staff, meaning we would breach our legal duties by not safely supporting children and young people. We would fail to meet our statutory duties to children daily, children would be unsafe, there would be a likelihood of serious incidents, and some children would suffer significant harm or possible death.

We would not be able to run a Youth Justice Service which means children who are extremely vulnerable and are offending in the community, would not get the help they need and the impact for residents in terms of youth crime would be significant.

-25%.

£0

There would be a 25% cut to all our children's front-line social care teams which would mean we would not be able to make sure children have all the support they need to keep them safe.

Children with significant emotional and mental health needs would not get the support they require, leading to increased risk of self-harm or suicide.

-10%.

£0

The level of risk to children increases.

-5%.

£0

Caseloads for social workers would have to increase and this means things might get missed and children left at risk.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

Increased budget would allow the council to prioritise investment in early intervention and help services. More social workers would mean manageable caseloads and would work towards rebalancing priorities away from crisis intervention / statutory intervention.

10%.

£0

Targeted Support – early help

-50%.

£0

In addition to the 5%, 20% and 25% cuts, we would have to make 50% cuts to front-line staff, meaning we would breach our legal duties by not safely supporting children and young people.

We would fail to meet our statutory duties to children daily, children would be unsafe, there would be a likelihood of serious incidents, and some children would suffer significant harm or possible death.

-25%.

£0

In addition to the 5% and 10% cuts, we would have to make cuts to statutory services which would be illegal. This would place children at risk of serious harm and would see us rated ‘Inadequate’ by Ofsted. There is a likelihood of children facing serious incidents where they may suffer significant harm.

We would not be able to effectively commission services meaning we wouldn’t be able to ensure that providers are delivering high quality care in the best interests of the children they are supporting. This would particularly impact children with disabilities and access to shorts break provision.

-10%.

£0

In addition to the previous 5% cuts, we would have to cut all our prevention and early help services, including closing our three Family Hubs. This would mean that we would not be able to provide advice and support to children and families to help keep children at home in a safe, loving family environment.

-5%.

£0

Targeted Support would not be available for families as we would need to make the targeted support team redundant. This would mean more families would not be able to access the help they need, and they would end up in statutory intervention thereby placing additional cost and strain on services.

A range of Evidence Based Parenting Programmes would not be available to families and young people.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

An increase in our budget would mean greater support our work in Children's Services.

For example, with more staff the conditions for good social work would flourish. This would reduce staff turnover meaning less reliance on agency staff. This saves us money.

10%.

£0

An increase in our budget would mean greater support our work in Children's Services.

For example, with more staff the conditions for good social work would flourish. This would reduce staff turnover meaning less reliance on agency staff. This saves us money.

Services for looked after children - fostering and adoption

-50%.

£0

The service would collapse, and many children would be left at risk of significant harm.

-25%.

£0

There would be no external services for children in care, meaning we would have children’s placements disrupted and there would be an increased risk of exploitation in the community. Children with significant emotional and mental health needs would not get the support they require, leading to increased risk of self-harm or suicide.

Not all children would have a placement and would be left at risk.

-10%.

£0

The 5% impacts would increase further.

In addition, the council would not be able to afford to pay for all the placements with foster carers that it needs to make to keep children safe.

-5%.

£0

Children would not see their social worker as often as caseloads increase and may mean that their quality of life is harmed as a result of less timely decisions being made.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

Budget increase would help to attract and retain more local foster carers and to ensure every child in foster care benefits from stable, high-quality care.

10%.

£0

Budget increase would help to attract and retain more local foster carers and to ensure every child in foster care benefits from stable, high-quality care.

Home to school transport

-50%.

£0

We would not meet our statutory requirement for delivering home to school transport.

-25%.

£0

We would not meet our statutory requirement for delivering home to school transport.

-10%.

£0

We would not meet our statutory requirement for delivering home to school transport.

-5%.

£0

We would not meet our statutory requirement for delivering home to school transport.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

An increase in this budget is predicted due to the rising demand for home to school transport. We will also work to improve the efficiency of journeys where possible which should result in some savings on those routes.

10%.

£0

Public health

Public Health

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

This increase would enable the services mentioned in the department description to be maintained at the same level given the inflationary pressures, rising population and increasing complexity of need. This increase is particularly significant for the universal health visiting service.

This change would enable more support for making behaviour changes such as stop smoking services, and increase the number of people at risk of cardiovascular disease supported to make lifestyle changes, especially in more deprived areas of Peterborough.

The average cost per 4-week quitter is £500 so if 50% of the additional funding went to increasing smoking cessation support, it would mean an additional 600 quitters.

The average cost of an NHS Health Check is approximately £50. If 50% of the additional funding went on increasing the number of NHS Health Checks, it could lead to 6,000 additional NHS Health Checks completed per year.

The average costs of a Drug and Alcohol Recovery Worker is about £40,000 and each one can support around 50 people in structured substance misuse treatment.

10%.

£0

This increase would enable more investment around mental wellbeing, physical activity and healthy eating in early years settings and schools. This would improve children’s immediate health and their health as an adult. It would also increase the availability of school nurses in our schools.

The additional funding would increase the number of children and adults who can access free weight management services and reduce their weight by 5%, also reducing their risk of cardiovascular and other diseases.

It could help the team to invest in a more preventative approach to drug and alcohol treatment. A team could be employed to work with primary care services to intervene earlier than currently where increasing, high risk of dependent drinkers are identified following screening for alcohol use.

25%.

£0

This increase would enable better and long-term support around parent – infant relationships using the Family Hubs, especially for those who have been affected by trauma. This improves the health of the child for their lifetime and improves parent and family wellbeing.

This increase would enable considerable investment around mental wellbeing, physical activity and healthy eating in early years settings and schools which would improve children’s immediate health and their health as an adult. It would enable investment around supporting healthy eating and increased physical activity in adults, especially in deprived areas.

It would allow investment into services for young people in Peterborough including the increasing university population.

It would allow a larger team to support primary care work and to permanently do more preventative work with young people who are impacted by adult substance misuse or taking substances themselves.

50%.

£0

This increase would transform the investment into health prevention and wellbeing in Peterborough.

It would enable long-term investment in children and young people’s health in Peterborough with coordinated programmes from Family Hubs, early year settings, primary schools, secondary schools and the university. The focus would be on creating environments that support mental wellbeing and resilience, physical activity, reduced drug and alcohol use and healthy behaviours as well as supporting individuals.

A similar approach would be taken around healthy environments and support for adults, increasing support in communities and the workplace. This would include increased support for those struggling with drug and/or alcohol use, but also providing permanent funding for programmes currently funded on an annual basis via central government grants covering housing and homelessness. It would also fund a larger commissioning resource to oversee this work.

Cleansing, waste and recycling

Waste and recycling

-50%.

£0

This is not deliverable as the Council would not be able to meet its statutory duty to collect and treat household waste.

-25%.

£0

This is not deliverable as the Council would not be able to meet its statutory duty to collect and treat household waste.

-10%.

£0

An increase in chargeable garden waste and a move to general waste being collected every four weeks, recycling being collected every four weeks and food waste staying as a weekly collection. No increase in container size, clear recycling bags may be bought to dispose of more recycling.

-5%.

£0

Move to general waste being collected every four weeks, recycling being collected every four weeks, and food waste staying as a weekly collection. No increase in container size apart from for food waste, clear recycling bags may be bought to dispose of more recycling.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

If we increased budget, we could reduce some of the charges for garden waste collection. We could do more proactive engagement with the public to increase recycling rates.

10%.

£0

If we increased budget, we could reduce some of the charges for garden waste collection. We could do more proactive engagement with the public to increase recycling rates.

City Cleaning

-50%.

£0

Cut street cleansing provision by 65% in all areas. This includes 65% reduction in street sweeping, litter picking and 200% increase in fly-tip removal timescales. Unable to meet statutory requirements (by law) to keep the city clean, leading to increased litter and reduction in economic growth.

-25%.

£0

Cut street cleansing provision by 45% in all areas. This includes a reduction in street sweeping, litter picking and 200% increase in fly-tip removal timescales.

-10%.

£0

Streets will not be cleaned, and litter bins will not be emptied on weekends. Remove 75% of all litter bins and reduce shopping area cleansing by 50%.

-5%.

£0

Remove 50% of all litter bins and reduce shopping area cleansing by 50%.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

With more budget we could increase cleaning regimes across the city so that pavements are washed, and streets swept more regularly. Extra litter picks could be completed and there would be more resource to tackle fly-tipping – although we wish people did not do it in the first place.

10%.

£0

Regeneration and employment

Growing the city

-50%.

£0

City misses out on most regeneration schemes and £1 billion of investment. Severe negative effect on the city, impacting upon the number of visitors, damaging the city’s economy and reputation as well as leading to job losses.

The city's future prosperity is severely damaged by the lack of future investment. Restaurants and pubs close, larger retail chains move out and parts of the city become abandoned. No meaningful business strategy, business rates tax base collapses resulting in extra council cuts.

Added to inflation, everyone is 22% worse off every year. Around half of new homes are houses and empty offices, converted to flats and shared houses. Average wait on the housing waiting list is the longest it has ever been. Increase in people sleeping rough in the city.

-25%.

£0

City misses out on regeneration schemes and investment worth a potential £250 million. Severe impact on the city’s economic performance and reputation. Young people priced out of the housing market move to more prosperous areas, leaving Peterborough with a disproportionate cost of providing more social care, with a smaller tax base.

More council services are cut, and unemployment rises. Businesses close, unemployment rises and city centre shops close. Added to inflation, everyone is 17% worse off every year.

No meaningful control over the housing market, conditions deteriorate, and shared houses proliferate in suburbs as well as inner city. Average waiting the housing waiting list continues to grow.

-10%.

£0

All visitor support by the council would stop, damaging the city’s economy and reputation. The city becomes unattractive for future investment. As a result, wages fall in real terms, house prices fall, leaving homeowners in negative equity. Interest rates make homes less affordable.

Businesses close, unemployment rises and wages fall. Added to inflation, everyone is 12% worse off every year.

Number of new homes being built falls by 15%, pushing prices up, which when added to inflation and interest rate rises, forces people into shared and insecure housing. Average wait on the housing waiting list is even longer.

-5%.

£0

Less money for marketing and information to attract national and international investors and visitors.

Fewer visitors will mean less money spent in the city, affecting jobs.

City centre regeneration is delayed, leaving large empty shops and an increase in crime. Job creation falls to national average, inflation rises faster than earnings, everyone is 7% worse off every year.

Number of new homes being built falls by 10%, increasing the average wait on the housing waiting list.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

We would have more money to spend on marketing the city nationally and internationally to encourage investment into Peterborough. More money to spend on staffing in our growth and regeneration team to network and increase awareness of Peterborough’s potential.

10%.

£0

Transport and roads

-50%.

£0

All of the 5%, 10% and 25% changes would be necessary, plus

We will no longer have the resources to deliver the full winter service and therefore the routes covered would need to be reduced by at least 50%, posing significant risk to the travelling public alongside the likelihood of legal challenge.
The council operates two ‘Smart Crews’ who work continuously throughout the year to undertake small but often safety critical repairs to the highway network i.e. repairing potholes. This level of financial reduction would see a reduction to one crew and much reduced capacity to deal with peak demand. This cut in budget severely limits our ability to ensure the highway remains safe and meets performance indicators and also means there are not enough staff to grit the highway over winter.
Maintenance has already reduced to a reactive, ‘keeping it safe’ approach in residential areas and some distributor roads, with very little preventative maintenance work. This reduction would mean we would have to reduce our intervention standards further and fall well below national minimum standards. This would mean just filling potholes that are outside of tolerance and there would be no full patching or resurfacing. This could increase accidents, damage to cars and insurance claims.

-25%.

£0

All of the 5% and 10% changes would be necessary, plus we would turn off streetlights on all principal roads.

We already have energy efficient LEDs that are dimmed to reduce energy usage. The only option available would be to turn lights off on A roads which would mean we would fall below national minimum standards. This would be strongly opposed by stakeholders including the emergency services, councillors and the public. This would directly reduce carbon emissions through a reduction in electricity use, but it may require a capital investment to install road studs (cat’s eyes) in some areas.

-10%.

£0

All of the 5% changes would be necessary, plus we would stop undertaking any work to patch, maintain markings, studs and drainage on non-A roads and unclassified roads.

This would mean that the council would fail to meet its statutory duties to maintain these assets and they would continue to deteriorate. This could cause safety issues and possibly an increase in the number of accidents. The council would also likely experience more financial claims against it which would produce an even bigger budget pressure.

-5%.

£0

There would be no new parking restrictions, including in residential areas when issues of inconsiderate parking are reported to us. This could cause safety issues if residents choose to park close to junctions, for example. It could also create complaints and political involvement.
Streetlights would be turned off in residential areas between midnight and sunrise. This would directly reduce carbon emissions through a reduction in electricity use but it might make areas feel less safe and might mean people are less likely to choose to walk or cycle during these hours.
School crossing patrols at seven key locations would be removed. A capital investment of approximately £800,000 plus borrowing costs would be needed to install permanent road safety measures.
We are responsible for cleansing gullies on the highway to ensure surface water is able to drain away from the highway and properties. Gully cleaning would reduce by 50%. This budget has already been reduced in previous years and this is likely to impact properties during periods of heavy rainfall.
We are responsible for the maintenance of two sites with average speed cameras at Junction 17-2 of the Fletton Parkway and Stanground College. These would no longer be maintained which presents safety risks for the travelling public.
We have upgraded streetlights to energy efficient LEDs but unfortunately some require maintenance works to ensure they remain operational. This option would mean that as streetlights fail, they are left off.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

With more funding, we’d be able to repair more pot holes, invest in some of the city’s non-A roads and unclassified roads and introduce more schemes to encourage people to walk and cycle.

10%.

£0

With more funding, we’d be able to repair more pot holes, invest in some of the city’s non-A roads and unclassified roads and introduce more schemes to encourage people to walk and cycle.

Housing Needs

-50%.

£0

No prevention work or rough sleeper support would be possible. Numbers of households provided with temporary accommodation would increase as would the number of people rough sleeping.

Allocations of social rented accommodation would only be made to those who were homeless and in temporary accommodation.

-25%.

£0

Applications for housing and homelessness will take much longer to process. Homelessness prevention work would reduce meaning more households would require temporary accommodation.

Rough sleepers would spend longer on the streets before being helped to leave the streets and would be placed at more risk of becoming entrenched.

-10%.

£0

Applications for housing and homelessness will take much longer to process. Homelessness prevention work would reduce meaning more households would require temporary accommodation.

Rough sleepers would spend longer on the streets before being helped to leave the streets and would be placed at more risk of becoming entrenched.

-5%.

£0

Applications for housing and homelessness assistance will take longer to process. Provision for rough sleeping would be reduced so people may spend longer sleeping rough before being helped to leave the streets.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

With additional budget we would be able to employ more staff to increase our proactive engagement work to support people at the earliest opportunity to avoid them becoming homeless in the first place.

10%.

£0

Communities and safety

Community safety and neighbourhood services

-50%.

£0

Wards will continue to have their bins emptied, streets cleaned etc. However, the council will no longer have the resources to investigate local environmental problems. No council support to communities following serious incidents. The council is unable to work with other agencies in an integrated way to tackle crime and disorder. Increase in victimisation and repeat victimisation.

-25%.

£0

Increase in repeat victimisation and a lack of co-ordination between partner agencies (council/police/fire etc). Fewer resources to address fly-tipping and other environmental crimes in the city, causing backlogs in investigating complaints. Risk increases for victims of crime – for example, impact on domestic abuse victims due to lack of a co-ordinated response from all the different partners. More anti-social behaviour, issues not resolved at an early stage.

-10%.

£0

Fewer resources to address fly-tipping and other environmental crimes in the city, causing backlogs in investigating complaints. Risk increases for victims of crime – for example, impact on domestic abuse victims due to lack of a co-ordinated response from all the different partners. More anti-social behaviour, issues not resolved at an early stage.

-5%.

£0

Fewer staff to cover the city which will result in delays in investigations into environmental crime and anti-social behaviour.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

With an increase in budget, we could spend more time tackling anti-social behaviour at the earliest possible opportunity to reduce the impact on the city and our residents. We could employ more enforcement officers to work in the city centre and across the wider city.

10%.

£0

Licensing and public protection

-50%.

£0

Licensing:

Service failing in all respects of the council's statutory licensing obligations. No compliance work resulting in risks to public safety. Significant areas of unlicenced trading.

No policy development.

Environmental Health:

No revenue generating work, unable to meet demand in any aspect of service delivery. Work places are less safe due to lack of regulatory intervention following an accident.

Food safety inspections are insufficient to prevent standards in the city dropping significantly, increasing food poisoning incidents, pest infestations.

No support to Public Health regarding infection control.

Trading Standards

No longer viable to provide a service. Dangerous goods flood the market.

Sporting events take place without appropriate safety certifications in place, organised crime gangs increasingly target vulnerable persons in the city. Loss of revenue as no revenue generating services possible.

Housing compliance work insufficient to prevent deterioration in housing standards. Unable to licence all property within scope of mandatory scheme.

-25%.

£0

Licensing

No licensing compliance checks or follow up of complaints or safeguarding concerns. Service no longer able to licence some businesses preventing them from trading. Cannot meet statutory service obligations.

Environmental Health

Food poisoning incidents rise, council cannot meet statutory inspection requirement, national intervention likely. Some health and safety accidents in workplaces will not receive an intervention preventing further incidents. Service may not be able to investigate a work-related death.

No assistance to Public Health to manage infectious control incidents. Cannot meet shared service commitments, nor undertake fee generating work.

Trading Standards

Unable to meet any contractual commitments, with shared service or agreements with businesses for chargeable advice. Significant loss of revenue. Risk to public safety from dangerous goods increasing, unable to fulfil duties to regulate the safety of sports grounds.

Animal welfare checks stopped, resulting in increased suffering to livestock. Unable to respond to animal health disease outbreak such as Avian Flu, Foot and Mouth etc. Service significantly failing to fulfil legal duties.

Housing agreement with Rutland CC no longer viable, limited inspections of property licenced under mandatory scheme, only most serious housing standard complaints investigated.

-10%.

£0

Licensing

Compliance checks further limited to taxi trade only, no resource to cover other licensing areas such as alcohol and gambling. Shared service with Rutland Council stops as cannot meet contract obligations, resulting in revenue loss to Peterborough City Council.

Environmental Health

Loss of revenue as unable to continue with all revenue generating work. Food safety standards in city decline, noise complaints not investigated. Further reduction in support to public health for infection control.

Trading Standards

Shared service with Cambridgeshire at risk of collapsing, this would add cost to Peterborough, and reduce effectiveness. Unable to meet contractual commitments leading to default and loss of revenue.

Incidents rise in respect of dangerous goods, poor livestock welfare, rogue trading, organised crime. Housing standard checks limited to mandatory licensing scheme, focus predominantly on poor housing standard complaints.

-5%.

£0

Licensing

Very limited compliance checks on licensable matters and follow up of complaints about them.

Environmental health

Reduction in support for public health disease control responses such as Covid-19, Legionella, E. coli. Input to support development control in terms of advising on measures to reduce harm to the environment reduced. Reduction in resource to investigate nuisance complaints (noise, odour, light). Resource reduction reduces ability to deliver revenue generating work resulting in additional cost.

Trading Standards

Insufficient capacity to respond to regulatory complaints across significant parts of the service, in safety, welfare, and rogue trading. Greater risk to vulnerable persons from rogue traders, safety incidents relating to dangerous consumer goods exceed ability to handle them. Risk of failure to meet contact commitments with other councils and business rises, putting revenue and resilience at risk. Reduction in housing standard checks of let accommodation.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

With extra budget, we could increase the number of people in our service and be able to carry out more inspections of food premises, shops, licensed premises and homes to ensure standards are being met. We would also be able to tackle more rogue traders.

10%.

£0

Community engagement and cohesion

-50%.

£0

All of the above plus increased risk of tensions across communities, increase in inequalities of access to services and widening gaps between our communities.

-25%.

£0

All of the above plus removal of all information, funding advice and governance support for community groups.

-10%.

£0

All of the above plus a reduction in our ability to be able to respond to community issues and co-ordinate proactive responses.

-5%.

£0

Removal of volunteering coordination and reduction in community engagement. Communities would begin to feel less involved and connected which would begin to create division between communities.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

We could increase our engagement activities to support our many nationalities to get the very best out of their council services. We could host more events and activities which bring different communities together.

10%.

£0

Customer relations

Customer services

-50%.

£0

75% of calls would not get answered as wait times would increase.

-25%.

£0

50% of calls would not get answered as wait times would increase.

-10%.

£0

30% of calls would not get answered as wait times would increase.

-5%.

£0

20% of calls would not get answered as wait times would increase.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

With an increase in budget, we would be able to reduce wait times even further.

10%.

£0

With an increase in budget, we would be able to reduce wait times even further.

Parks and leisure

Parks, trees and open spaces

-50%.

£0

Maintenance removed at more than half the parks and no grass cutting or play equipment, no grass pitches maintained.

No new tree planting, essential maintenance only on current tree stock.Removal of trees which may cause problems.

Removal of play equipment and outdoor gyms.

No bowling green maintenance, removal of Central Park facilities such as the paddling pool and aviary.

Likely increase in anti-social behaviour.

-25%.

£0

Reduction in maintenance frequency including grass cutting shrubs and hedge cutting across the city in all areas.

No tree planting and only essential maintenance done on current tree stock and removal of trees which may cause problems.

Removal of play equipment and outdoor gyms.

No bowling green maintenance, removal of Central Park facilities such as the paddling pool and aviary.

-10%.

£0

Reduction in maintenance frequency including grass cutting and shrubs and hedge cutting across the city in all areas.

Broken play equipment being removed rather than fixed or replaced.

No bowling green maintenance, removal of Central Park facilities such as the paddling pool and aviary and a reduction in scrub and hedge cutting across the city.

-5%.

£0

No bowling green maintenance, removal of Central Park facilities such as the paddling pool and aviary and a reduction in shrub and hedge cutting across the city.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

With an increase in budget, we could plant more flowers across the city and increase the frequency of grass, shrubs and hedge cutting. More money could be invested in play equipment.

10%.

£0

With an increase in budget, we could plant more flowers across the city and increase the frequency of grass, shrubs and hedge cutting. More money could be invested in play equipment.

Culture and leisure services

-50%.

£0

This would require a major reduction in the number of libraries, swimming pools and leisure centres available for residents as well as the museum service. Cost to attend swimming pools and for gym memberships would increase for the remaining sites. A review of indoor sports activity prices would be required to increase income. Savings and efficiencies would also have to be made on operational costs.

-25%.

£0

This cut would require a reduction in opening hours for libraries and other attractions such as the museum.

The cost to attend swimming pools and for gym memberships would need to increase for all sites. A review of indoor sports activity prices would be needed to increase income. Savings and efficiencies would also have to be made on operational costs.

-10%.

£0

Cost to attend swimming pools and for gym memberships would need to increase significantly for all sites to remain open. Savings and efficiencies would also have to be made on operational costs.

-5%.

£0

Cost to attend swimming pools and for gym memberships would need to increase for all sites to remain open. Savings and efficiencies would also have to be made on operational costs.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

With more funding we could invest in new culture and leisure facilities for the city, including a new swimming pool to replace the outdated Regional Swimming Pool. Other facilities could be improved and updated.

10%.

£0

City centre and events

-50%.

£0

Minimum cleansing in the city centre, no enforcement and no Christmas lights. People would be much less likely to visit the city which would impact local businesses and the economy.

-25%.

£0

Reduction in spend on Christmas lights and support for other events in the city centre. Cleansing and enforcement patrols also reduced and limited resource to renew and enforce Public Space Protection Orders which could lead to increased levels of anti-social behaviour.

-10%.

£0

Fewer enforcement and engagement patrols leading to an increase in anti-social behaviour and a reduction in street cleansing in the city centre.

-5%.

£0

Reduction in the hours patrolled in the city centre which would mean a likely increase in anti-social behaviour.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

With additional budget, we could spend more time and money keeping the city centre clean helping it look more attractive. We could also spend money updating street furniture and signage, planting flowers and staging events which attract visitors.

10%.

£0

Resources

Constitutional and democratic services

-50%.

£0

Severe reduction to the statutory service - for example organising meetings and publishing agendas. Sanctions against Electoral Services as unable to meet the legal responsibilities. Civic events drastically reduced, for example Remembrance events.

-25%.

£0

Unable to meet legal timescales, for example around the publication of agendas. Breach of legislation, resulting in sanctions. Electoral Services subject to challenge as team not sufficient to run and manage electoral process to appoint members. Reduced input into civic events such as Remembrance.

-10%.

£0

Delays to the statutory services, potential breach of legislation by not being able to publish agendas in time, resulting in possible sanctions.

-5%.

£0

Delays to the statutory services, for example length of time taken to publish meeting minutes, and potential breach of legislation resulting in possible sanctions.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

An increased budget would allow us to host more civic events of national and local significance. More time could be spent supporting the role of mayor so that they are able to attend more events.

10%.

£0

An increased budget would allow us to host more civic events of national and local significance. More time could be spent supporting the role of mayor so that they are able to attend more events.

IT and digital services

-50%.

£0

As well as the savings detailed in the 5%, 10% & 25% cuts, savings at this level would turn off all but social care, finance and payroll systems.

Almost a complete loss of IT services for staff and residents.

All council services would be impacted with some services not being able to run at all and longer waiting time for others.

This puts further strain on essential services with knock on impacts to other essential services that rely on us including NHS and schools.

-25%.

£0

As well as the savings detailed in the 5% and 10% cuts, there would be reduced business intelligence reporting at all levels which would affect the ability of the council to make informed decisions about what services to provide.

We would be failing in our responsibility to produce statutory returns and other key reporting functions, resulting in fines that further impact the council’s budget and ability to deliver services.

-10%.

£0

As well as the savings detailed in the 5% cut, we would also reduce IT support for all council services.

Staff and residents/service users could wait several weeks without being able to do their work or receive services. This would mean services wouldn’t run as they need to, putting further strain on essential services with knock on impacts to other essential services that rely on us including NHS and schools.

-5%.

£0

The IT and Digital Services which are used throughout the council, especially for front-line services, are complex and need specialist support from third party companies so that problems can be fixed quickly and not delay front line staff in delivering their services.

The council also needs to be able to protect all IT and digital services from events such as a cyber-attack (known as Disaster Recovery Systems). This level of cuts would mean we’d have no third-party support for critical infrastructure and would need to turn off Disaster Recovery Systems.

As a result, it would take more than two weeks to recover all our systems if there was a cyber-attack or there were issues with the datacentre. This would mean council services would not be able to run as usual, including delays to benefit payments, missed bin collections and delays for people leaving hospital who will need support to live at home again.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

If we were to increase our budget, we could provide further support to our end users and the wider public. We could ensure that people have the right skills set, faster resolution to issues they may have and increase our strength in cyber-security.

10%.

£0

Finance, Internal Audit, HR, Communications, Legal and other support services

-50%.

£0

All of the corporate support services would be severely cut back.

Each area would be able to manage significantly less work, meaning that issues around HR, finance, communications, audit and legal would not be properly managed.

The running of services would be severely impacted, resulting in delays and a poorer standard of service. The council would be at significant risk of legal challenge which would create a huge budget pressure.

-25%.

£0

In addition to the 5% and 10% savings, there would be a cut in support across all the corporate support services.

There would be significantly less legal support when required, meaning the council would run the risk of legal challenge, a much reduced HR team meaning departments would not get the advice they need to manage staffing issues and the council would be running the risk of not meeting its requirements in relation to governance and internal controls.

This could leave it open to challenge which could result in further government intervention and financial penalties.

-10%.

£0

In addition to the 5% savings, there would be a reduction in public information about the council which means people would not be informed of services and support which they could access.

Fewer people would be aware of key campaigns such as the appeal for more foster carers and the drive for people to access flu and Covid jabs – all of which improve people’s lives and the save the council money in other areas.

The legal team could not provide advice to all council's departments and to councillors when making their decisions.

-5%.

£0

The council’s corporate support services would not receive the funding that they need to support the running of council services.

This could mean delays and changes to the way services are provided for residents. For example, the process to recruit new staff would take longer meaning departments would be running for longer on vacancies and therefore services for the public would be affected.

There would be less financial support for departments to ensure the council could deliver a balanced budget – something it is legally required to do.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

These services would have more resource to be able to meet the council’s demands and could improve the service offered by the council to the public in various ways.

10%.

£0

These services would have more resource to be able to meet the council’s demands and could improve the service offered by the council to the public in various ways.

Property, procurement, commercial, health and safety

-50%.

£0

Almost no support on property compliance leading to legislative risk, no support/management of third-party suppliers (eg Medesham, Peterborough Ltd) almost non-existent service to protect the council’s land and property holdings.

Procurement service severely depleted and only able to deliver large procurement activities. Council would be non-compliant and exposed to major contract risk.

Health and safety negligence and non-compliance would have significant monetary, personal and reputational impact to the council.

-25%.

£0

The property team would have little capacity to commission and oversee capital projects and support strategic delivery of large projects. Revenue and capital income would be lost.

There would be no procurement support on commercial activities and only key procurements would be delivered, meaning best value would not be achieved and procurement rules would not be followed.

From health and safety perspective, the council would not be able to improve, and services would decline. There would be an increased risk to persons, property and likelihood of Health and Safety Executive investigation.

-10%.

£0

The council would be severely underspending on the maintenance of its assets, leaving it at risk of significant failure. The team would not be able to carry out all its functions meaning that revenue generation (rent, service charge etc), capital disposals and general estate management duties would be at risk.

Council would not be compliant with a broad range of health and safety legislation.

-5%.

£0

The council would be underspending on the maintenance of its assets, leaving it at risk of failure. The Property team would not be able to carry out all its functions meaning that revenue generation (rent, service charge etc), capital disposals and general estate management duties would be at risk.

The procurement team is already reporting a significant shortfall in resource to deliver the procurement plan so this would be exacerbated.

The Health and Safety team is already understaffed and this reduction in budget would lead to a council-wide risk.

0%.

£0

Maintain current levels of service.

5%.

£0

The Procurement team would be able to provide more support to services in managing and maintaining their commercial contracts.

10%.

£0

With an increase in budget, the council could choose to invest further in its estate, improving the overall condition of its properties and minimising the risk of unplanned maintenance issues arising. The Procurement team would be able to provide more support to services in managing and maintaining their commercial contracts.