Item 21 - Budget Conversation 2026-27 - Engagement Results
West Dunbartonshire Council · 29 October 2025
Back to West Dunbartonshire Council — 29 October 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Chief Officer – Citizen, Culture & Facilities West Dunbartonshire Council: 29 October 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ Subject: Budget Conversation 2026/27 - Engagement Results 1. Purpose 1.1 This report provides an overview of the key results and feedback from the recent Budget Conversation 2026/27 engagement. 2. Recommendations 2.1 It is recommended Council notes the results and feedback from citizens on broad service areas and delivery priorities as part of the 2026/27 budget setting process. 3. Background 3.1 Over the last 10 years the Council has refined and adapted its budget consultation model. The approach has included both option-based and priority-based models and incorporated online tools, focus groups, in-person events with live voting and more specific engagement with representative groups from across the community. 3.2 The last Budget Conversation exercise was undertaken online in August 2024 to inform the 25/26 budget setting process. In line with the priority-based approach residents were asked for their views on which services were most important to them. 4. Main Issues 4.1 The same priority-based approach was adopted for the 2026/27 Budget Conversation and early engagement was undertaken with citizens over ten weeks between June and August 2025. The online budget conversation generated detailed information on which activities were more or less of a priority to the respondents. 4.2 The engagement also sought feedback on areas of service where respondents felt savings should be targeted and any services they felt should be protected as well as seeking views on wider service delivery options such as increasing fees/charging, increasing Council Tax and reducing service standards. ITEM 21
Page 2
Methodology 4.3 As in previous years, to ensure broad coverage, the budget engagement targeted the views of residents and employees in a range of ways to improve accessibility and participation in the process. The primary method was to invite residents, employees and wider stakeholders to express their views on the priority of a range of services through an online survey. This online survey was open from 2 June – 10 August 2025. The survey was promoted through the Council website, in local media and on Council social media channels regularly during the live period. The exercise was also highlighted to employees via the intranet and a workforce email, Citizens Panel members, and community contacts for wider dissemination. A dedicated web page was created to support the process and provide detailed information around the Council budgets. 4.4 As with previous consultation exercises, all Council libraries and Working4U learning teams offered support to any resident who required assistance to access and complete the form online. The Budget Conversation was also promoted at a range of facilities including libraries and community centres with paper copies of the survey available at these locations. 4.5 To supplement the online consultation seven focus group sessions took place with a range of representatives from local community organisations, within Dumbarton/Alexandria and Clydebank as well as with the West Dunbartonshire Equality Forum, West Dunbartonshire youth organisations. Sessions were offered at varying times of the day and evening to ensure as wide a range of participation as possible. Community groups were proactively contacted by email and encouraged to send a representative to any of the sessions. In addition, Trade Union partners were invited to provide feedback. Social media engagement 4.6 Alongside the high number of responses received to the consultation there has also been debate and discussion on the Council’s social media accounts, with many people commenting and sharing information. On the Council’s Facebook page alone the various posts regarding budget consultation have reached just over 39.5k people, with over 545 shares, likes and comments and approximately 637 post clicks. Engagement 4.7 The online method of consultation engaged a broad range of stakeholders across West Dunbartonshire with 618 people completing the prioritisation and investment questions in the survey. The 2025 survey response equates to approximately 84 responses per 10,000 adult population or 0.84% of the adult population (16 years +). By industry standards, for the adult population size of West Dunbartonshire, a sample size of 382 people would provide results representative of the target population and give us a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error. This is a measure of how likely it is that if the survey was run again for the population group that it would yield similar results.
Page 3
This means we can be confident the results would be repeated with a similar sample of respondents. Though the sample was self-selecting and this can skew results, responses were sufficient from different population groups to allow any major variations between groups to be gauged. 4.8 The majority of those who responded to the online consultation identified themselves as living in West Dunbartonshire 96%, a further 5% of respondents stated they were business owners within the area, 9% stated they were part of a community organisation and 29% stated they were parents or carers of school age children in West Dunbartonshire, while 22% stated they were employed by West Dunbartonshire Council. 4.9 Based on the responses provided by those who took part in the online survey, a relative ranking of all key statements has been compiled and arranged by strategic priority area. This ranking, shown in Appendix 1, is based on ranking each statement with one being the highest. As can be seen from the tables in Appendix 1, the following were ranked as the top priorities: Online survey top ranked responses Priority 1: Our communities Community safety including CCTV and response to anti-social behaviour and noise complaints Investment in community events (i.e. book bug, wellbeing sessions, art and heritage classes, exhibitions) Supplies and materials to support learning and teaching Support for children and adults who require to be protected and are at risk of harm Priority 2: Our Environment Investment is focused on maintaining pathways, pavements and walking routes Investment is focused on the cleanliness of our area including street cleaning and public bins Priority 3: Our Economy Regeneration of town centres and neighbourhoods Focus investment in areas with the highest child poverty rates Priority 4: Our Council Maintain current opening hours and service provision for services and buildings Council Tax
Page 4
In addition to the question set around the strategic plan priorities, respondents were also asked whether they would be prepared to pay more Council Tax in order to reduce the savings required? The response was as follows: Yes 39.48% No 60.52% No response 0% As noted in Appendix 1, most people said wouldn’t support a Council tax rise and others said would only support it if they knew how the rise was being spent and that it would have to demonstrate value for money. 4.10 Respondents were asked to provide any relevant comments on each priority area as well as to specify a service area for investment or disinvestment. A summary of the thematic comments is included in the findings in Appendix 1. In the main, comments focus on a desire for the Council to invest in the physical appearance of the area and in particular to reinstate grass cutting, demonstrate value for money in relation to council tax, support for working families as well as vulnerable groups, cease making service cuts, particularly in areas such as health and education. 4.11 Seven targeted focus group sessions were held for community organisations, with 90-minute sessions taking place in Clydebank, Alexandria/Dumbarton and online with over 200 organisations contacted to take part. In total, 36 representatives attended these discussions, drawn from community organisations representing Community Councils, Scottish Youth Parliament, citizen’s advocacy groups and equality groups and those representing young people, carers, environmental issues, and mental health. In addition to the seven targeted focus groups, feedback was sought from the Trade Unions. 4.12 The focus group discussions centred on the impact savings options may have on the community, with some reference to past impacts with suggestions put forward for areas where improvements to service delivery could be made. Focus group summary responses Priority 1: Our communities Community safety was important with good lighting, well-kept roads and pavements noted as key priority areas. Felt that centralised services didn’t work for the community and would prefer to have services delivered from townships as a fast response to Anti-Social Behaviour was seen as key priority. Equality groups felt there was a rise in racist language and behaviour in the wider community, and some young people felt that there was an increase in
Page 5
‘casual’ racist language in secondary schools. Both groups would like to see more attention and resource applied to curb this. Strengthening community networks; creating opportunities for community groups to explore for example, sharing of resources, joint funding bids, signposting to services and wider understanding of other groups that are operating in the area. Building community cohesion was seen as important including fostering good relations between groups Partnership with WD Community Planning and WDCVS could be improved or utilised more, felt there was a lot of silo working. Strategic/Community partners felt that when budget decisions were made, no clear consideration was given to the contribution that community partners and community groups have in the delivery of support to the wider community, particularly in relation to health and wellbeing benefits and tackling social isolation. Participants expressed concern about the impact on Council services if community partners are no longer financially able to operate or offer the same level of support. In addition, they felt cuts to Council services resulted in increased demand for Strategic/Community partners to support vulnerable people. Strategic/Community partners felt the budget process does not consider the cumulative impact that funding cuts have on Strategic/Community partners. Funding from the Council provided community partners with leverage to attract further funding, as often grants are based on match funding, therefore cuts from Council can result in further cuts from other grant bodies. Wanted Service Level Agreements to provide a level of security and to support them with longer term planning. Felt it was a lot to ask community to take on a community asset with little or no support. If the direction was for community facilities to be managed by the community, then increased support with Asset Transfers in relation to areas such as managing of lease holding, managing upgrade/repairs and sourcing/securing external funding would be welcome. Also felt the planning process for council assets was lengthy and cumbersome and could be improved upon. Groups supported the opportunity for applying for grants through routes such as the Common Good Fund and thought it was good for smaller organisations to be able to access this. Felt there was not enough activities for young people and families with some key facilities closed on weekends. Would like to see investment in diversionary activities to reduce involvement in anti-social behaviour. Young people felt that cuts to community groups adversely affected young people. Young people felt mental health was a growing area of concern for young people and would like to see more resources applied to it. Priority 2: Our Environment Pride of place was prominent in all focus groups, groups felt West Dunbartonshire was a good place to live however the current physical appearance due to reduction in grass cutting was not acceptable. They felt it
Page 6
would contribute to ill health, attract vermin and pests and have a negative impact on attracting visitors to the area. Felt that recycling opportunities could be improved particularly around glass recycling. The upcoming move to three weekly bin collections was raised as a concern that it would lead to increased risk of vermin and contribute to general poor appearance of the area. Double parking and pavement parking was noted as a problem in community areas which prevented people with mobility issues getting out and about safely with confidence. Noted the housing improvements within the area, particularly in relation to new build housing and generally felt they were welcome. Physical appearance in relation to empty shop fronts and condition of Council assets was also noted as a contributing factor in the general decline in the area. Felt investment in roads was required particularly around road signage and road markings. Young people were not so concerned with grass cutting however felt more could be done to encourage interest in the environment beyond primary school. Priority 3: Our Economy Improved local tourism across the authority was noted as an area that could be enhanced to help generate economic benefit. Suggested the Council need a much more joined up approach to policy and budgets. Felt no clear strategy for town planning resulting in a lack of diversity of businesses on high streets and would like to see a wider variety of local independent businesses operating. A general consensus that smaller businesses were mainly dominated by barber shops or fast-food outlets; the latter tending to operate in the evenings meaning the shops closed during the day resulting in the town centres lacking any appeal. Felt the Council could do more to attract and support local businesses opening in the area through preferential rates to stimulate interest. Lack of social/leisure activities (not sport related) across the authority. Generally, people leave the authority area for activities such as shopping (not food), cinema, eating out or music events etc. This was noted for all age groups, however, younger people felt there was really nothing to keep them in the area. Young people noted traveling out with the authority as a barrier due to cost, curfews, distance and lack of reliable public transport. Felt the Council could further explore community benefits with large businesses in the areas as well as with new contracts, particularly around sponsorship of community facilities or employment opportunities. Council could focus on income generation using existing assets, particularly focusing on things that would be a benefit to the community.
Page 7
There was some support for more innovative approaches to green space e.g. increased wild flowering rather than grassing all areas, but only if Council communication on such matters was better. Young people felt that there were no job opportunities in West Dunbartonshire and felt they would need to go to Glasgow for these opportunities. Young people thought that Foundation Apprenticeships were a good thing but thought there was not enough work experience opportunities. Priority 4: Our Council Community groups would benefit from a single point of contact in the Council for dealing with queries. Develop cost benefit analysis of proposed cuts as strategic partners rely on funding to support vulnerable people and retain service. More communication to groups and organisations on Council achievements and initiatives, noted it could be difficult to know what’s going on. Felt community links could be improved that Community Councils were under- utilised as a way of getting information to communities and information into the Council from communities, felt improved working between senior management team, elected members and Community Councils was required. Felt there was a lack of transparency from the Council around decision making including the budget. Felt there was no long-term vision regarding the Council budget and instead looked at in a fragmented fashion; services need to have joint approach towards budget process. Felt there was no strong leadership from Elected Members and senior management team and thought they should be more visible in the community to explain the budget and financial position. Felt the Council could demonstrate better value for money for public work/repairs. Felt that the approach towards repairs and maintenance was not always efficient and felt duplication of work was often carried out due to how the repair or maintenance work was scheduled. Young people were supportive of a dedicated young person’s Citizens Panel being developed as a means of participation. Young people would like to see other social media channels introduced as a means of communication with the Council. Trade union feedback Trade Unions were given an opportunity to feedback on the budget conversation and process. They noted that they felt respondents to the budget survey were not fully informed when commenting on priorities. They also commented on the response to the survey, and felt representation from particular age groups could have been better. In addition, they raised the additional challenges faced by teachers which they say is result of declining teacher numbers and needs of school pupils increasing. They also highlighted a perceived decline in the physical look of the area and the impact this could have on inward investment.
Page 8
5. People Implications 5.1 There are no people implications associated with this report. 6. Financial and Procurement Implications 6.1 There are no financial and procurement implications associated with this report although the information within will contribute to the 26/27 budget setting process. 7. Risk Analysis 7.1 A number of risks were identified in relation to this activity: It is important for Council to demonstrate public opinion has been considered. In circumstances where Council proposes to change service provision or reduce budget levels for a specific service, there is an underpinning reputational risk. This risk is mitigated by undertaking public consultation, ensuring the widest number possible of residents had an opportunity to express their views. There is a risk the sample size is not seen as representative of the views of West Dunbartonshire residents. However, as detailed in 4.7 above, the sample size means that we can be confident that the results would be repeated with a similar sample of respondents. Appendix 1 shows a breakdown of respondent information. There is a risk this largely online survey was not accessible to a number of residents in West Dunbartonshire, and they were therefore excluded from participating and having their views heard. This was mitigated by the provision of support and paper copies through libraries and digital teams and also the focus group events across a range of days, times and venues to ensure accessibility. There is a risk that this public feedback is not fully reflected when generating savings proposals for elected members to consider. Results and responses have been considered by the strategic leadership group and will also be considered by full Council. There is a risk that too much emphasis is placed on the findings of the focus groups which represent a very small number of those who participated. However, the focus group discussion did not require participants to rank the services. Instead, it focused on discussion on the risks and potential impacts of savings decisions. 8. Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) 8.1 To ensure the process was accessible to the widest range of stakeholders each element was planned to ensure maximum coverage and accessibility for residents. All venues were assessed for suitable access and facilities, and additional support was made available on request to ensure it was specific to the requirements of the individual. Focus groups were delivered in different venues and at different times to ensure they were as accessible as possible to
Page 9
residents, based on feedback from previous consultation and engagement activity. The spread of participants and their experience helped build a picture of priorities across and between groups. The EIA is attached as Appendix 2. 9. Consultation 9.1 This report has been shared for consultation with Legal, Finance and Procurement as well as members of the Corporate Management Team. 10. Strategic Assessment 10.1 The outcomes of the priority focused consultation process will support decision making across each of the Council’s strategic priorities. Specifically, this consultation activity supports delivery of the strategic priority 4 and underlying objectives: Our Council - Inclusive and Adaptable o Our residents are engaged and empowered o Our Council is adaptable and focused on delivering best value for our residents Amanda Graham Chief Officer – Citizens, Culture and Facilities 24 September 2025 Person to Contact: Nicola Docherty Performance & Strategy Team Leader Nicola.docherty@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendices: Appendix 1 - Budget Consultation summary responses Appendix 2 - EIA 1324 Background Papers: None Wards Affected: All