THE town’s Conservatives have expressed fresh concerns over the Labour-run council’s ‘excessive’ level of borrowing.

The council’s cabinet recently agreed to spend £63.5 million to buy and fund a solar farm near Doncaster.

But the decision was ‘called in’ by Conservative councillors, with the matter coming before the scrutiny committee at its meeting on Friday.

One of the key concerns for the Tory councillors was the ‘already excessive level of debt’ held by the council.

Meanwhile, the Tories have highlighted that Kemi Badenoch, while she was the minister of state for equalities and levelling up, recently wrote to Warrington South Tory MP Andy Carter regarding the risk and indebtedness of the council, stating: “My department will be engaging with a small number of local authorities that are already in a significantly risky position, for example due to very high levels of indebtedness.

“I am writing to let you know that Warrington Borough Council is one of the authorities we will be working with.”

The town’s Conservatives believe Labour councillors have ‘pushed up’ the council’s borrowing to ‘excessive levels’.

But Cllr Cathy Mitchell, deputy leader and cabinet member responsible for corporate finance, has responded.

She said: “There are largely four sources of income the council can use to pay for services – government funding, council tax, business rates, and fees and charges. Last year’s net budget was £150 million and demand for services is increasing.

“Back in 2010, we received £70 million in revenue support grant per year from the government. This is now just over £1 million per year and none of the other sources have really increased in the same proportion, and council tax rises are capped.

“So what should the council do? Two thirds of the budget goes to children’s services and adult social care and we can’t borrow money to pay for services, only for capital projects, buildings and equipment.

“In Warrington, we decided to borrow money to buy buildings, which generates income that can be used to pay for these important services. The vast majority of our investments are secured on bricks and mortar. The whole portfolio produces an annual net income of over £20 million, which is used to pay for the services which our residents need the most.

“Some of our critics focus heavily on individual investments which make up a very small part of the overall portfolio. Most of our investments help to fulfil our policy objectives too. For example, producing green energy from our solar farms, and building affordable homes by investing in new and sustainable housing solutions. Our opposition called for a council tax freeze which would have made our funding position worse.

“They highlighted the borrowing. The council’s investment assets have a higher value than the money borrowed, so could be sold to repay the borrowing in full. The problem is that you would lose the net income that the portfolio generates. That would make the funding position worse and would mean more cuts to services. We wouldn’t be able to use the money raised by selling the assets to pay for services.

“Selling our assets and paying back the borrowing would make a few of our critics happy, but would be devastating for families that rely on those services. Since two thirds of our budget goes to protecting children and caring for adults who need support, you can see who would feel those cuts the most.”