To approve the capital investment budget and capital strategy for 2019/20, as recommended by Cabinet.

Council considered a report by the Leader to approve the capital investment budget and capital strategy for 2019/20 onwards.

The deputy leader moved the report and proposed the recommendations. He outlined a number of schemes in the report within each of the directorates for which an expanded description was provided. The capital strategy document was also proposed for approval which was intended to bring clarity regarding how the council prioritised its work programme, setting out its appetite for borrowing and specifying monitoring arrangements.

The Leader seconded the report.

In discussion the following principal points were raised:

·      The lack of public consultation was raised. The lack of public input in the programme was unacceptable given the significant amount of money allocated in the capital programme. The deputy leader explained that the consultation of the MTFS was undertaken some time ago and this year there was a focus on honing elements of the revenue budget. The statutory consultation required was from businesses only however the council was always open to receiving comments and feedback. 

·      The level of support from members, listed against projects in the report, was queried. It was assumed that this was cabinet member support as members were not aware of being consulted on the projects. For clarification it should be titled cabinet member support. The low level of support for the Members IT project was queried. The deputy leader confirmed that the indicator of member support demonstrated the backing provided for the project by the cabinet member. The level of support indicated for the IT project was a subjective view informed by the longevity of the equipment used by the deputy leader; it was however recognised that to respond to IT security concerns, updated IT equipment for members was required. The chief finance officer clarified that the scoring for member support outlined in the report was based upon an examination of the business cases of the projects and their link to the corporate strategy.             

·      The capital programme was inconsistent with the scale of the climate change and public interest in this environmental challenge. There was no mention of climate change in any of the administration’s budget papers but it needed to be acknowledged that the proposals in the budget would establish long term patterns of development with an impact on the climate. The road building projects were not consistent with the challenge faced by climate change; every building in the capital programme should be zero carbon. The deputy leader explained that there were a number of environmentally friendly elements of the budget which all had a big effect on reducing the council’s carbon footprint, and new development such as the cyber security project was being designed to a high level of environmental standards.

·      It was concerning that the administration was not looking at incorporating the principle of sustainability in to the budget. It was explained that the It’s Our County group supported the level of spending proposed in the capital programme but would have different priorities and a different  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46