To approve in year adjustments to the capital programme agreed by Council in January 2018.

Council considered an update to the Capital Programme. The report was introduced by the Cabinet Member Finance and Corporate Services who moved the recommendation with an alteration to recommendation f in the report to refer to paragraphs 37 and 38. The Cabinet Member explained that the capital programme update was required following additional grants awarded by central government and the allocation of section 106 monies to capital projects.

The recommendations in the report were seconded by Councillor BA Durkin.

The Cabinet Member Economy and Communications introduced detail of the capital projects concerning the cyber security centre and the Shell Store business incubation facility. The cyber security centre was a project being undertaken in partnership with the University of Wolverhampton and would provide a facility for research and development. The Shell Store would provide space for up to 30 local business start-ups and would be the only business incubation facility in the Marches LEP area. The Cabinet Member Children and Young People presented detail of the capital projects concerning the Children’s Wellbeing and the Cabinet Member Health and Wellbeing outlined detail of the investment in the redevelopment of the Hillside Rehabilitation Centre.

Councillor Greenow left the meeting at 11.16 a.m.      

Members made the comments below in the discussion that followed:

·         It was queried when the Cyber Security Centre would be completed and how many jobs would be created. The Cabinet Member Economy and Communications explained that it was anticipated that building would start in Q3 of the current year and a 12 month build was likely. It was not the purpose of the Cyber Security Centre to create jobs; the facility enabled businesses to test cyber security products.

·         The lack of grant funding for the Ross Enterprise Park was queried. The Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Services explained that the project had been assessed by the Local Enterprise Partnership and there had been some positive feedback. Unfortunately there was a lack of funding to dedicate to the scheme; an application for funding could be made under a future round of LEP funding but there was uncertainty when this would occur.

·         It was noted that the projected cost of the Shell Store project had increased which had also been experienced in other projects. Better initial estimates of capital projects were urged in future. The Cabinet Member Economy and Communications explained that it was a complex project and the increase in cost was frustrating. The Cabinet Member Finance and Corporate Services explained that an element of the increase in costs was attributable to inflation in construction costs.

·         Assurance was sought that after the refurbishment of the Hillside Centre the asset would be retained and not sold. The Cabinet Member Health and Wellbeing explained that the need for care facilities and provision would double in the future therefore there were no plans to sell the facility once constructed. 

·         It was noted that opportunities for business incubator facilities also existed in market towns including Bromyard and Leominster.

·         It was requested that the risk register concerning the multiple funding streams for the Cyber Security Centre be made available. Assurance was sought that the Council would not be exposed to liabilities arising from the investments of partner organisations.   The Cabinet Member Finance and Corporate Services explained that he would investigate this request with colleagues. The risks to the Council would be contained and managed in the risk register.

·         The business case for the Cyber Security Centre was queried in light of the detail that the project would not assist in the creation of jobs. It was noted that the project required considerable investment and evidence was requested to demonstrate why the facility was an economic development priority. It was queried whether there was potential duplication between the functions of the Cyber Security Centre and the Shell Store. The requirement for better infrastructure around Rotherwas, particularly improvements to the condition of Holme Lacy Road was raised. The Cabinet Member Economy and Communications explained that the Cyber Security Centre would help to increase the number of better paid jobs locally. It was not the role of the Council to create jobs but to help facilitate employment opportunities by establishing infrastructure locally which encouraged business investment. Evidence to support the Cyber Security Centre would be shared. The importance of utilising European Funding promptly was emphasised in the context of national circumstances.

·         The Hillside Centre project was welcomed and the need for facilities for Elderly Mental Infirm (EMI) patients. The facility would also provide an opportunity for training for carers. There was concern regarding parking at the site and that significant investment of £1.5 million was for a facility of only 28 beds. The Cabinet Member Health and Wellbeing confirmed the long term nature of the investment; the facility would be utilised for a generation which provided value for money.

·         Following the closure of 1 Ledbury Road it was queried whether investment similar to the amount dedicated to the Hillside Centre would be forthcoming for respite facilities in Herefordshire? Alternative provision for respite care provided locally was highlighted by members. The Leader explained that changes to short breaks provision in the county had produced a redesigned service; the number of families requiring respite care had increased significantly which required a different model of care. The Cabinet Member Children and Young People confirmed that she would be prepared to consider proposals for other forms of respite care.

·         The investments dedicated to economic development would result in higher quality jobs but detail was requested regarding accompanying lower paid jobs; such forms of employment were often not favoured. The Cabinet Member Economy and Communications understood the issues raised and had discussed with the LEP the difficulty of filling low paid jobs; he would be in contact to discuss the matter with the member further.

A recorded vote was conducted and the recommendations were approved: For 42; Against 0; and Abstained 3.

For (42): Councillors SP Anderson; PA Andrews; BA Baker; JM Bartlett; WLS Bowen; TL Bowes; H Bramer; CR Butler; ACR Chappell; PE Crockett; PGH Cutter; BA Durkin; PJ Edwards; CA Gandy; KS Guthrie; J Hardwick; DG Harlow; EPJ Harvey; EL Holton; TM James; PC Jinman; JLV Kenyon; JG Lester; MD Lloyd-Hayes; PP Marsh; RL Mayo; MT McEvilly; SM Michael; PD Newman OBE; CA North; RJ Phillips; AJW Powers; PD Price; P Rone; A Seldon; NE Shaw; J Stone; D Summers; EJ Swinglehurst; LC Tawn; DB Wilcox; and SD Williams.

Against (0):

Abstained (3): EE Chowns; RI Matthews; and FM Norman;

RESOLVED: that: