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 sequencing of spend on projects. It was concerning that there was a lack of a 21^st Century attitude in spending and investment and the group was not supportive of the capital programme in its present form.

·      It’s Our County would change the capital spend on transport and infrastructure and take a new 21^st century approach, including providing bus, cycle, foot and sustainable transport measures as a priority. It was noted that the new university required new non-car solutions and a modern day approach was needed to accord with the department for transport guidance on how new infrastructure should be built.

·      The council needed an identified and ring-fenced capital repair programme for the repair of bridges to avoid the urgent and delayed repairs that had been necessary to infrastructure in the county. The deputy leader explained that infrastructure was surveyed through public realm audits to identify repair. Through such surveys the administration was proposing £5 million was allocated to capital repairs which should provide security through the period of the programme.

·      It was explained that the It’s Our County group would undertake a different approach with respect to the Keepmoat development partnership. It would deliver publically owned buildings on public land, similar to a scheme in Sheffield. The development would be energy efficient, incorporating schemes for the generation of renewable forms of energy and provide a sustainable form of income to the council by retaining the development in public ownership.

·      The level of investment in the Hillside Centre was raised and the underestimated cost of the facility highlighted. There was disappointment that there was no proposed investment in teenage respite care facilities, similar to the niche, market shaping nature of the Hillside Centre. It was explained that since the closure of 1 Ledbury Road children and young people requiring respite care were having to travel out of the county. The cabinet member health and wellbeing explained that the Hillside Centre did not offer respite care but looked after people with age related conditions. The original provision made in the capital programme of £1.5 million had always clearly been stated as a provisional estimate subject to review following completion of detailed feasibility work. That estimate of costs had now been increased to future-proof the facility.

·      The investment in b, c and u class roads was welcomed to address deterioration of local roads that had occurred over a number of years. It was noted that c and u class roads were not only present in rural areas. A number of very heavily used roads in urban areas were c and u class and their deterioration had rendered some cycle ways to be unsafe. The cabinet member transport and regulatory services explained that a risk based approach was undertaken in order to prioritise repairs. Prioritisation of works was required to undertake improvements within limited budgets.    

·      There was concern expressed regarding the energy efficiency of the enterprise zone and applications for developments on the site should be considered in respect of their energy efficiency. The deputy leader explained that new building regulations required new buildings to be more energy efficient.

·      Assurances were sought that project costs would be monitored and maintained within capital budgets.

·      The response of the council to the challenge of climate change was outlined including solar photovoltaic panels, LED streetlights and investment in school transport software which enabled a more sustainable service.

·      The number of responses received to the budget consultation were queried and whether the level of response validated the investment decisions. The deputy leader acknowledged that there were not enough people who responded to consultations. Previously a consultation was undertaken on the streets in the market towns which resulted in a greater level submissions from the public. The deputy leader was keen to repeat the exercise at the start of the next four year budget setting cycle.

·      The building of council houses on council land was raised and the associated costs involved in the building and maintenance of the houses. The right to buy scheme was also highlighted and it was felt that this brought into doubt the income generation opportunities involved in building and ownership of council housing.

·      It was queried how much of the £2.25m capital grant funding for investment in the condition of footways and cycle ways was related to the HTP and South Wye roads building schemes rather than investment across the county, particularly schemes in the market towns. The deputy leader confirmed that the funding was separate to the road building schemes and would provide a written response to clarify the matter.

·      It was queried whether the fleet procurement strategy would seek to purchase electric cars. The deputy leader confirmed that the strategy would seek to purchase hybrid cars and it was recognised that the county required more charging points for electric cars.

A named vote was conducted on the recommendations in the report. The recommendations were approved by a simple majority.

For (32): BA Baker, WLS Bowen, H Bramer, CR Butler, ACR Chappell, MJK Cooper, P Cutter, BA Durkin, PJ Edwards, DW Greenow, KS Guthrie, J Hardwick, DG Harlow, EL Holton, TM James, AW Johnson, JLV Kenyon, JG Lester, RL Mayo, MT McEvilly, PD Newman, CA North, RJ Phillips, PD Price, P Rone, AR Round, NE Shaw, WC Skelton, J Stone, EJ Swinglehurst, DB Wilcox, SD Williams.

Against (13): JM Bartlett, TL Bowes, EE Chowns, EPJ Harvey, MD Lloyd-Hayes, PP Marsh, SM Michael, FM Norman, AJW Powers, A Seldon, D Summers, LC Tawn, A Warmington.

Abstentions (2): PC Jinman, RI Matthews.

Resolved – that

(a)       the proposed capital programme from 2019/20 attached at appendix 3 is approved;

(b)       cabinet is delegated authority to add the two deferred projects (Countywide Investment in B, C & U roads and Countywide Investment in Strategic Road Network) in appendix 1 as funding becomes available; and

(c)       the capital strategy document at appendix 4 is approved.