To approve the capital investment budget and capital strategy for 2020/21 onwards.

Council considered a report by the Leader to approve the capital investment budget and capital strategy 2020/21 onwards.

 

The cabinet member finance and corporate services moved the report and proposed the recommendations. She explained that the capital programme of the previous administration had been largely retained with additions including: school improvement; the Talk Community initiative; care home facilities; employment facilities; and infrastructure investment. Environmental improvements were also proposed through the programme including waste reduction initiatives. The majority of investment proposed through the capital programme was from grant funding with a small amount from borrowing.

 

The Leader seconded the report and explained that the capital plan reflected the county plan and proposed investment across market towns and rural areas.

 

In discussion the following points were raised in the debate concerning the Cabinet’s capital budget:

 

·        The impact of the loss of grant funding from the Local Enterprise Partnership was raised and where new grant funding would be identified in its place. Support was expressed for a capital strategy that proposed a bypass but it was noted that funding for such an initiative had been withdrawn.

·        A shortfall in social and affordable housing was raised and the need for investment in this area.

·        The importance of a review of the processes around the capital programme and risk management of capital schemes was raised.

·        Support was expressed for the investment in schools and superhubs.

·        Welcome was expressed for climate specific projects in the capital programme including electric buses. The programme proposed integrated action on environment and economy and the future carbon management strategy would set out how the capital programme could contribute to initiatives to reduce carbon emissions.

·        Support was expressed for projects to construct care homes.

·        There was requirement for investment in the road network, in particular drainage issues.

 

Amendment 1 – Proposed by Councillor Bob Matthews, seconded by Councillor Bernard Hunt. To allocate £2.2m of the capital receipts monies to rural verges management and any remaining funding from New Homes Bonus, not used for phosphate issue or climate change, will also be allocated. The funding will be used to commence work to provide adequate passing bays on the county’s minor road network to help prevent the destruction of the grass verges alongside these B and C class Highways which contain a wide range of valuable and rare flora and fauna, and would be a means of protecting the rural environment generally.

 

Councillor Bob Matthews proposed the amendment and explained that recent public surveys had established that highway improvements were a priority for the public. The amendment proposed the use of capital receipts from the smallholdings sale to improve minor roads. Passing places along minor roads formed naturally over time; the amendment would formalise these passing places which would help protect rural roads and reduce the incidence of potholes.

 

Councillor Bernard Hunt seconded the amendment and explained that the amendment represented additional investment for rural roads which were in need of improvement.

 

In discussion the following points were raised in the debate concerning amendment 1:

 

·        It was explained that the creation of passing places would help to protect verges on rural roads which could be considered by Balfour Beatty Living Places (BBLP) during the forthcoming year.

·        There was concern that the amendment would re-commit funding that would be allocated to address phosphate levels in the Lugg catchment.

·        It was noted that the proposal had not undergone scrutiny; it was suggested that the consideration of amendments at scrutiny prior to the budget meeting could be considered by the governance working group.

·        It was commented that this was the type of work or road improvement which could be undertaken by parish councils through lengthsman schemes or by raising parish precepts.

·        Verges often encroached on rural roads restricting width; clearance work was necessary to address this problem.

·        Clarity was sought from the section 151 officer concerning the capital receipts identified in support of the proposal in the amendment. There was concern that the use of capital receipts for the proposal in the amendment would undermine the use of such investment to secure a return. The section 151 officer explained that the funding identified in the amendment came, in part, from unallocated capital receipts.

·        There was some concern that the proposal in the amendment could be considered revenue spending.

 

Councillor Liz Harvey, as proposer of the original motion, responded to the amendment and explained that the amendment was not supported as there was confusion regarding changes to the amendment and the source of the funding, between capital receipts and the New Homes Bonus. Capital reserves existed but were for use in times of emergency or to be allocated to priorities following detailed proposals and consultation. Engagement with the cabinet member for infrastructure and transport was encouraged to investigate if the proposal in the amendment could be brought forward.

 

The budget amendment was put to the recorded vote and was lost by a simple majority.

 

FOR (7): Councillors Boulter, Foxton, Hunt, Graham Jones, Mike Jones, Matthews and Price.

 

Against (41): Councillors Paul Andrews, Polly Andrews, Bartlett, Bartrum, Bolderson, Bowes, Chowns, Crockett, Davies, Durkin, Fagan, Gandy, Guthrie, Hardwick, Harrington, Harvey, Hewitt, Hey, Hitchiner, Howells, I’Anson, Jinman, Johnson, Kenyon, Lester, Marsh, Millmore, Milln, Norman, Phillips, Rone, Seldon, Shaw, Stone, Summers, Swinglehurst, Tillett, Toynbee, Tyler, Watson and Wilding

 

Abstentions (4): Councillors Bowen, James, Stark and Symonds.

 

 

Amendment 2 – Proposed by Councillor Paul Symonds, seconded by Councillor Chris Bartrum.

           

a)That a new ring fenced capital allocation be included in the capital programme to provide an additional £1m per year to be invested through the Public Realm annual plan for market towns public realm improvement in 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23 and that this be funded from capital receipts.

 

b) That additional capital funding of £300,000 be allocated to the client team budget for the Public Realm contract to provide 2 additional inspectors during 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23, increasing supervision and checking of capital works carried out by BBLP and to enable a review during 2020/21 of the benefit in transferring the Locality Steward service from BBLP to Herefordshire Council, Hoople or another contractor. This funding to be provided from capital receipts.

 

Councillor Paul Symonds proposed the amendment and explained that amendment (a) concerned how investment in the public realm of the market towns was allocated through the capital programme. The amendment had no impact on council tax and was drawn from a pot of unallocated monies. Amendment (b) concerned the effectiveness of the investment in the public realm and would complement and help drive the proposed review of the BBLP contract and monitoring arrangements. It was confirmed that the two proposals were intended as separate amendments. 

 

Councillor Chris Bartrum seconded the amendment and explained the reduction in funding for local authorities from central government. In order to make improvements to the public realm in market towns alternative funding needed to be identified to support projects such as the resurfacing of roads that were disintegrating. Local residents supported such proposals which would improve the safety of road users.

 

In discussion the following points were raised in the debate concerning amendment 2:

 

·        There was concern that the proposed amendment (a) allocated money from reserves to a small number of towns in the county. There was a possibility that this could be divisive between the City of Hereford and the market towns.

·        Roads were assessed for resurfacing and improvement work based on a risk/safety matrix. The assessment was a robust process to prioritise roads from across the county and undertake improvements on the basis of public safety. Separate allocations for market towns in amendment (a) would not complement this process.

·        It was queried whether the addition of inspectors to supervise and check works in amendment (b) was a duplication of the work undertaken by locality stewards.

·        There was concern that amendment (a) proposed taking money out of the capital budget to pay for recurring costs which represented revenue expenditure.

·        The county plan contained a proposal to work with the market towns and parish councils.

·        Amendment (a) was intended to support infrastructure across the market towns and was consistent with the priorities of local residents to make improvements to the maintenance of roads and public spaces. The proposal was supported by local residents and the town council in Ross-on Wye.

·        It was understood that processes existed to address long standing problems with highways that were not prioritised for safety repairs. The Cabinet should consider the best way to address such issues.

·        Some members supported the enhanced supervision of works undertaken by BBLP as proposed in amendment (b).

·        There was concern that the use of capital receipts to support the proposals in the budget amendments reduced their value. It was stated that the capital receipts from the sale of the smallholdings were intended to raise revenue.

·        Clarification was sought regarding the period of time proposed in amendment (a). The section 151 officer confirmed that the amendment sought a change to the capital programme over the next three years.

·        Lobbying of central government should be co-ordinated across the political groups to request funding to provide a safe road network.

·        The proposal in amendment (b) would be looked at during the review of the BBLP contract.

·        It was explained that the proposals in the budget amendment had been presented to scrutiny.

 

Councillor Liz Harvey, as proposer of the original motion, responded to the amendment and explained that the amendment to the capital programme was not supported; such proposals would require work before inclusion in the capital programme. It was important to ensure the prioritisation process for repairs and works was fair across the county. The new county plan included a priority to re-balance investment in market towns. Leominster had secured grant funding with matched capital money and other market towns were encouraged to apply for similar funding. Market towns had worked with BBLP to identify priorities for inclusion in the infrastructure plan. The review proposed by the cabinet member procurement and assets relating to contract and project management was the right way to address concerns with oversight of the BBLP contract.   

 

Budget amendment (a) and (b) was put to the recorded vote and was lost by a simple majority.

 

(a)

 

For (22): Councillors Polly Andrews, Bartrum, Bolderson, Durkin, Gandy, Guthrie, Hunt, I’Anson, James, Johnson, Mike Jones, Lester, Matthews, Millmore, Price, Rone, Shaw, Stark, Stone, Swinglehurst, Symonds and Tillett.

 

Against (27): Councillors Paul Andrews, Bartlett, Boulter, Bowes, Chowns, Crockett, Davies, Fagan, Hardwick, Harrington, Harvey, Hewitt, Hey, Hitchiner, Jinman, Graham Jones, Kenyon, Marsh, Milln, Norman, Phillips, Seldon, Summers, Toynbee, Tyler, Watson and Wilding.

 

Abstain (2): Councillors Bowen and Howells

 

(b)

 

For (13): Councillors Polly Andrews, Bartrum, Howells, Hunt, James, Graham Jones, Matthews, Phillips, Price, Stark, Summers, Symonds and Tillett.

 

Against (36): Councillors Paul Andrews, Bartlett, Bolderson, Boulter, Bowes, Chowns, Crockett, Davies, Durkin, Fagan, Gandy, Guthrie, Hardwick, Harrington, Harvey, Hewitt, Hey, Hitchiner, I’Anson, Jinman, Johnson, Mike Jones, Kenyon, Lester, Marsh, Millmore, Milln, Norman, Rone, Seldon, Stone, Swinglehurst, Toynbee, Tyler, Watson and Wilding.

 

Abstain (2): Councillors Bowen and Shaw

 

Amendment 3 – Proposed by Councillor Nigel Shaw and seconded by Councillor Carole Gandy – This amendment reduces the capital allocated to the Hereford Transport Plan (HTP) from £3.6m to £1.6m and provides the released £2m to be used to repair and maintain our U and C roads.

 

Councillor Nigel Shaw proposed the amendment and explained that the use of the road safety matrix alone resulted in some minor roads never receiving investment or repairs. The proposal involved the adjustment of the HTP to allow more roads to be repaired and drainage issues addressed.

 

Councillor Carole Gandy seconded the amendment and explained that there was some disappointment that the capital programme proposed investment in road infrastructure close to Hereford and roads in rural areas had been marginalised. The deterioration of rural roads affected tourism, particularly associated with the cycle routes through the county. The parish drainage scheme contained unspent funding and new projects needed to be brought forward.

 

In discussion the following points were raised in the debate concerning amendment 3:

 

·        Reduced funding had affected the minor road network and although £2million was not a large sum of money it would help with maintenance and repair.

·        It was commented that the amendment proposed that money was removed from a budget for the HTP project that was currently under review. There was concern that the amendment pre-empted the outcome of the review. If the outcome resulted in money becoming available its reallocation could be considered. There was concern that the amendment raised legal problems concerned with the pre-determination of the outcomes of the review. The monitoring officer explained that there were no concerns regarding pre-determination; Council was a separate decision-making body to Cabinet. Cabinet would be responsible for determining how the outcomes of the review would be put into effect.  

·        It was acknowledged that the road network was in a bad condition which had resulted from reduced funding from government. There was a need to lobby local MPs and central government for the provision of greater funding in the local road network.

·        Repair and maintenance of the road network was a priority for local communities. The amendment sought to provide more money to address the poor condition of the highways.

·        There was concern that the amendment proposed the use of capital funding on recurring revenue costs and that the amount proposed would be of little effect.

·        The amendment would help provide for those roads that were not considered a priority on the road safety matrix but were in a poor condition.

·        The condition of the minor road network impacted upon rural tourism and local businesses.

·        The lack of investment since 2014/15 in the minor road network was attributed to the priorities and decision-making of the previous administration.

·        There was concern that the amendment had not been considered at scrutiny or Cabinet before presentation to full Council.

·        The loss of funding from the LEP would impact upon the council’s ability to access funding in the future.

 

Councillor Liz Harvey, as proposer of the original motion, responded to the amendment and explained that it was not supported as there was concern that money would be removed from the HAP budget before the conclusion of the review. The review would take account of alternative transport options which the government was now prioritising for grant funding. The entire £28million had not necessarily been lost but the new administration were not in a position, upon assumption of office, to award a contract for the work contained in the south wye transport package.

 

The amendment was put to the recorded vote and was carried by a simple majority.

 

For (26): Councillors Polly Andrews, Bartrum, Bolderson, Bowen, Durkin, Gandy, Guthrie, Howells, Hunt, I’Anson, James, Johnson, Graham Jones, Mike Jones, Lester, Matthews, Millmore, Phillips, Price, Rone, Shaw, Stark, Stone, Swinglehurst, Symonds and Tillett.

 

Against (25): Councillors Paul Andrews, Bartlett, Boulter, Bowes, Chowns, Crockett, Davies, Fagan, Hardwick, Harrington, Harvey, Hewitt, Hey, Hitchiner, Jinman, Kenyon, Marsh, Milln, Norman, Seldon, Summers, Toynbee, Tyler, Watson and Wilding.

 

Abstain (0)

 

RESOLVED: That:

 

This amendment reduces the capital allocated to the Hereford Transport Plan from £3.6m to £1.6m and provides the released £2m to be used to repair and maintain our U and C roads.

 

The bulk of the Hereford Transport Plan capital funding was predicated on the need to purchase early properties that might be blighted by the route of the Hereford Bypass. With the scheme now under review and any funding application for the scheme, should it go ahead, further delayed, it makes no sense to keep this capital allocation at the current level. The Conservative Group would ask others to consider the plight of the U and C roads in our most rural communities. In the unlikely event that additional capital above the £1.6m is suddenly needed for the HTP, then the general reserve and the financial resilience reserve (standing at £13.6m) are available.

 

Although A and B roads in Herefordshire are the fastest roads and carry the most vehicles, the C and U roads are the capillaries that feed these roads and, in the more remote places, the arteries for local transport too. Since the one off spending of £20m in 2014/5 there has been minimal investment in the U and C road infrastructure and drainage and the results are visible for all to see.

 

This additional £2m will not fix all of the issues, but is seen as a responsible step by this Council to address the concerns of the rural third of this county’s population.

 

The capital programme 2020/21 onwards and capital strategy, as amended by amendment 3 above was put to the recorded vote and carried by a simple majority.

 

FOR (49): Councillors Paul Andrews, Polly Andrews, Bartlett, Bartrum, Bolderson, Boulter, Bowen, Bowes, Chowns, Crockett, Davies, Durkin, Fagan, Gandy, Guthrie, Hardwick, Harrington, Harvey, Hewitt, Hey, Hitchiner, Howells, Hunt, I’Anson, James, Jinman, Johnson, Graham Jones, Mike Jones, Kenyon, Lester, Marsh, Matthews, Millmore, Milln, Norman, Phillips, Price, Rone, Seldon, Shaw, Stone, Summers, Swinglehurst, Tillett, Toynbee, Tyler, Watson and Wilding.

 

Against (0)

 

Abstentions (2): Councillors Stark and Symonds

 

RESOLVED: That:

 

(a) the proposed capital programme for 2020/21 attached at appendix 3, as amended by amendment 3 above, be approved; and

 

(b) the capital strategy document at appendix 4 be approved.

 

There was an adjournment at 1.50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 2.25 p.m.