To approve the allocation of funding to enable priority flood damage repairs and as able works to enhance the resilience of the county’s infrastructure.

The cabinet member infrastructure and transport introduced the report. He explained the impact of the flooding experienced in the county and the scale of repairs needed. The council needed to identify how the remaining high priority flood repair schemes totalling approximately £4m were to be funded. An allocation of £7.674m had been made to Herefordshire from the Pothole and Challenge Fund. The government had confirmed that the council could use this funding to address the flood damage. Efforts to secure additional funding from the government had so far been unsuccessful.

The cabinet member felt that as the Pothole and Challenge Fund monies were originally intended to address other improvements to the road network it was unfair that the council should now be expected to use some of this money to undertake repairs from the extraordinary flooding that had occurred. The cabinet member proposed that the £7.674m be added to the capital programme and allocated for the original purpose and that the council be asked to agree adjustments to the capital programme to find the funds needed to address the priority flood repairs.

In discussing the options for allocating funding cabinet members noted the following points:

·         It was very disappointing that additional funding had not been made available by the government and both Herefordshire MPs had been asked to pursue this as a matter of urgency;

·         The Pothole and Challenge Fund allocation should be spent as intended on the road network for the whole county;

·         Lack of investment in the wider road network would deter visitors, impact on economic recovery and there may be further flooding to deal with in the autumn / winter 2020;

·         When presenting the budget in February it had been highlighted that the council had not exhausted its capacity to borrow so that it had capacity to deliver on additional projects in the county plan;

·         The current capital programme had been approved by council less than six months ago and the projects currently on the programme were intended to deliver on the adopted county plan;

·         There were no easy options to reallocate funding from other projects on the capital programme;

·         The cabinet should make a recommendation to council on how to fund the repair works, it was then open to council to debate this and agree a way forward;

·         Borrowing the additional funds required was proposed as the least worst option as it would not prevent the council making the capital investments it wanted to.

Group leaders were invited to put comments and queries from their respective groups, it was noted that:

·         Full discussion would take place at the council meeting;

·         The logic of the proposals was understood;

·         There was reluctance to see monies taken away from other projects;

·         The allocation of funds from the Pothole and Challenge Fund had been communicated to the council before the flood damage occurred, but the details had only been announced after the flooding took place and with the caveat that it could be used for flood repair;

·         There might yet be further funding from government so it was right to have the option to readjust allocations if this happened;

·         The government had recently announced significant funding for flood defences so there might be an opportunity to restate the county’s case;

·         The savings on the Hillside project were welcomed;

·         The ultimate source of all the funding options was the tax payer and the council should take care to rigidly monitor the scheme;

·         Roadside landowners should be made to fulfil their responsibilities to maintain drains and other infrastructure to reduce highway flooding;

·         Managed decline of the road network could not be allowed to continue.

Taking account of the points raised, the cabinet member infrastructure and transport proposed an amendment to recommendation (e) in the report to state that extended borrowing would be the proposed source of funding for the priority flood repairs. This was seconded by the cabinet member finance and corporate services. The revised amendment was unanimously supported.

It was agreed that:

(a)          Cabinet recommend to Council that the £7.674m (Pothole and Challenge Fund 2020/21 grant allocation) be added to the capital programme as a new programme;

(b)         Subject to the decision taken at Council in regard to the Pothole and Challenge Fund 2020/21 grant allocation, authorisation be given to commit this funding to deliver highway maintenance works in the current financial year, as detailed in paragraph 23 of this report;

(c)          The director of economy and place be authorised to agree, through the contract governance arrangements, adjustment to the programme and budget allocation in the public realm services contract annual plan to include programmes of work funded by the Pothole and Challenge Fund in 2020/21;

(d)         Cabinet recommend to Council that the £4.027m (Priority Flood Repair Works) be added to the capital programme as a new programme;

(e)          Cabinet recommends to Council that priority flood repair works totalling £4.027m, as set out in paragraph 24 of this report, are funded through the use of extended borrowing (Option 1);

(f)           subject to the decision taken at Council confirming the changes to the capital programme, the director of economy and place be authorised to procure the priority flood repair works; and

(g)         In the event that new funds are made available by Government specifically to address the priority flood repair works, then those funds would be added to the Priority Flood Repair Works programme.