Agenda item

Purpose: To outline the Capital Strategy covering financial years 2021/22 - 2023/24 and the supporting funding framework, providing a high-level overview of how capital expenditure, capital financing and treasury management activity contribute to the provision of local public services along with an overview of how associated risk is managed and the implications for future financial sustainability.

The purpose of the report was to outline the Capital Strategy covering financial years 2021/22 – 2023/24 and the supported funding framework, having provided a high-level overview of how capital expenditure, capital financing and treasury management activity contributed to the provision of local public services along with an overview of how associated risk is managed and the implications for future financial sustainability.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Ross Mackinnon and seconded by Councillor Dominic Boeck:

That the Council:

(a)       approve the Capital Strategy and supporting Capital Programme for the period 2021/22-2023/24.

(b)       approve the supporting Minimum Revenue Provision Policy (appendix C) for the period 2021/22 – 2023/24.

(c)       approve the supporting Asset Management Strategy (appendix D).

(d)       approve the Flexible Use of Capital Receipts Policy (appendix E) for the period 2021/22.

(e)       approve the proposed CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) Bids for inclusion in the Capital programme 2021/22 (appendix F).

Councillor Ross Mackinnon introduced the Capital Strategy and Programme for the next three years. The administration was proposing an investment in infrastructure of £123m over the three year period which would ensure that West Berkshire remained a great place to live, work, learn and to be healthy. This was particularly important given the past year which had been challenging for all and it would enable the community to build back better from those unprecedented challenges.

The Capital Programme provided substantial investment across the Council’s six priorities as set out in the Council Strategy and he specifically highlighted the fact that £40m would be invested in the People Directorate, £36m of which would sit within Education Services to provide new schools for children as well as new facilities, extensions and refurbishments to existing schools. £12m of funding would be set aside for highway improvement schemes in order to keep West Berkshire residents and businesses moving smoothly when people returned to work. Improvements were also proposed for railway stations, cycle and walking path upgrades. £12.5m would be invested in initiatives linked to the Environment Strategy of which £1.6m of carbon reduction initiatives and £10.4m which would be focused on solar photovoltaic energy generation. £900k of capital funding would be used to introduce separate food waste collections across the district and £500k would be allocated directly to community groups from a pilot scheme to tops slice and accelerate CIL payments to fund infrastructure improvements.

This Capital Programme would not just maintain existing services but it would invest in new schemes across all of the Council Strategy priorities. It was essential that the Capital Programme was sustainable and affordable and £53m of the three year programme was funded from external sources e.g. central government grants and s106/ CIL payments. Councillor Mackinnon stated that capital financing costs were only 9% of the revenue budget and that would remain so across the four year period of the MTFS.

AMENDMENT: Proposed by Councillor Jeff Brooks and seconded by Councillor Lee Dillon:

·         Invest and open Faraday Road Football Ground so that it was available for Community Football until any re-provision came on stream - Cost £300,000;

·         Funding to provide upgraded facilities at Thatcham Library – expanded reception and disabled toilet – Cost £30,000.

Councillor Brooks was supportive of the proposed Capital Programme but asked if the two items outlined above could be included.

Councillor Tony Vickers stated that he was not in favour of moving football out of the town centre although not necessarily on the existing site and the preferred option would be to keep it somewhere in central Newbury. In the interim it would be nice to see some football taking place in the town centre. The plans to relocate the facility to the Rugby Club, whilst it might provide a football facility, would not be a like for like replacement which the town deserved. He referred to the Hungerford Football Club ground which was a far better facility for a town that was only a fifth of the size of Newbury. The Liberal Democrats would like to see the London Road Industrial Estate redeveloped at zero carbon standards with a football facility somewhere in that area which would be a beacon for a multi-purpose mixed use area in the town centre. It should at least be no worse and perhaps be partially reinstated to what it was at the time that the lease on the Football Club ended.

Councillor Erik Pattenden referred to the amendment in relation to providing an upgraded reception area and disabled toilet for Thatcham Library.  This would make a huge difference to library visitors as in normal times Thatcham Library would see more than 3,000 visitors a month. The Central Family Hub also ran weekly groups for the under-fives and adults. The building did have some disabled facilities but the nearest disabled toilet was in Thatcham Broadway.

Councillor David Marsh was also speaking in support of the Liberal Democrat amendments. The amount proposed for the refurbishment of Thatcham Library was modest and was clearly justifiable. The Green Party were also supportive of the proposal in relation to the football ground as it complemented their amendment to the Capital Programme. It had been two and a half years since the decision was taken to close the ground which had been premature. A lot of children had played football on this ground in the past and there was no demand for another recreation ground which would be adjacent to an existing park. He urged Conservative back benchers to support the amendments rather than block voting against them.

Councillor Lynne Doherty referred to the amendment in relation to the refurbishment of Thatcham Library. Whilst it might be a good suggestion she confirmed that there was a complete library review planned for the coming financial year. Therefore to make any assumptions around the findings of that review would be premature. It should certainly feed into the review. In regards to the £300k for the reopening of the football pitch she did not consider that that was a sensible use of funding for a limited period of time. She reiterated that the Council remained committed to regeneration and redevelopment of the London Road Industrial Estate and it would not be prepared to take any action that might jeopardise those plans. The Council needed to maintain control of that asset for as and when the land was required for redevelopment subject to obtaining the necessary planning consent. She questioned the fact that there was now, or had been, demand for children’s football in that area. She was therefore recommending refusal of the two amendments as there was still further work to be done.

Councillor Jeremy Cottam raised concerns that West Berkshire Council were not supporting Thatcham Town Council in regards to upgrading Thatcham Library. The library review could take years whereas the work to upgrade facilities could be done quickly and would benefit the disabled in the community to make it a much more pleasant place to go.

Councillor Lee Dillon noted that a review of the library service was to be undertaken but he referred to the distance that a disabled person would have to travel to use the toilet facilities in Thatcham Broadway. This proposal also involved having an external access point as well which would benefit the wider community. If it was proposed to wait for the review would that mean that there was potential for Thatcham to not have a library at all. If the library was to be retained there would be an expectation that the facility should include a disabled toilet. In relation to the London Road Industrial Estate Football Ground it would still cost money to create an open space and car park and the Council had been premature in releasing the land which had therefore robbed the town of a football club.

Councillor Jeff Brooks noted that it was likely that these two amendments would be voted down. The answer given was that a library review would be undertaken in the fullness of time but no immediate action would be taken. He stated that the Liberal Democrats would be abstaining on the vote for the substantive motion even though there would be some things within the Capital Programme which they would have been supportive of.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon agreed with the comments made by Councillor Doherty as she had given reasonable explanations for both amendments.

The Amendment was put to the meeting and duly REFUSED. It was noted that Councillor Rowles abstained from the vote due to technical difficulties.

AMENDMENT: Proposed by Councillor David Marsh and seconded by Councillor Carolyne Culver:

Page 90 Playing Pitch Action Plan

Original text: “Provision to support the development of the PPS through additional facilities, including six 3G pitches as part of the PPS Delivery plan subject to business case development, including a suitable replacement for the Faraday Road Sports Ground.”

Amendment: Delete “including a suitable replacement for the Faraday Road Sports Ground.”

Councillor David Marsh stated that the Green Party were supportive of the Playing Pitch Strategy and the fact that the 3G pitches were long overdue across the whole district. The Green Party were not against the football pitches per se but were against relocating the football ground to Wash Common. There had been a flawed consultation exercise which did not seem to conform to the Government’s consultation code at all. The facilities at the Rugby Club would not be a like for like replacement for the existing football ground and would not be popular with local residents. He had concerns about traffic and the impact of parking in the area. Councillor Marsh noted that a lot of the detail around the cost of the replacement football ground was in Part II and he felt that it would be a drain on Council taxpayers for years to come. The Council would have to pay rent for the Rugby Club when it did not need to as it already had an adequate site in Faraday Road which would cost less to run and had scope for expansion.

Councillor Steve Marsh concurred with the comments made by Councillor Marsh and added that this was an opportunity to put things right.

Councillor Tony Vickers stated that the Liberal Democrats were supportive of the amendment put forward by the Green Party. The proposals for a new sports ground appeared to be sketchy and badly thought out. There would be public debate on this at the Planning Committee and should it get planning permission he was sure that it would be called in by Sport England. This would mean that the decision would be taken out of the hands of West Berkshire. Any money that the Council had already spent on this or would do so in the future would be better spent on reinstating the current facilities in Faraday Road. The Liberal Democrats were supportive of further work being undertaken to do site investigations in the Faraday Road area but not necessarily on the current site.

Councillor Lynne Doherty disagreed that there was no suitable replacement site. The consultation was still ongoing and the Council was listening to the views of members of the public and key stakeholders. She therefore did not think it was right to support an amendment when the Council was in the middle of a consultation process. Again this was premature. She disagreed with the statement made by Councillor Masters in that there was no good reason to relocate the football ground. The reason that the London Road Industrial Estate regeneration should go ahead was to prioritise local jobs for local people and to support the local economy. This should come before the need for a football ground as the regeneration of this area would help the district to thrive into the future. The focus would be on the regeneration of that area and look for a suitable alternative site for the football ground on which consultation was currently taking place. She therefore stated that the Conservative Group would not be supporting the amendment.

Councillor Lee Dillon responded that the Liberal Democrat Group also supported jobs and businesses in the economy but it also supported sports, leisure and culture in a sustainable central location and therefore supported the amendment from the Green Party.

Councillor Carolyne Culver said that it was her understanding that the consultation on Monks Lane had now closed and she asked the Monitoring Officer to check whether that was the case. It sounded like a decision had already been made on this even though consultation had only recently taken place. The Council had not had a single debate on this issue and it was therefore an example of the democratic deficit and lack of unity. If there was to be unity there needed to be more respect for the opposition groups and having amendments accepted. There had been a lot of questions about Faraday Road at various Council meetings which demonstrated the level of feeling and need to seek clarity around this important issue. It did not seem sensible to look at renting another site when the Council had a site that it could use and on which there was no guarantee that planning permission would be granted due to the issue around flooding. Councillor Culver asked for a named vote to be taken on this item and this was agreed although Councillor Graham Bridgman made the point that the Leaders of each group had made a decision to take block votes in order to speed up the process. Councillor Culver agreed that she was happy to go with voting through the Group Leaders as long as the votes were recorded in the minutes.

Sarah Clarke clarified that the proposed amendment related to Faraday Road and the consultation related to the proposals at Monks Lane and the Newbury Rugby Club so there was a difference in terms of what was being proposed. The consultation had closed on 28 February 2021 and the Council was in the process of considering those responses. There was also a webinar scheduled for 15 March 2021 so there was ongoing dialogue with the community regarding the proposals for the sports ground at Newbury Rugby Club.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon concluded that the proposals from both the Liberal Democrat and Green Party were Newbury centric whereas the regeneration of the London Road Industrial Estate would be of benefit for the entire district.

FOR the Amendment:

Councillors: Carolyne Culver, David Marsh, Steve Masters (3)

AGAINST the Amendment:

Councillors: Steve Ardagh-Walter, Peter Argyle, Jeff Beck, Dennis Benneyworth, Dominic Boeck, Graham Bridgman, Jeff Cant, Hilary Cole, James Cole, Lynne Doherty, Clive Hooker, Gareth Hurley, Rick Jones, Alan Law, Tony Linden, Ross Mackinnon, Tom Marino, Graham Pask, Claire Rowles, Garth Simpson, Richard Somner, Jo Stewart, Andy Williamson, Howard Woollaston (24)

ABSTAINED from voting on the Amendment:

Adrian Abbs, Phil Barnett, Jeff Brooks, Jeremy Cottam, Lee Dillon, Billy Drummond, Nassar Hunt, Owen Jeffery, Royce Longton, Alan Macro, Geoff Mayes, Andy Moore, Erik Pattenden, Martha Vickers, Tony Vickers, Keith Woodhams (16)

The Amendment was put to the meeting and duly REFUSED.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Ross Mackinnon and seconded by Councillor Dominic Boeck:

Councillor Adrian Abbs raised concerns that he could not see the justification for a lot of the IT spend within the Capital budget, particularly the £2m set aside for the Enterprise Resource Planning System.

A number of Members raised queries or highlighted specific schemes/projects which would have an impact in their area.

Councillor Alan Law stated that this was a good news report which was all about investing in the future - £123m over the next three years. Over the last 15 years or so the Council had invested an average of £40m every year on things like schools, Children’s Services and infrastructure which included Superfast Broadband. West Berkshire had recently been ranked number two for happiness in the whole of the country and number four overall for health and wellbeing.

Councillor Lynne Doherty agreed that there would be so many projects within the Capital Strategy and Programme which would be beneficial to the residents of West Berkshire. Investment into three primary schools was most welcome and in particular the commitment for a new school in Shaw-cum-Donnington as the parish expanded to accommodate the new housing development in that area.

Councillor Lee Dillon confirmed that his group would be abstaining on the Capital Strategy and Programme. However, there were some good projects and investment contained within the programme. By abstaining it did not mean that the Liberal Democrats did not want to see the vast majority of these projects to go ahead it was due to the fact that their amendments had not been accepted.

Councillor Dominic Boeck supported this strategy and programme as it demonstrated the commitment to the Council’s overall Council Strategy which included a priority to support everyone to reach their full potential. Over the next three years it was planned to spend a further £35.7m on the district’s schools. This money would be spent on providing the basic need places for children as the population expanded and enhancing and ensuring that existing provision continued in the quality expected for children and young people.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon thanked the opposition as from the comments made it was good that many of the projects within the Capital Programme were supported. Councillor Mackinnon specifically mentioned the £2m for the Enterprise Resource Planning System raised by Councillor Abbs. It might not be necessary to spend that amount as the Council would go through the procurement process and would aim to achieve value for money. He pointed out that some projects in the programme would not have a revenue stream as it was not the intention of the Capital Programme was to make money.

FOR the Motion:

Councillors: Steve Ardagh-Walter, Peter Argyle, Jeff Beck, Dennis Benneyworth, Dominic Boeck, Graham Bridgman, Jeff Cant, Hilary Cole, James Cole, Lynne Doherty, Clive Hooker, Gareth Hurley, Rick Jones, Alan Law, Tony Linden, Ross Mackinnon, Tom Marino, Graham Pask, Claire Rowles, Garth Simpson, Richard Somner, Jo Stewart, Andy Williamson, Howard Woollaston (24)

ABSTAINED from voting on the Motion:

Adrian Abbs, Phil Barnett, Jeff Brooks, Jeremy Cottam, Carolyne Culver, Lee Dillon, Billy Drummond, Nassar Hunt, Owen Jeffery, Royce Longton, Alan Macro, David Marsh, Steve Masters, Geoff Mayes, Andy Moore, Erik Pattenden, Martha Vickers, Tony Vickers, Keith Woodhams (19)

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.