Agenda item

Purpose: To outline the Capital Strategy covering financial years 2022/23 – 2026/27 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.

(All Members had been granted a dispensation by the Monitoring Officer to speak and vote on this item).

 

(Councillor Lee Dillon declared a personal or an other registrable interest in Agenda Item 6 by virtue of his employment at Sovereign Housing. As he determined his interest was not a disclosable pecuniary interest he remained to take part in the debate and voted on the matter).

Council considered a report (Agenda Item 6) that outlined the Capital Strategy which covered financial years 2022/23 to 2026/27 and the supporting funding framework. The report provided a high-level overview of how capital expenditure, capital financing and treasury management activity contributed to the provision of local public services, and also an overview of how associated risk was managed and implications for future financial sustainability. As decisions made on capital and treasury management had financial consequences for the Council for many years into the future they were subject to both a national regulatory framework and to local policy framework.

 

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

 

That Council approve:

 

(a)   the Capital Strategy and supporting Capital Programme for the period 2022/23 – 2026/27;

(b)   the supporting Minimum Revenue Provision Policy for the period 2022/23 – 2026/27;

(c)    the Flexible Use of Capital Receipts Policy for the period 2022/23 – 2026/27, and;

(d)   the proposed Community Infrastructure Levy Bids for inclusion in the Capital programme 2022/23 – 2026/27.

 

Councillor Ross Mackinnon in introducing the report illustrated how the capital programme was split across the six priorities of the Council’s Strategy. He highlighted a number of budget allocations across the service areas and went in to detail regarding some of the specific projects which would receive this funding.

 

Councillor Mackinnon explained that the capital programme did not just maintain essential services, it also invested in new schemes across all of the Council’s Strategy priorities and was sustainable and affordable. He referred to the increase in Council borrowing but reminded Members that some of these enhancements would reduce service costs or provide funds back to the Council through income or greater efficiencies.

 

Councillor Mackinnon wished to provide reassurance that the capital repayment costs would be between 10 - 12% of the revenue budget, which compared favourably with other local authorities and was forecast to remain so in the future. He highlighted that the Council’s Section 151 Officer had confirmed that the programme was prudent, affordable and sustainable.

 

Councillor Mackinnon referred to how the Council could choose not to invest and this remained an option. However, the administration had opted for a positive approach, paying close attention to the need for affordability but also to enable the capital schemes proposed to be funded properly and have a positive impact for residents. He felt that overall the capital programme struck the right balance between new investment to support the Council’s priorities, continuing to fund core infrastructure, and affordability.

 

 

   

Councillor Graham Bridgman highlighted a project being delivered in conjunction with Stratfield Mortimer Parish Council and emphasised the working relationship between the two. He encouraged other Parish Councils to consider projects that this Council could help develop with the use of Community Infrastructure Levy funds. 

 

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

• Funds to develop a West Berks Culture Education Partnership (LCEP) and create a Delivery Plan for Phase 1. Cost of £50,000.
• West Berkshire Council developing its own Power company (invest to save). By becoming a supplier, we can take advantage of the higher revenue and so more environmental projects become affordable whilst also contributing to the council’s revenue stream and also gives us options to encourage businesses with West Berkshire. This funding would provide for consultancy expertise to assist in the development of a plan including the feasibility of the scheme. Cost of £100,000.
• Set up a fund to commission innovative energy projects from organisations with charitable aims through a West Berkshire Community Energy Fund (WBCEF) Cost of £500,000.
• Set aside £1M over four years to support the implementation of Town plans that are in development in Thatcham and Hungerford. Cost of £250,000 in next financial year.
• Provide additional Defibrillators across the District. Cost of £40,000.

 

Councillor Jeff Brooks in introducing the amendments noted that all five would cost an estimated £1.7m and could be achieved through borrowing or drawing on reserves. He highlighted that his members would be more cautious in increasing the borrowing requirement in future years since around 12% of the budget would end up being used to service debts and this would only get worse with the upwards trajectory of interest rates. Councillor Brooks queried if a balance sheet could be produced which set out the value of the Council’s assets, particularly those procured through borrowing.

 

Councillor Dennis Benneyworth referred to the significant investment scheduled that he and his fellow Ward members welcomed in Hungerford and Kintbury. This included a £400k infrastructure upgrade at a residential care home, an expansion to a local leisure centre through £140k of investment, and an expansion of the kitchen at a local primary school to enable the continued delivery of free school meals.

 

Councillor Adrian Abbs referred to energy use causing harm to the climate and impacting disposable incomes with its rapidly accelerating cost. The amendment put forward was proposing that the Council investigate the creation of an entity that can handle the complex solutions needed to tackle the large, non-council proportion of CO2.He suggested that the remit of the non-profit could cover several complex areas which was why the initial investigation was required. It could help encourage and manage other schemes run by communities or individuals to work with the National Grid or larger energy suppliers to install power storage technology. He noted that it was ambitious but would have a considerable impact on the net-zero aims. Councillor Abbs also mentioned the amendment that looks to kick-start a West Berkshire-wide project to fill the remaining gaps in the defibrillator network. It had a modest initial cost, enough for 34 units which could possibly double if match funded.

 

 

Councillor Owen Jeffery highlighted the proposal to set aside £1m over four years to implement effective town plans for Thatcham and Hungerford. He argued that this Council needed to strategically plan for its principal communities to help them in the future, which the proposed amendment would do.

      

Councillor Graham Bridgman advised that he fully supported the concept of additional defibrillators across the district where they were necessary, but felt that the amendment was unnecessary as the issue was already in progression via the Health and Wellbeing Board. He noted that the work in this area had been delayed due to the pandemic but initial work to map where existing defibrillators were located had indicated there was already a good spread.

 

Councillor Howard Woollaston confirmed that he felt the amendment regarding the West Berks Culture Education Partnership was unnecessary as plans were already underway in partnership with the Arts Council.

 

Councillor Lee Dillon was pleased to note the support for the West Berks Culture Education Partnership but wanted more investment than currently proposed as it linked cultural education, higher education, youth health, criminal justice, and the voluntary and commercial sectors together to create a place-based partnership and help support recovery in town centres. Councillor Dillon suggested that the amendments demonstrated a change of focus and put forward ideas to address the carbon challenge, generate income for the Council and reduce energy costs for residents. He also referred to the proposal to invest funds in the town centres to help deliver regeneration and demonstrate the Council’s commitment to that ambition.

 

Councillor Jeff Brooks believed that these were not inappropriate measures to bring forward and expressed his disappointment that they had not been better received. 

 

Councillor Ross Mackinnon highlighted the contradiction in arguing that borrowing was too high whilst simultaneously proposing amendments resulting in £17m of additional borrowing. He also explained the internal process that suggestions such as creating a power company should go through to ensure that the spending of public monies is justified and appropriate.

 

The Amendments were put to the meeting and duly REFUSED.

 

FOR the Amendments:

 

Councillors Adrian Abbs, Phil Barnett, Jeff Brooks, Jeremy Cottam, Carolyne Culver, Lee Dillon, Billy Drummond, Nassar Hunt, Royce Longton, Owen Jeffrey, David Marsh, Steve Masters, Geoff Mayes, Andy Moore, Martha Vickers, Tony Vickers. (16)

 

AGAINST the Amendments:

 

Councillors Steve Ardagh-Walter, Jeff Beck, Dennis Benneyworth, Dominic Boeck, Graham Bridgeman, Jeff Cant, Hilary Cole, James Cole, Lynne Doherty, Gareth Hurley, Rick Jones, Alan Law, Tony Linden, Ross Mackinnon, Thomas Marino, Biyi Oloko, Graham Pask, Claire Rowles, Richard Somner, Joanne Stewart, Andrew Williamson, Howard Woollaston. (22)

 

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

 

Original text: “Planning and consultancy to help deliver LRIE projects (£850,000 in 2022-23)”

 

Amendment: Add at end of the line after “Planning and consultancy to help deliver LRIE projects” … “including the restoration of Faraday Road as a football ground and community sports facility.”

 

Councillor David Marsh in introducing the amendment referred to the Executive decision in December 2020 to approve a one year budget of £45k for feasibility studies for the LRIE, and over the next three years a revenue budget of £100k to provide consultancy support during the project development. There was now an allocation of £850k for further consultancy and he queried what value taxpayers had been getting for these consultancy fees and other expenditure on a project that was still not proved as feasible. Councillor Marsh referred to a development brief he had received which was already more than likely out of date, and the receipt of one or two environmental reports that fell short of the full environmental impact assessment and full flood risk assessment that were required on the site. The reason for the amendment was to ask that while the consultancy and feasibility work continued the restoration of the football ground as an asset of community value for sporting and social use should not be ruled out.

 

Councillor Tony Vickers noted that although his groups’ policy concerning the LRIE projects was different, they were in support of this amendment.   

 

Councillor Carolyne Culver explained her position that this amendment was uncontroversial and asked for the consultancy work to include the consideration of what happens to Faraday Road. It was not asking for expenditure, just a sensible and reasonable addition of words.

 

Councillor Ross Mackinnon confirmed that he was expecting an update paper on Faraday Road to come through the executive cycle in the next couple of months.

 

The Amendment was put to the meeting and duly REFUSED.

 

FOR the Amendment:

 

Councillors Adrian Abbs, Phil Barnett, Jeff Brooks, Jeremy Cottam, Carolyne Culver, Lee Dillon, Billy Drummond, Nassar Hunt, Royce Longton, Owen Jeffrey, David Marsh, Steve Masters, Geoff Mayes, Andy Moore, Martha Vickers, Tony Vickers. (16)

 

AGAINST the Amendment:

 

Councillors Steve Ardagh-Walter, Jeff Beck, Dennis Benneyworth, Dominic Boeck, Graham Bridgeman, Jeff Cant, Hilary Cole, James Cole, Lynne Doherty, Rick Jones, Alan Law, Tony Linden, Ross Mackinnon, Thomas Marino, Biyi Oloko, Graham Pask, Claire Rowles, Richard Somner, Joanne Stewart, Andrew Williamson, Howard Woollaston. (21)

 

ABSTAINED from voting on the Amendment:

 

Councillor Gareth Hurley (1)

 

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

 

Councillor Richard Somner was pleased to note the continued level of support outlined in the Strategy for highways, transport and the countryside as it represented a solid enabling position, helped to develop local infrastructure and the local economy, maintained a green district, and ensured sustainable services through innovation and partnerships. He noted that it was underpinned by collaborative funding streams from the government and the use of S106 and CIL monies which helped to deliver on a number of projects. The Strategy enabled a programme of work over a number of years and allowed for continued prioritisation and planning for delivery across the district. Councillor Somner highlighted a number of projects which would receive capital funding and that would provide various opportunities to fulfil the Council’s aims.

 

Councillor Tony Linden indicated his support for the Calcot School remodelling and stated how the investment of just over £6m was welcomed in the Tilehurst Birch Copse Ward.

 

Councillor Andy Moore drew attention to the £134k allocated over the next two years for the Newbury Town Centre Master Plan which had been recently launched. He queried whether future funding would be made available following that two year period given the importance of the Plan to many people across the district.

 

Councillor Tony Vickers advised that as a Member representing the Newbury Wash Common Ward he was pleased to see just under £5.5m allocated to cover additional pupil numbers at Park House School. He noted that the school had converted to academy status and questioned if the Council was able to invest capital funding as a result. He suggested that perhaps a joint venture could be arranged to help address ongoing issues with the infrastructure at the school.

  

Councillor Carolyne Culver explained the reasoning behind the Green Party having brought forward only one amendment to the Capital Strategy this year.

 

Councillor Phil Barnett welcomed the proposals for the Kings Road link road, the Burger King roundabout, and the Kings Road roundabout. He stated that it was important for Ward Members to be involved in these proposed schemes given the interaction between them and the effect on traffic flow.

 

Councillor Adrian Abbs argued that the proposed investment in environmental schemes would do little to achieve net zero by 2030 given the focus only on what the Council controlled, and asked for the administration to be more imaginative in bringing forward environmental proposals.

 

Councillor Lynne Doherty referred to the major and local schemes proposed that she felt delivered for the whole district, and highlighted the investment planned in particular for the Newbury Speen Ward. She was pleased to see the amount of consultation that had taken place with residents to seek views on the capital investment and welcomed the proposals.

 

Councillor Thomas Marino welcomed the investment for the remodelling and refurbishment work at Brookfields School.

 

Councillor David Marsh indicated his general support for some of the proposals in the Strategy but pointed out that electric vehicle charging points needed to be better located, that funding for the planting of wildflower meadows needed to be continued in future years, and that work to progress carbon reduction measures should be undertaken more quickly. He also called for more funding for the review of 30 mile per hour speed limits given it was such a vital issue for residents.

 

Councillor Lee Dillon explained that his Group would not be supporting the Strategy overall although they agreed with some of the individual measures contained within it. He also concurred with Councillor Marsh’s statement on the speed limit reviews. 

 

Councillor Jeremy Cottam indicated his support for the proposed investment in the LIDO and for flood relief in Thatcham.

 

Councillor Steve Ardagh-Walter noted that not many electric vehicles were currently driven in the district but that the investment in and the provision of electric vehicle charging points would be reviewed and increased when required in the future. He advised that Members would be updated shortly on specific projects where the Council was supporting and co-ordinating the activities of other nature facing organisations in the district, and referred to the forthcoming, significant investment in the separate food waste collection which would help the environment and improve services to residents. He concluded that there was a strong environmental portfolio in the capital budget and commended it to Council.

 

Councillor Dominic Boeck advised that the vast majority of children had been assigned a place in a secondary school of their choice this year, with 88% having obtained their first choice in September 2022. This was credited to the close working relationship with the schools, the detailed planning of the Education Team, and the support provided in the Capital Programme. Councillor Boeck then confirmed that the Council was responsible for the provision of basic need (classrooms for children) at Park House School but that the responsibility for ongoing maintenance rested with the Academy. He highlighted that over £52m of the £220m set out in the five year programme would be spent on the education of children and young people by providing school places for them, and maintaining and improving facilities to enhance accessibility for SEN children. He then indicated his pleasure at the allocation of a substantial sum of money for the improvement of footpaths in the Aldermaston Ward.

 

Councillor Mackinnon closed the debate by clarifying that his surprise regarding the Green Party Amendment was over the topic and not the number of amendments proposed, and he welcomed that Councillors were discussing the ways in which the Strategy would support their Wards. He confirmed that there was £150k in revenue reserves for town centre studies but that nothing had been procured for Thatcham yet to avoid confusion with the local visioning plan and that he was expecting it to be brought forward in the first quarter of the new financial year. Funds for both Thatcham and Newbury would be set aside and the Capital Strategy Group would assess any projects submitted. Councillor Mackinnon then noted that the proposed amendments to the Strategy could be funded by CIL, but if other projects were not cut then borrowing would still need to take place to fund the other projects that CIL had been moved from.

 

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

 

FOR the Motion:

 

Councillors Steve Ardagh-Walter, Jeff Beck, Dennis Benneyworth, Dominic Boeck, Graham Bridgeman, Jeff Cant, Hilary Cole, James Cole, Lynne Doherty, Gareth Hurley, Rick Jones, Alan Law, Tony Linden, Ross Mackinnon, Thomas Marino, Biyi Oloko, Graham Pask, Claire Rowles, Richard Somner, Joanne Stewart, Andrew Williamson, Howard Woollaston. (22)

 

AGAINST the Motion:

 

Councillors Adrian Abbs, Phil Barnett, Jeff Brooks,Jeremy Cottam, Lee Dillon, Billy Drummond,Nassar Hunt, Royce Longton,Owen Jeffrey, Geoff Mayes, Andy Moore, Martha Vickers, Tony Vickers. (13)

 

ABSTAINED from voting on the Motion:

 

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

 

(The meeting was adjourned at 7.45pm and reconvened at 8.00pm)