Agenda item

Purpose: To outline the Capital Strategy period 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.

Council considered a report (Agenda Item 6) concerning the Capital Strategy for the Financial Years 2025/26 to 2028/29.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Iain Cottingham and seconded by Councillor Jeff Brooks:

“That Council approves the Capital Strategy and supporting capital programme for financial year 2025/26 as set out as Appendix A to the report.”

Councillor Cottingham introduced the report and highlighted that the report provided an overview of the Councils plans for investments in infrastructure and public services in West Berkshire. He also clarified the distinction between revenue and capital, and that the Council could borrow to support capital investments but could not borrow to support day to day expenses (the revenue budget).

It was emphasised that each capital project, such as Special Education Needs and Disabilities infrastructure, supporting nutrient neutrality, Brookfields expansion, and highways and infrastructure improvements, would be aligned with the Councils priorities. This included £3.13m for ‘services we are proud of’, £12.08m for ‘a fairer West Berkshire with opportunities for all’, £25.61m for ‘tackling climate change and ecological emergency’, £23.4m for ‘a prosperous and resilient West Berkshire’, and £0.36 for ‘thriving communities with a strong local voice’.

Overall, the Council would seek to use capital receipts flexibly whilst continuing to derisk from commercial property.

AMENDMENT: In the name of the Minority Group, proposed by Councillor Adrian Abbs and Seconded by Councillor Clive Taylor:

“Original Text:

Planned Capital Programme: Financial Year 2025/26.

Proposed amendment:

1.       Social care management system replacement: remove from the programme. Saving: £959,694.

2.       Procurement and implementation of new financial management system: remove from the programme. Saving: £750,000.

3.       West Berkshire Museum damp conditions improvement. Reduce by 50% to £191,625. Saving: £191,625.

4.       Microsoft Co-pilot feasibility study. Reduce by 50% to £27,500. Saving: £27,500.

Total reduction in capital programme as per the above: £1,928,819. We propose that the resultant savings in borrowing be used to support the 2025/26 revenue budget.”

Councillor Abbs introduced the proposed amendment and highlighted that, with devolution and local government reorganisation approaching, the Council should wait to see what structure it would be taking, and with what new partners, before making significant investments in new systems. In addition, with the current constraints on Council staffing, delaying the procurement of new systems would free up Officer time. He also believed that Central Government would assist with the reorganisation costs as it was a policy driven by the Government. A number of other Members also agreed that the adoption of new systems should be delayed until the outcome of local government reorganisation was known, and that the Council should seek to negotiate extensions to their existing licenses. If removed from the capital programme, the savings from the not adopting these systems amounted to almost £2m.

On the Microsoft Co-pilot feasibility study, it was questioned why this was necessary. The Council could either do a full feasibility study with all of the potential other AI options or move ahead with adopting Co-pilot. Finally, on the museum damp proofing, Councillor Abbs suggested that a significant amount could be saved by using alternative means, such as infrared heating or purchasing dehumidifiers.

However, some Members disagreed with the proposed amendment, indicating that number of licenses for Co-pilot were reasonable and that it would fit in with the Council’s existing software.

For the care management system, as the existing system was approaching the end of it supported life, the Council would need to move toward a system that would continue to be supported and was compliant. This would also ensure the system would continue to be patched and provide the best possible cyber security defences, although some Members questioned whether the new system would have positive cyber security implications. The comments of the Section 151 Officer on the proposed amendment were also mentioned, that the Council would not save money by cancelling the social care management system at this point in time due to contractual obligations.

On local government reorganisation, it was emphasised that the timescales for this were not certain. It was suggested that the new authority could take three to five years to be created and up to that point the Council would still need to use up to date systems in order to continue to provide effective services to residents. At the point at which the new authority was created, there would then be an amalgamation of systems.

Members also noted that the Grade 1 listed Museum was experiencing damp and needed remedial work. As it was an important asset for West Berkshire, these works were needed in order to ensure that the Museum could continue to display it exhibits.

The proposed amendment was put to the vote. In accordance with the provisions outlined in the Constitution, the vote on the proposed amendment to the Capital Strategy would be recorded. The names of those Members voting for, against, and abstaining were read to the Council as follows:

The Minority Group amendment was declared LOST.

AMENDMENT: In the name of the Conservative Group, proposed by Councillor Ross Mackinnon and Seconded by Councillor Richard Somner:

“Original Text:

Planned Capital Programme: Financial Year 2025/26

Proposed amendment:

Remove from the Capital Strategy:

a)       Social Care management system replacement for Care Director v6, £959,964

b)       Procurement & implementation of new financial management system, £750,000

c)       Playing Pitch Action Plan, £340,000

Removal of these items from the Capital Strategy will reduce the Council’s borrowing requirement by £2,049,964, resulting in a reduction in capital financing costs in the Revenue Budget of £116,643.”

Councillor Mackinnon introduced the proposed amendment and highlighted that parts a and b were similar to those proposed by the Minority Group. However, he sought clarity on the £340k allocated for the Playing Pitch Action Plan and if this would be used to pay for the costs of external advisors. He highlighted that with the savings in the amendment, the Council could keep to two-week bin collections and maintain the current gritting schedule, both of which were reduced in the proposed Revenue Budget. 

In response to the comment on the Playing Pitch Action Plan, Council noted that the Playing Pitch Strategy was targeted for completion in July 2025 and would inform where pitches are short in the district, and that it was the Strategy where the Council procured consultants. The £340k in the budget for the Playing Pitch Action Plan would be used to implement the findings of the Strategy. The funds for the Action Plan were indicative and would not all necessarily be spent in the 2025/26 financial year but would hopefully help contribute to the long-term needs of the district. 

The Chairman agreed to a request by Councillor Mackinnon, that a separate vote would be taken on two parts of the proposed amendment. Proposed amendment (parts a and b) was put to the vote.

The Conservative Group amendment (parts a and b) was declared LOST.

Proposed amendment (part c) was put to the vote.

The Conservative Group amendment (part c) was declared LOST.

Debate returned to the substantive motion.

Council noted the projects detailed in the planned capital programme, including a number of works for schools. Some of these works included new and improved classrooms and more facilities to enable increased places for special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) pupils, as well as for maintenance of roofs and better heating and damp proofing.

Investments in leisure, such as at the Cotswold Leisure Centre and Faraday Road, the pop-up library project, additional active travel infrastructure, highways and footways investments, flood alleviation investments, refurbishment of temporary accommodation, and additional climate change initiatives were also mentioned as brining significant benefits to the residents of West Berkshire.

However, some Members expressed concerns about the progress of the Calcot School remodelling. As the project was delayed, the school proceeded with the rationalisation of class sizes before the accommodation was finished and now risked posing a threat to the quality of education for the students. The Administration was appealed to ensure that the project got underway without further delays.

In addition, Members highlighted that several projects targeted for inclusion in the 2025/26 budget, had seen their funding cut without an explanation, such as replacing the modular classrooms at Falklands School and the Calcot School scheme.

Overall, although there were projects in the planned capital programme that gained wide support, some Members remained concerned about their delivery and that the funding for some projects could be better spent elsewhere.

The substantive motion was put to the vote. In accordance with the provisions outlined in the Constitution, the vote on the Capital Strategy would be recorded. The names of those Members voting for, against, and abstaining were read to the Council as follows:

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.