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 and Supporting Programme for the financial years 2026/27 - 2029/30.

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

“That Council approves the Capital Strategy appended to this report and its sub appendices:

(a) Appendix A – Capital Strategy

(b) Appendices B & C – Capital Programme for financial years 2026/27-2029/30

(c) Appendix D – Flexible Use of Capital Receipts Policy”

Councillor Cottingham introduced the report and highlighted that the Capital Strategy showed how the Council would use capital expenditure towards public services in West Berkshire. The principal sources of funding for these projects would be from capital receipts, borrowing, grants, and Community Infrastructure Levies (CIL) and Section 106 funding.

The Programme sought to build and improve the district’s infrastructure, investing £171m over the next four years (£49m coming from Council and £122m from external funding). Some of the key areas of focus would be the turning of Chestnut Walk from an unused care house into emergency accommodation (worth £1.1m), the provision of Falklands school classrooms (worth £2.8m), an education capital enhancement programme (worth £3m), Brookfields classrooms expansion (worth £1.2m), active travel infrastructure (worth £1.8m), and for River Lambourn net neutrality (worth £2.1m). Other Members also highlighted several other key projects in the district that would be brought forward from the Capital Strategy, such as the provision of sporting facilities, improved bus services, road resurfacing, ICT systems, and rural and urban economic development.

Councillor Cottingham informed Council that the programme to derisk speculative property investments would continue with a structured disposal plan, reinvesting the proceeds in areas that would generate a better return. This was despite the point raised by some Members that the property portfolio had consistently generated income from the Council every year.

Some Members raised concerns about the involvement of Sovereign Network Group (formerly Sovereign Housing) in the Council’s housing projects, indicating that they had a policy of selling off vacant homes and that residents had raised issues around the maintenance of their properties. In addition, on young people and schools, a question was asked about if enough investment was being made in school capacity, ensuring that children could be taught in their local communities, rather than having to travel. In response, the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee were encouraged to examine this aspect of the Programme.

The proposed investments in schools and renewable energy were welcomed. However, some wanted the projects to be more quickly actioned. It was also requested that the Administration should clarify the position of the Grazeley Solar Farm and bring it forward to Council so that it could be properly debated.

In response to a point about the description of some of the project titles being repeated over several projects, Council noted that this was due to the detailed activities relating to statutory duties.

Questions were raised about the projects that had not made it onto the Capital Programme. Some projects, such as the Faraday Road Football Ground, were not mentioned and were criticised as being a focus of funding. Whereas it was felt that the money spent on this project could have been used for other useful community facilities. The lack of clarity about how it would be funded was also raised as a concern.

As Councillor Tom McCann was not present for the entirety of the debate, the Monitoring Officer recommended that he should not vote on the item. Therefore, he has been recorded as an abstention.

The 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.