Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions
Contact: Committee Services
No. | Item |
---|---|
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS BY COUNCILLORS Minutes:
204.1 In accordance with delegated authority, the Monitoring Officer had granted dispensation to all members in respect to all Members in respect of the 20/21 Budget papers. There were no declarations of interests.
204.2 There were no declarations made by Members.
|
|
BC/19/32 TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 21 JANUARY 2020 PDF 267 KB Minutes: It was resolved:
205.1 That the minutes of the meeting held on 21 January 2020 be confirmed and signed as a true record with the following amendments:
205.2 Paragraph 200.1: At Cabinet it was agreed that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee should review the funding for Citizens Advice annually.
205.3 That Councillor Margaret Maybury be removed from the attendance list, as she had forwarded apologies for the meeting.
205.4 To note that Councillor Maybury did not vote on the minutes as she was absent from the previous meeting.
|
|
BC/19/33 ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE CHAIRMAN AND LEADER PDF 18 KB In addition to any announcements made at the meeting, please see Paper BC/19/33 attached, detailing events attended by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
Minutes:
206.1 Councillor Grandon, Chair of Babergh District Council, referred to Paper BC/19/33, which was for noting.
206.2 She invited Councillor Ward, the Leader to make his announcements.
206.3 Councillor Ward made the following announcements:
INR & Sudbury Bypass
Following recent commentary in the media, he had decided to clarify a couple of things regarding bypasses.
Firstly, although the business case for the Sudbury Bypass was not at present sound, due to new ways of calculating the costs and benefits, Babergh was still supportive of the project. He hoped, it would be revived in the future, which was why it remained one of the goals in the new Corporate Plan.
Conversely, whilst the business case for the INR was very strong, he regrettably accepted that it would be impossible to deliver the significant additional housing needed to pay for the road. Mid and East Suffolk were already committed to meeting the government’s current housing targets in their new local plans and were unable to add any more. SCC’s Cabinet had now formally brought the project to an end. However, as he had said in the press, this was a setback for Ipswich and the whole county and he was sure it would have to be revisited at some point in the future, hopefully sooner rather than later.
Sudbury Vision Event
Last month’s ‘What Next for Sudbury?’ exhibition and consultation event was very well attended, and they had 569 completed questionnaires. There had been feedback received and that was being worked through and would be discussed with interested parties and partners first before sharing anything more widely.
Equality & Diversity Training
The Leader provided another plea to sign up to the mandatory equality and diversity training. Just under half of Members from BMSDC have attended so far and all Members need to do this.
|
|
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES In accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 11, the Chief Executive will report the receipt of any petitions. There can be no debate or comment upon these matters at the Council meeting.
Minutes: 207.1 There were no petitions received.
|
|
QUESTIONS BY THE PUBLIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES PDF 100 KB The Chairmen of Committees to answer any questions by the public of which notice has been given no later than midday three clear working days before the day of the meeting in accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 12.
Minutes: 208.1 Councillor Grandon referred to the tabled papers for questions received from members of the public.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC BDC 26th February 2020
Question 1
Mr P Marshall to ask the following questions:
1. To ask the Leader of the Council:
In a recent Babergh Cabinet meeting which was broadcast on You Tube, it was advised that the proposed terms to a lease with Hotel operator for the Belle Vue site in Sudbury were being changed from 25 years to 24 years. The Chief Executive did also propose that the terms could be changed to 24 years and 364 days. Please can you confirm that the change to the proposed lease terms has NOT been done to circumnavigate any of the Asset of Community Value implications under the Localism Act 2011 which would be a consideration if the base term were 25 years and if not close to circumnavigate what was the reason for the change.
Response from Cllr Ward:
Belle Vue House and the former swimming pool site have been listed as an Asset of Community Value since 31st March 2015. The District Council gave notice on an intention to dispose of this site originally in 2015. A community bid was received in 2015 but was unsuccessful when assessed against the other bids received, and this did contribute towards the delay in bringing this site forward with the selected party, a hotel operator.
The 18-month protected period was triggered again in November 2019, primarily due to the request for expressions of interest in Belle Vue House and the unknown nature as to whether that interest would be on a freehold or leasehold basis. Whilst the protection is in place against disposal of both the house and swimming pool site, a lease of either building for less than 25 years would not constitute disposal as defined by the Localism Act 2011. Therefore, should the Council wish to proceed with a lease to the Hotel Operator we would be able to do so on a lease of less than 25 years. A final decision on this has yet to be made. Also, the design of the hotel scheme has been an iterative process and several changes have been made including changing it from two separate buildings to a single stacked building to reduce the land needed for the scheme. The hotel scheme has been consulted on recently in the “What Next for Sudbury” Event; these responses are currently being analysed and a final review of the whole scheme will be required before an agreement for lease is entered into or a planning application is submitted.
This project is good for Sudbury and the whole district and it has a lot of support, which is why the Cabinet voted for it and the full Council approved its financing.
|
|
QUESTIONS BY COUNCILLORS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES The Chairman of the Council, the Chairmen of Committees and Sub-Committees and Portfolio Holders to answer any questions on any matters in relation to which the Council has powers or duties or which affect the District of which due notice has been given in accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 13.
Minutes: None received. |
|
BC/19/34 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE REPORT PDF 250 KB Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee Minutes: Note: Councillor Maybury left the meeting at 5:41 pm.
210.1 Councillor McCraw, Chair of the Babergh Overview and Scrutiny Committee, referred to Paper BC/19/34 and presented his report.
210.2 Councillor Beer was pleased that the contact tool would be updated and forwarded to Members.
Note: Councillor Maybury returned to the meeting at 5:52 pm.
211.1 Councillor Maybury subsequently declared that she had an interest in this Item, as a Director of the Citizens Advice.
|
|
BC/19/35 GENERAL FUND BUDGET 2020/21 AND FOUR-YEAR OUTLOOK PDF 1 MB Cabinet Member for Finance
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19.3, immediately after any vote is taken at a budget decision meeting of the Council the names of Councillors who cast a vote for the decision or against the decision or who abstained from voting shall be recorded in the Minutes of that meeting.
At its meeting on 11 February 2020, Cabinet considered Paper BCa/19/34, together with amendments to the General Fund Budget. Paper BC/19/35 now includes all the relevant updated information, together with the necessary recommendations. Additional documents:
Minutes: 211.1 The Chair invited Councillor Ward, the Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance to introduce Paper BC/19/35.
Note: The Tabled Papers included an updated Appendix C
211.2 Councillor Ward informed Members that the report contained the revenue and capital budgets and the Council’s strategic financial aim. The General Fund budget enabled the Council to agree the budget and to consider the medium-term financial position, ensuring it was sustainable.
211.3 He continued that the Government had deferred the Fair Funding Review, the Business Rate review and the Business Rate reset for twelve months.
211.4 The financial settlement for this coming year provided an additional £265k as indicated in paragraph 4.14 of the report. The Council had a sound financial strategy responding to the changing landscape of funding and he referred to section 6 in the report. Self-sufficiency and maximising of income streams continued, including finding new ways of working. Projection of future funding was on-going, and it was important to work on the projected Four-year Outlook, which was detailed in paragraphs 8.2 to 8.18. The current projection had produced a compelling case for the increase of Council Tax.
211.5 He then advised that Council tax increases would be implemented to the maximum level allowed of £5 per year or 3.1% for Band D properties and thereafter be increased by 2% for the following years. The increase of Council tax revenue would help to offset the ongoing cost the Council faced, as illustrated in the tabled Appendix C, and would generate an additional income of £308k for 2020/21.
211.6 There would be an increase in long term parking charges from £2 to £3 for 24 hours parking, though the first three hours would remain free.
211.7 Since 2011/12 the Council had saved a total of £17.4m through maximising shared services, better use of technology and maximising commercial opportunities. Further savings of £2.6m have been identified for the next year and beyond and details were in paragraph 8.18.
211.8 He then detailed the main budget entries for the General Fund Budget and added that £278k was earmarked from reserves to achieve a balanced budget. He remarked that it should be noted that the use of reserves of £278k was half of the amount for the current year. For 2020/21 the Council would be in a position to transfer a surplus of £711k to the Transformation Fund, details of which could be found in paragraphs 8.6 -8.10.
211.9 The Council would be using all of the New Homes Bonus and Section 31 Grant, which was a total of £4.11m. However, there would still be budget gap of £1.1m at the end of March 2024 as indicated in paragraphs 8.19 to 8.23.
211.10 Reserve levels were illustrated in paragraph 7.5 table 3. At the end of March 2021, it was expected that £994k would be in the Transformation Fund. However, the reserves level excluding CIL, had dropped by 6% during the period March 2019 to March 2021.
211.11 The Capital Programme was set out in ... view the full minutes text for item 211. |
|
BC/19/36 HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT (HRA) BUDGET 2020/21 AND LONGER-TERM OUTLOOK PDF 851 KB Cabinet Member for Finance
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19.3, immediately after any vote is taken at a budget decision meeting of the Council the names of Councillors who cast a vote for the decision or against the decision or who abstained from voting shall be recorded in the Minutes of that meeting.
At its meeting on 11 February 2020, Cabinet considered Paper BCa/19/35, together with amendments to the Housing Revenue Account. Paper BC/19/36 now includes all the relevant updated information, together with the necessary recommendations.
Minutes: 212.1 The Chair of the Council invited Councillor Ward, to introduce Paper BC/19/36 and to move the recommendations in the report.
212.2 Councillor Ward stated that the Council had a sound 30-year business plan, which had resulted in favourable positions for both revenue and capital for 2020/21. This had been helped by the ending of the annual 1% rent reduction imposed by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016. The act now allowed rents to be increased by CPI (currently 1.7%) +1% for five years from 2020-21. The remaining 25 years of the Business Plan were based on an annual rent increase of CPI only. The full 30-year Business Plan was attached at Appendix B.
212.3 A fundamental review of housing services had been undertaken during 2019/20 to identify savings, efficiencies and income generation opportunities to achieve a sustainable business plan into the future. The scope of this review was provided in section 7.1 of the report.
212.4 The Council was continuing with an aspiration to increase the housing stock. New homes of all types would provide the Council with New Homes Bonus and Council Tax income, whilst additional council housing would deliver rental income and wider financial and social benefits.
212.5 The table in section 10.1 of the report detailed the HRA budget for 2020/21, based on a 2.7% rent increase, and highlighted the movement from the 2019/20 budget.
212.6 A surplus position of £334k was forecast, which was a significant improvement on the 2019/20 position. This had been achieved by reducing both revenue and capital budgets (table in 10.1). He proposed to transfer this surplus to the HRA reserves.
212.7 He outlined the key adverse movements as:
· A reduction in income of £187k, primarily due to 2020/21 being a 52-week year whereas 2019/20 was 53 weeks, and delays in new builds. · An increase of £189k in general management costs due to staff costs and the transfer of an ICT budget to the HRA. · An increase of £56k for Repairs and Maintenance. · An increase of £68k for Property Services. 212.8 Set against these were favourable variances, notably a reduction in Revenue Contribution to Capital of £1.047m due to the revised capital programme.
212.9 In addition to the rent increase, it was proposed to increase sheltered housing charges by £2 per week to ensure recovery of the actual cost, but that utility charges were kept at the same level as the current year. Garage rents would remain at the current level and work was continued to look for alternative uses for unviable garage sites.
212.10 Next year would see a focus on the terms of all contracts (those more than £50k) being reviewed, to identify savings opportunities, as well as a decision whether on the long-term future of Building Services was via a joint venture with Flagship Housing. A review of the HRA Business Plan will also be undertaken. Income increases or savings would continue to be reflected in the budget and would be monitored during the year.
212.11 The ... view the full minutes text for item 212. |
|
BC/19/37 JOINT CAPITAL, INVESTMENT AND TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 2020/21 PDF 951 KB Cabinet Member for Finance
At its meeting on 11 February 2020, Cabinet considered Paper BCa/19/36, together with amendments to the Joint Capital, Investment & Treasury Management Strategies. Paper BC/19/37 now includes all the relevant updated information, together with the necessary recommendations.
Minutes: 213.1 The Chair of the Council invited Councillor Ward to introduce Paper BC/19/37.
213.2 Councillor Ward, the Leader, summarised the concerns of the MHCLG and CIPFA, which had resulted in a separate Capital, Investment and Treasury Management strategy statements and prudential indicators following the new guidance issued by CIPFA and MHCLG.
213.3 Councillor Ward then directed Members’ attention to the main points in the report, the Capital Strategy in Appendix A summarised the capital expenditure and financing requirements of the full capital programme, for both the GF and HRA, the details of which were detailed in the Budget Reports.
213.4 The report outlined the capital expenditure and capital investment decisions and the associated risks and rewards along with how risk was managed for future financial sustainability.
213.5 Capital expenditure for the next four years was shown in table 1 (paragraph 2.3) and the financing was detailed in table 2 (paragraph 2.11). The tables indicated that the total capital expenditure planned for 2020/21 was £32.89m, and most of the general fund expenditure would be funded by borrowing.
213.6 Appendix A included Prudential Indicators, which demonstrated that the Councils’ investment plans were affordable, prudent and sustainable, and decisions were made according to good practice. Tables 1, 4, 6, 8 and 9 illustrated the affordability and impact of capital expenditure decisions and included both Councils’ overall capital and treasury framework.
213.7 Tables 6 and 7 outlined borrowing measured against two benchmarks – the Capital Financing Requirement and Liability Benchmark. Babergh’s CFR was expected to increase by £21.34m to £177.77m in 2020/21 and the Outstanding Debt to increase by £15.25m to £138.21m.
213.8 Appendix B detailed those expenditure items in the capital programme that specifically relate to assets bought/owned by the Councils to generate a return, or for regeneration or development of the local area. In this context “Investments” means non-treasury management activities, which were described separately in Appendix C. There were 2 types of these investments:
· Service Provision – where the Councils lend to or buy shares in organisations that provide a service · “For profit” Commercial Investments which generated a return – such as the Council owned companies CIFCO and Gateway 14, but also our directly-owned property assets.
213.9 Both Councils were continuing to develop their property and commercial portfolios, either by purchasing them directly or through the Councils’ investment companies.
213.10 Appendix C sets out the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy and borrowing requirement and borrowing and treasury management investment strategies. It also included the list of Approved Investment Counterparties and Limits. Table 1 (paragraph 3.3) illustrated the breakdown of the Capital Financing Requirement over the next four years. Both Councils had an increasing CFR due to the capital programme and investments.
213.11 Councillor Ward then summarised the content in Appendices D to I.
NOTE - Correction to Appendix A: page 130, paragraph 7.2, the Babergh number should read 4.44% and the Mid Suffolk 9.93%.
213.12 Councillor Ward MOVED recommendations 3.1 to 3.7 in the report, which was SECONDED by Councillor Holt.
213.13 ... view the full minutes text for item 213. |
|
RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS FROM CABINET / COMMITTEES |
|
JAC/19/10 HALF YEAR REPORT ON TREASURY MANAGEMENT 2019/20 PDF 600 KB Chair of Joint Audit and Standards Committee
At its meeting on 27 January 2020, the Joint Audit and Standards Committee considered Paper JAC/19/10 and accepted the recommendations as set out in the report:
Recommendation to both Councils
(1) That the Treasury Management activity for the first six months of 2019/20 as set out in the report and Appendices be noted.
(2) That it be noted that both Councils’ Treasury Management activity for the first six months of 2019/20 was in accordance with the approved Treasury Management Strategy, and that the Council has complied with all the Treasury Management indicators for this period.
Note: It is a requirement of the Code of Practice on Treasury Management that full Council notes the Half-Year position.
Minutes: 214a.1 Councillor Hurren introduced the report and said that this was the joint Treasury management report covering the position for the first six months of the financial year 2019/20. It provided details of the performance, effects of decisions taken during that period and confirms compliance with the Council’s treasury management policy.
214a.2 The report explained in more detail the factors affecting the strategy and activities, including the regulatory framework, economic conditions, interest rate and liquidity risk.
214a.3 Interest rates during the year continued at very low levels, and the Bank of England Rate remained at 0.75%.
214a.4 Even though leaving the EU was delayed until 31 January 2020 a key concern was the limited transitionary period following exit date, which would maintain and create additional uncertainty over the next few years. Adding to that, the ongoing dispute about the imposition of tariffs between the US and China contributed to a slowdown in the global economy during 2019.
214a.5 Councillor Hurren then outlined the point in the report including:
1. Banking activities undertaken were within the daily bank account limits. 2. Each Council has reduced its short-term debt. Babergh by £989k and Mid Suffolk by £2.67m. 3. Mid Suffolk lent a further £4.9m to Gateway 14 Ltd, which was financed from available short-term money market funds. 4. All investment activities undertaken were in accordance with the approved counterparty list. 5. The councils’ investment activities including average returns can be found at Appendix C of the report on page 187. 6. Both Councils made another investment of £2m each in a higher yielding strategic pooled fund (Investec Diversified Income Fund) 7. Investment by both Councils in Funding Circle has reduced as unallocated funds have been reclaimed and existing loans repaid. For Babergh this was £191k of the £405k previously invested and for Mid Suffolk it was £183k of the £398k. Leaving the balance at 30th September as £214k for Babergh and £215k for Mid Suffolk.
8. Both councils were compliant with the upper limits for interest rate exposure. The investment activity undertaken for the half year was done so in priority order of security and liquidity over yield as prescribed in the Treasury Management Strategy. He referred to 1.2 in Appendix A P 179.
214a.6 He continued that he could reassure Members that the Council’s money and other peoples in our control never stands still and was always earning if possible. For this he would have to pay tribute to the small but very dedicated team.
214a.7 Councillor Hurren MOVED Recommendations 3.1 and 3.2 in the report, which was SECONDED by Councillor Ward.
214a.8 Councillor Hinton was concerned that report was perhaps a little bit historical with regards to the financial markets due to the Covid-19 Pandemic and the effect this would have for the Council.
214a.9 Councillor Hurren responded that there currently there were no figures for the effect of the Covid-19 Pandemic.
214a.10 The recommendations were put to Members for voting and the vote was CARRIED.
It was RESOLVED: ... view the full minutes text for item 214a |
|
BC/19/38 PROPOSED CHANGES TO COUNCIL MEETING DATES 2020-21 PDF 253 KB Leader of the Council Minutes: 215.1 The Chair invited Councillor Ward to introduce Paper BC/19/38 and move the recommendation in the report.
215.2 Councillor Ward, the Leader, explained the reasons for the proposed changes to the number of Council Meetings. Council meetings would be held every two months, with an additional meeting in February for the budget. If necessary additional meetings could be held.
215.3 Councillor Ward MOVED recommendation 2.1 in the report which was SECONDED by Councillor Beer.
215.4 Councillor Hinton was concerned that the reduction of Full Council meetings would not be compliant with the open and transparent clauses within the constitution and the corporate strategies.
215.5 Councillor Ward responded that there would only be a reduction of two meetings and added that Cabinet, Overview and Scrutiny, Joint Audit and Standard meetings were all open to Members and members of the public.
215.6 Councillor McCraw said that he could not support this, and he would rather that the eight-meeting schedule remain in place and then cancel those which were not required. He felt that Council was a show piece and that the public expected it.
215.7 Councillor Davis queried the the financial and the environment implications in the report and that these would not be affected by the proposed change to Council meetings. He disagreed, because there would be a reduction in cost for meetings and a reduction of trips to Ipswich for Members to attend the meetings. He reminded Members that the Council had made a pledge to be more environmentally friendly.
215.8 Councillor Hurren felt that this would affect the current processes and he would rather maintain the current schedule.
215.9 Councillor Parker thought that the proposed reduction in meetings was small and he failed to see the benefits.
215.10 Councillor Malvisi supported the proposed recommendations as less meetings would mean a reduction in paper and car journeys.
215.11 In response to Councillor Maybury’s questions regarding the six-month rules for attending Council meetings, the Monitoring Officer confirmed that this was a statutory requirement and would remain in place unless a Councillor had been granted dispensation for attendance in accordance with a set number of rules.
215.12 Councillor Cresswell thought that since many of the Council’s meetings were during the day, maintaining evening meetings for all Members to attend would benefit those, who were working, and he felt that any changes would be unbeneficial.
215.13 Councillor Busby added that full Council meetings were a space in which Members could debate the decisions coming forward and allow those, who did not attend Cabinet meetings regularly, to voice the opinions of their Wards.
215.14 Councillor McCraw thought that regular evening meetings benefitted all Members, but especially those who were not part of any Committee and he asked that Councillor Ward reconsider the Motion
215.15 Councillor Ward responded that matters were considered by either Cabinet or Council in accordance with the Constitution and that the Cabinet meetings were alternating between morning and afternoon meetings.
215.16 In response to several Members questions of accessibility to Cabinet ... view the full minutes text for item 215. |
|
COUNCILLOR APPOINTMENTS To note the following appointment:
Planning Committee
Councillor Mary McLaren (replacing Cllr Zac Norman)
Minutes: 216.1 The Chair invited Councillor Ward, the Leader to propose any changes to Councillor Appointments.
216.2 Councillor Ward PROPOSED that Councillor Zac Norman be replaced with Councillor Mary McLaren on the Babergh Planning Committee, which was SECONDED by Councillor Beer.
It was RESOLVED: -
That Councillor Mary McLaren be appointed to the Babergh Planning Committee to replace Councillor Zac Norman.
|