Cabinet Member for Assets & Investments
Minutes:
101.1 The Chair invited Councillor Gould – Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments, to introduce report MC/22/37.
101.2 Councillor Gould outlined the purpose of the report and PROPOSED the recommendations contained within the report, which was SECONDED by Councillor Fleming.
101.3 Councillor Mansel questioned the title of the item and queried the adequacy of recommendation 4.2 against recommendation 4.1, as site disposal was not a foregone conclusion. In addition, Councillor Mansel hoped that any site development would facilitate cyclists and pedestrians.
101.4 Councillor Gould gave assurances that the latter point would be taken onboard and reiterated the inceptive and non-prescriptive nature of the proposal and recommended provisions.
101.5 The Chair asked whether the clarification of “Any capital receipts” was an acceptable amendment to the recommendation.
101.6 Councillor Gould and Councillor Fleming accepted the amendment.
101.7 Councillor Amorowson questioned further phrase construction within the recommendations.
101.8 Councillor Gould dismissed pedantic alterations.
101.9 Councillor Field requested clarity of ongoing costs or savings to the project and requested assurance that any future savings would not be misused.
101.10 Councillor Gould clarified potential operational savings estimated at £75-150,000 but invited the Director for Assets and Investments to respond.
101.11 The Director for Assets and Investments reported the net impact as £13,000 per annum as a best case scenario and £163,000 worst case scenario, due to the cost of borrowing.
101.12 Councillor Matthissen asked how the different sites were chosen.
101.13 The Director for Assets and Investments explained featured sites were where services utilised the Council’s existing depots, as the report looked for an equivalent premise.
101.14 Councillor Field expressed concern about the land value estimations and potential excess funds.
101.15 The Director for Assets and Investments confirmed that no palaces will be built, and that current provisions are based on a fully serviced site.
101.16 The Chair advised the Council that the focus should be on whether the total amount was sufficient, and not delve into individual estimations.
101.17 Councillor Mellen asked whether the financial commitment would irrevocably tie the Council down to a single future depot, and whether staff travel distances had been considered.
101.18 Councillor Gould confirmed that the proposal was non-binding, and that the issues of travel distances would be explored when the business case developed.
101.19 Councillor Warboys inquired whether the provision of household recycling depots would also be under consideration.
101.20 Councillor Gould replied that it was a matter for the County Council.
101.21 Councillor Stringer asked for suggestions not be ruled out at this stage of the proposal, such as sloped or split level disposals sites and joint household waste services, and highlighted the need for connectivity and access.
101.22 Councillor Gould responded that the Council would need to remain focused on the proposal’s objective but not at the expense of a very good idea.
101.23 Councillor Amorowson questioned the impact on employment.
101.24 Councillor Gould clarified that operational pressures may entail a net increase in employment and that the Council is sensitive to the issue.
101.25 Councillor Fleming confirmed that the District Councils already work closely with the County Council in respect of household waste management and commented that this needed to be discussed at the Suffolk Waste Partnership level to enable all partners to work together.
101.26 Councillors debated the matter. The need for adequate facilities was agreed. Concern was voiced towards coverage, clustering services, and staff travel, whilst it was reasoned that the proposal was for financial provisions and did not bind the Council to a specific option.
By a unanimous vote,
It was RESOLVED:
1.1 That £6m is added to the Council’s Capital Programmes from 23/24 budget year to deliver improved depot facilities.
1.2 Any Capital receipts from the disposal of existing depot sites will be added to the capital programme in later years.
Councillor Phillips left the meeting at 7.55pm.
Supporting documents: