| Time: | 7.30pm | Place: | Council Chamber, Council Offices, Gernon Road, Letchworth Garden City |
| PRESENT: | Councillor R.L. Shakespeare - Smith (Chairman), Councillor John Booth (Vice-Chairman), Councillor Mrs A.G. Ashley, Councillor Alan Bardett, Councillor D.J. Barnard, Councillor Clare Billing, Councillor Judi Billing, Councillor P.C.W. Burt, Councillor Julian Cunningham, Councillor Bill Davidson, Councillor Jane Gray, Councillor Jean Green, Councillor Simon Harwood, Councillor Steve Hemingway, Councillor Fiona Hill, Councillor T.W. Hone, Councillor Tony Hunter, Councillor S.K. Jarvis, Councillor Sal Jarvis, Councillor Lorna Kercher, Councillor Joan Kirby, Councillor David Leal - Bennett, Councillor David Levett, Councillor Ben Lewis (from 7.38pm), Councillor Bernard Lovewell, Councillor Ian Mantle, Councillor Paul Marment, Councillor Alan Millard, Councillor M.R.M. Muir, Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, Councillor Janine Paterson, Councillor Frank Radcliffe, Councillor Mike Rice, Councillor Deborah Segalini, Councillor Harry Spencer-Smith, Councillor Mrs C.P.A. Strong and Councillor R.A.C. Thake. |
| IN ATTENDANCE: | Strategic Director of Customer Services, Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance, Accountancy Manager, Strategic Planning & Projects Manager, Acting Development & Conservation Manager, Acting Corporate Legal Manager, Committee & Member Services Manager and Committee & Member Services Officer. |
| ALSO PRESENT: | 21 members of the public. |
| Meeting attachments |
Agenda Front Sheets Audio Recording of First public part of meeting Audio Recording of Second public part of meeting |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
| PART I | ||||
| 78 |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors John Bishop, John Harris, Nicola Harris, Cathryn Henry, Jim McNally, Deepak Sangha, Adrian Smith and Michael Weeks. |
Noted | ||
| 79 |
MINUTES Minutes It was moved by Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, seconded by Councillor T.W. Hone, and RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 21 January 2016 be approved as a true record and signed by the Chairman. |
Agreed | ||
| 80 |
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS No additional business was presented for consideration by the Council. |
Noted | ||
| 81 |
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (1) Change in order of business The Chairman proposed that, as Members would need to give consideration to the Part 2 report on Churchgate prior to the Part 1 report, at the conclusion of Item 10 (Notice of Motions) he would be moving that the press and public be excluded from the meeting so that the Council could consider Item 13 (the Part 2 Churchgate report). At the conclusion of Item 13, the press and public would be re-admitted to the meeting for the Council's consideration of Item 11 (the Part 1 Churchgate report). However, in response to a request from a Member and in view of the fact that a number of members of the public were in attendance especially for the Churchgate matter, the Chairman agreed to modify his proposal so that the press and public would be excluded from the meeting at the conclusion of Item 5 (Public Participation) so that the Council could consider Item 13 (the Part 2 Churchgate report). At the conclusion of Item 13, the press and public would be re-admitted to the meeting for the Council's consideration of Item 11 (the Part 1 Churchgate report). (2) Declarations of Interest The Chairman reminded Members that, in line with the Code of Conduct, any Declarations of Interest needed to be declared immediately prior to the item in question. |
Noted | ||
| 82 |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The following speakers addressed the Council in respect of Item 11 on the agenda - Churchgate Area, Hitchin: Next Steps. (1) Mr Graham Payne (Hammersmatch) Mr Payne advised that he was a Director of Stimpsons Consultant Surveyors and his brother, Paul, owned Blue Otter Wines, which operated from the Churchgate Centre. They had taken over the running of Hammersmatch following their father's unexpected death. He was a commercial property surveyor, with 25 years experience which had included trying to let shops in Stevenage town centre during the recession of the early 1990s. His experience had given him a solid understanding of the retail property market and occupier's requirements regarding location and the need for visibility. Neither he nor his brother had any prior involvement with the Churchgate Extension Scheme prior their father David's death. David had already instructed Lambert Smith Hampton to market the scheme and, having always thought that the Churchgate Centre was a small scale less attractive Stevenage town centre, he was happy not to be involved. Having had the role of running Hammersmatch thrust upon them, Mr Payne and his brother were happy to be led by David's team regarding the existing proposed refurbishment and negotiations with NHDC about a new ground lease extension and site extension to facilitate the construction of a cinema. Mr Payne stated that his understanding was that RBS, the mortgage holders, were prepared to fund construction of the refurbishment, however, at a meeting in February 2015, they had made it clear that they no longer had the appetite for funding the scheme as they could not see an end in sight for the Council to agree the lease extension and provide the additional land. At the same time the prospective cinema operator, Cineworld, withdrew for the same reasons. He advised that, since March 2015, they had met with all of the main high street and alternative lenders in an attempt to fund development of the scheme, but the perceived lack of inertia from NHDC to commit to the lease extension and the high gearing of 40 percent had swiftly brought discussions to an end. Mr Payne stated that having reached the conclusion that funding would not be possible they had set about trying to find a joint venture partner and had met with a number of specialist town centre developers. However, in each case the experience had elicited the same reactions as follows: - Great town; - Great opportunity; - The design was compromised and would not attract national occupiers, due to lack of visibility and the size and shape of units; - The Centre was jerry built and extending upward would be problematic. This was backed by the engineer's report; - The gearing of ground rent needed to match every other centre at 10 percent; - A cinema would most likely want too high an incentive, which would make the scheme unviable. He stated that Hitchin deserved a cinema, but the operators did not share their enthusiasm. The only cinema that would give them time over the last year made a proposal that required construction and fitting out of the unit at the developers cost plus payment of a £2.3 million incentive package, which was not fundable. Nothing would have made them happier than to have presented their father's plan to funding and joint venture markets, and to have received a chorus of approval in response. This had simply not been the case, the opposite was true. It was apparent that there was no shortage of people willing to fund the right scheme, but the Churchgate Expansion Scheme was no longer that scheme. Mr Payne stated that Einstein's quote on the definition of madness had been used as an excuse by the Churchgate Extension Scheme committee for not progressing discussion, but this quote was clearly far more apt regarding continuing to drive the proposed scheme forward. They had proposed to the Committee that they, together with joint venture partners, UCG, work to achieve construction of a new scheme as quickly as possible. UCG was a privately owned company with unprecedented experience in the development of town centre retail accommodation. The Committee met the four principals from UCG and Hammersmatch and knew the team. In order to move matters forward they had asked that the Committee accept the fundamental principles of engagement with UCG and Hammersmatch as follows: - That NHDC not shut down negotiations. Nothing was being asked in return. Not a further period of exclusivity, funding or an open cheque book in terms of time. They asked for a few months grace to present the new proposal more fully and at that point they would expect the Council to appoint professional advisors to advise the Council on the best course of action to pursue. - As it was critical that the market be relocated from its current site, the Council to pass a resolution and implement a plan of action in 2016. The research into alternatives sites had been provided to the Committee by a markets expert, with costs met by Hammersmatch. - A small part of the existing market site to be redeveloped with the rest converted to car parking to make up any shortfall from the market restoration. - The Churchgate Centre to be demolished and rebuilt, broadly in line with the total existing footprint in order to: - Transform architectural quality; - Create better and larger retail, food and restaurant units; - Open up views across a new Church Square to celebrate the historic architecture of St Mary's; - Develop a community, with new residential accommodation above the shops; - Re-arrange car parking so that spaces were directly behind the new Centre. - A new 150 year lease to be granted with new ground rent based on a 10 percent gearing. Council cash flow to be maintained during the development process, providing this was offset against capital receipts. Mr Payne stated that he fully understood the wariness and suspicion with which the idea of yet another new proposal was greeted by both NHDC and the people of Hitchin. As the controllers of Churchgate for the next 82 years they were offering an opportunity to create a scheme that the residents of Hitchin could be proud of and enjoy. Mr Payne concluded by stating that now was the time to strike, before the cycle of recession returned to the UK economy. A change of approach needed to be embraced in order to get matters moving. They had the will and the appetite and, in UCG, the experience and all important funding ability to make this development happen. The Chairman thanked Mr Payne for his presentation. (2) Mr Brian Foreman (on behalf of Churchgate Retailers Association) Mr Foreman stated that the Churchgate centre was certainly drab, but not the carbuncle that some people would have us believe. It was 1960's style functional architecture and, whilst there were some unattractive window displays created by the shopkeepers, the Centre itself could be made more appealing. Unfortunately, he was of the view that NHDC was as guilty as Hammersmatch in falling behind with routine maintenance of their public buildings. In terms of the Churchgate Centre, he considered that it would not take a massive amount of money to rectify some of the most serious maintenance issues. Mr Foreman stated that the whole exterior of the Centre was absolutely filthy, including the canopies. These canopies were in a sad and sorry state only through lack of repair. In front of Electronic Universe water penetrated between the canopy and the wall allowing rain to fall on the adverts below, as well as on unfortunate customers. Once the repairs were completed, a good wash and a lick of paint would improve and brighten up the whole shopping centre. Some better signage, seating, flower displays in tubs, troughs and baskets and improved lighting were also considered to be of benefit by the retailers recently spoken to by Mr Foreman. With Hammersmatch receiving the rents and NHDC receiving car parking income, Mr Foreman felt that money could be found to benefit the retailers and the community. The shopping centre was a disgrace and gave a very poor impression of Hitchin to its visitors. The work was urgent and really needed to be carried out without delay. Retailers remained concerned about increased parking charges, lack of parking spaces (especially at weekends) and the failing Hitchin Tuesday Market. They believed that car parking concessions (eg.) first 30 minutes free and free after 3pm, did help to improve trade in towns. Also, more spacious disabled bays were needed in the town centre for wheelchair users in particular. There was no great enthusiasm for pedestrianisation of the town centre. Mr Foreman commented that the composition of the NHDC Cabinet was causing concern to the community. He felt that surely there should be a minimum of two Hitchin councillors as members of the Cabinet. If, as now, the only one was a trustee on certain matters then, in declaring an interest, he could not participate in important matters, which seemed undemocratic. If the longer term scenario was a more ambitious Churchgate development, then should not the Chairman of the Hitchin Committee also be on the Project Board. In-house project management with unequal external partnerships simply did not work, resulting in considerable delays and costs for council tax payers. Regular written reports on projects like Churchgate by officers were desirable, with opportunity for discussion and feedback to Cabinet by Area Committees. Hitchin Committee gained from having the Town Talk prior to each meeting for the benefit of community groups and individuals to raise their concerns with their councillors. Mr Foreman stated that a number of retailers felt that their trade was affected by uncertainty and had put their investment on hold. Perhaps any future large project for Hitchin could be called the Hitchin Town Centre Redevelopment rather than Churchgate. Mr Foreman concluded by requesting all Hitchin councillors should spend time talking to retailers and market traders. Their views would be important to the future of what was considered a desirable and thriving market town. The Chairman thanked Mr Foreman for his presentation. (3) Mr Bill Sellicks (Hitchin Town Action Group) Mr Sellicks advised that in the past week a meeting had been held of the Hitchin Town Action Group (an umbrella grouping of Hitchin Forum, Hitchin Society and Hitchin Historical Society, supported by the Hitchin Initiative) in respect of Churchgate. A meeting of the Hitchin Forum had also been held on 9 February 2016 and the Hitchin Society's executive Committee had also met on 10 February 2016. Mr Sellicks aimed to summarise the main concerns of theses groups in response to the Churchgate report submitted to Council. Mr Sellicks stated that the groups had been surprised by the speed with which the report had been put together following the Churchgate Project Board meeting on 20 January 2016. He suggested that there should be further consideration by the Council and local community before decisions were made on the future of Churchgate. Mr Sellicks explained that the groups would firstly suggest that it was premature to dismiss the new concept being put forward by Hammersmatch. The report admitted that there was currently insufficient information to make any informed decision, but then stated that the Churchgate Project Board had nevertheless discounted the option (Paragraph 8.5.2 of the report). The groups would urge the Council to seek the information needed, and to ask Hammersmatch if they could explore not only their suggested rebuild on the extended site, but also the possibility of a refurbishment - with partial redevelopment at the rear of the site to integrate with the market, and hence increase vitality. Mr Sellicks felt that Hammersmatch were in the best position to improve Churchgate in the short and medium term (by about 2020; or before in the case of refurbishment). He urged the Council to accept that it would be counter-productive to refuse to discuss opportunities with Hammersmatch, especially as the groups believed that £50,000 (rather than the £50 stated in Paragraph 10.6 of the report) appeared to be available to continue to do so. In respect of the Local Plan and Town Centre Strategy, Mr Sellicks considered that due to gridlock in the national system as the 2017 deadline approached, Local Plan approval could easily be delayed until 2018. If so, implementation of a new Town Centre Strategy was unlikely to commence much earlier than 2019. Thus, it was hard to see how this option would deliver an improved Churchgate any earlier than 2020, and possibly as late as 2025. Postponing development at Churchgate for up to 9 years was likely to mean the continued deterioration of the Centre and of the town's market. What was needed was an improvement to both Churchgate and the market in the short term to enable Hitchin to continue to play its important role in the economic and social life of the District. Mr Sellicks was of the view that, if the Council was to take over the lease from Hammersmatch, adverse effects on the future of the town centre could result. The experience of other towns where a Council owned a shopping centre was not always positive, with maintenance being kept to a minimum to reduce costs, and rents being raised significantly (and on a regular basis) to increase income. In the context of NHDC's admitted lack of experience in managing assets in the retail market (Paragraph 8.15.2 of the report), it was likely that professional assistance would be required, and any full business case should take into account both this and the costs of refurbishment and maintenance over the longer term. Mr Sellicks advised that the groups' expectation was that the Council would not find the purchase of the leasehold interest as cost effective as the report suggested. However, the groups were particularly concerned that the large single ownership would encourage the Council to consider that a major comprehensive redevelopment at Churchgate and the wider area would be possible in the future. The local community had already made clear its opposition to such a major scheme as that proposed by Simons, and rightly rejected by the Council in 2013. The dangers to the historic character and long term commercial health of Hitchin should not be underestimated. Mr Sellicks concluded by urging the Council to reject the findings of the officer report and request that further consideration be given to how continued working with Hammersmatch could identify a suitable future for Churchgate and the market. There was also a lot to be gained by enabling the local business community, residents and visitors to feed back to councillors their issues and priorities before such important decisions were made. The Chairman thanked Mr Sellicks for his presentation. |
Noted | ||
| 83 |
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC RESOLVED: That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act (as amended). |
Agreed | ||
| 84 |
CHURCHGATE AREA, HITCHIN - NEXT STEPS The Council considered the Part II report of the Project Executive for the Churchgate Project Board in respect of the Churchgate Area, Hitchin - next steps. The Chairman of the Churchgate Project Board (Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham) presented the report, which included further confidential information relevant to the Council's decision on whether or not should approach Hammersmatch to enquire if they would be interested in selling the Churchgate Centre. This included independent valuation advice prepared by CBRE Consultants. The Chairman of the Churchgate Project Board stated that a full business case would need to be prepared clearly setting out the case for acquisition and how the Council would manage the asset in the short term pending consideration of the longer term strategic requirements for the site. This option was dependent on the existing owner being willing to sell their interest and a mutually acceptable purchase price being negotiated that made it a good investment for the Council. It was moved by Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, seconded by Councillor Judi Billing and, following debate and upon being put to the vote, it was RESOLVED: That the contents of the report be noted. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure Members have all relevant information in order to inform their decision. [At this point, the press and public were re-admitted to the meeting.] |
Noted | ||
| 85 |
CHURCHGATE AREA, HITCHIN - NEXT STEPS Report The Council considered the report of the Project Executive for the Churchgate Project Board in respect of the Churchgate Area, Hitchin - next steps. The Leader of the Council (Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham) presented the report, which she reminded Members was produced, at this time, following their request to the Project Board. The report provided an update on progress regarding the Churchgate project following completion of the exclusivity period granted to Hammersmatch and considered the next step options, as detailed in Section 8. The Council had, on 27 November 2014, considered options on the way forward and concluded that it wished to discontinue the approach based on the Churchgate Planning Brief and instead consider alternative approaches for a smaller scheme. Prior to the meeting held on 12 February 2015, Officers of the Churchgate Project Board had been in discussion with Hammersmatch regarding the Churchgate Extension Scheme and another interested party. Subsequent to the Council resolution, the other party confirmed that they would not be pursuing their interest in a smaller scheme, however should circumstances change, they remained interested in working with the Council. On 16 July 2016, the Council had resolved to grant Hammersmatch exclusivity until 31 December 2015, with a number of conditions, to enable them to develop plans for a smaller scheme In respect of the terms of the exclusivity period granted to Hammersmatch, she advised that market consultants had been appointed, however discussions had not been entered into with market traders. The Churchgate Project Board had met with Hammersmatch and a proposed Joint Venture Partner on 20 January 2016. At this meeting Hammersmatch advised that the Churchgate Extension Scheme was not viable. The reasons for this included that the configuration of the shop units did not suit current retail or commercial demand and it was not practical or viable to convert existing upper parts to provide quality residential apartments. The only option offered by Hammersmatch was to demolish the existing building and rebuild it. The Leader of the Council reminded Members that Hammersmatch had now had three years to develop a plan and could not guarantee that more money and time would not be required in future. She stated that Mr Payne had brought more to the table this evening than to the meeting held on 20 January 2016. Three options were detailed in Paragraph 8.1 of the report. She supported Option1, that work on the Churchgate Project should be ceased, pending consideration of the Council's strategic view of the site as part of the Local Plan Work and Option 3, that the Council considered acquiring the existing Churchgate Centre. She asked Members to note that Option 1 would not prevent Hammersmatch, or any other developer, presenting a scheme or planning application in the future. However, the Leader of the Council considered that the words "pending consideration of the Council's strategic view of the site as part of the Local Plan Work" should be removed from Recommendation 2.1 in the report. She therefore moved, which was seconded by Councillor Judi Billing, "(1) That work on the Churchgate project cease; and (2) That the possibility of acquiring the Churchgate Centre be explored, subject to further consideration of the commercial case for so doing at a future meeting of the Council." During the debate Members, noted the length of time spent considering various refurbishment and development schemes for the Churchgate Centre and acknowledged the efforts made so far. Many of the comments included hopes that, at some point in the future, a suitable and viable scheme would be progressed. Upon the motion being put to the vote, it was RESOLVED: (1) That work on the Churchgate Project cease; and (2) That the possibility of acquiring the Churchgate Centre be explored, subject to further consideration of the commercial case for so doing at a future meeting of the Council. REASON FOR DECISION: To review the Council's strategic approach to the site, in an endeavour to find a viable and acceptable solution for the Churchgate Centre and surrounding area. |
Agreed | ||
| 86 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM CABINET: 26 JANUARY 2016 - CORPORATE BUSINESS PLANNING - BUDGET 2016/17 Addendum Report REVISED Appendix 1 - General Fund estimates (1.9% Council Tax increase) Referral Appendix 1 - General Fund estimates (1.9% Council Tax increase) Appendix 2 - General Fund Summary for 2016/17 Appendix 3 - Efficiency proposals Appendix 4 - Revenue Investment proposals Appendix 5 - MTFS Extract - budget assumptions Appendix 6 - Description of earmarked reserves Appendix 7 - Financial Risks assessment Leader of the Council's Budget Speech Executive Member for Finance and IT's Budget Speech The Council considered the Minute of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 26 January 2016, in respect of Corporate Business Planning - Budget 2016/17 (Minute 103 refers). A copy of the report and addendum report considered by the Cabinet was included with the agenda, as were the following appendices: Appendix 1 - General Fund estimates (1.9% Council Tax increase); Appendix 2 - General Fund Summary for 2016/17; Appendix 3 - Efficiency proposals; Appendix 4 - Revenue Investment proposals; Appendix 5 - MTFS Extract - Budget assumptions; Appendix 6 - Description of earmarked reserves; and Appendix 7 - Financial Risks assessment. The Council was provided with a further addendum report, tabled at the meeting, which detailed the implications of the final Finance Settlement announced on 8 February 2016; the Parish and Town Council precepts for 2016/17; and the total District Council Tax requirement for 2016/17. Prior to the consideration of the Budget Setting for 2016/17, the Leader of the Council (Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham) and the Executive Member for Finance and IT (Councillor T.W. Hone) presented a Budget Speech. These documents are reproduced at Appendices A and B to these Minutes. It was moved by Councillor T.W. Hone, and seconded by Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, that the recommendations contained in the Cabinet referral and the addendum report tabled at the meeting be approved. The Leader of the Labour Group (Councillor Frank Radcliffe) and Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group (Councillor S.K. Jarvis) gave responses to the speeches made by the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT. Following debate, and in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.16(h), the Chairman of the Council (Councillor R.L. Shakespeare-Smith) requested that a Recorded Vote be undertaken on the motion. (Voting: For: Councillors Allison Ashley, Alan Bardett, David Barnard, John Booth, P.C.W. Burt, Julian Cunningham, Bill Davidson, Jane Gray, Jean Green, Simon Harwood, Steve Hemingway, Fiona Hill. T.W. Hone, Tony Hunter, David Leal-Bennett, David Levett, Ben Lewis, Bernard Lovewell, Paul Marment, Alan Millard, M.R.M. Muir, Mrs L.A. Needham, Janine Paterson, Mike Rice, R.L. Shakespeare-Smith, Harry Spencer-Smith, Mrs C.P.A. Strong and R.A.C. Thake - 28 Against: Councillors Clare Billing, Judi Billing, Sal Jarvis, S.K. Jarvis, Lorna Kercher, Joan Kirby, Ian Mantle, Frank Radcliffe and Deborah Segalini - 9 Abstentions: 0 The motion was carried.) It was therefore, RESOLVED: (1) That it be noted that the provisional finance settlement for 2016/17 is £3.316million, which is £339,000 less than estimated; (2) That: (a) It be noted that the provisional settlement refers to the potential to agree a four year settlement with Government, subject to an Efficiency Plan; and (b) As details of the requirements of such a Plan were not yet known, the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance, in consultation with the Executive Member for Finance and IT, be delegated the decision on whether or not to accept that offer when further details are known; (3) That the estimated position on the Collection Fund and the impact on the General Fund for 2016/17 (Paragraph 9.1 of the report refers) be noted; (4) That the position relating to the Council's General Fund balance be noted, and that due to the risks identified in Paragraph 9.2.3 of the report, a minimum balance of £1.694million is recommended; (5) That the changes to the 2015/16 General Fund budget identified in Paragraph 9.2.8, table 5, of the report, a £245,000 decrease in net expenditure and a corresponding increase in the 2016/17 budget of £115,000, be approved; (6) That the position of the Council's other reserves and provisions, as identified in Section 9.3 of the report be noted, and that the Chief Finance Officer considers the estimates robust and the budgeted level of reserves adequate; (7) That the inclusion of the efficiencies and investment proposals set out in Appendices 3 and 4 of the report in the final General Fund budget estimates for 2016/17, be approved; (8) That it be noted that work will continue during the next financial year on the production of business cases for the item marked "tbc" in Appendices 3 and 4 of the report; (9) That the estimated 2016/17 net expenditure of £16,533,100, as detailed in Appendix 2 of the report be approved; (10) That a 1.9% increase on the Council Tax rate for 2016/17 be agreed; (11) That the changes to the Council's funding position following the final Finance Settlement announced on 8 February 2016 be noted; (12) That the Parish and Town Council precepts for 2016/17 of £1,005,472 be noted; and (13) That the total District Council Tax requirement for 2016/17 of £11,177,378 be noted. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that all relevant factors are taken into consideration when arriving at the proposed Council Tax precept for 2016/17; and to ensure that a balanced budget is agreed. |
Agreed | ||
| 87 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM CABINET: 26 JANUARY 2016 - CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2016/17 ONWARDS Addendum Report Referral Appendix A - Capital Programme Summary Appendix B - Capital Programme Detail Appendix C - Capital Investment Proposals for 2016/17 and onwards The Council considered the Minute of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 26 January 2016, in respect of the Capital Programme - 2016/17 Onwards (Minute 104 refers). A copy of the report considered by the Cabinet was included with the agenda, as were the following appendices: Appendix A - Capital Programme Summary; Appendix B - Capital Programme Detail; and Appendix C - Capital Investment Proposals for 2016/17 and onwards. The Council further considered the addendum report, which detailed revised recommendations as a result of to the re-inclusion of four capital schemes which had been omitted from the Capital Programme report considered by the Cabinet at its meeting held on 26 January 2016. It was moved by Councillor T.W. Hone, seconded by Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham and, upon being put to the vote, it was RESOLVED: (1) That the Capital Investment Proposals, as listed in Appendix C to the report and which total £13.33million overall (£3.575 million profiled in 2016/17), be approved for inclusion in the proposed Capital Programme; (2) That the provisional Capital Programme for 2016/17 to 2019/20 of £19.674million, as detailed at Appendices A and B to the report, be adopted; and (3) That authority be delegated to the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance, in consultation with the Executive Member for Finance and IT, to seek a capitalisation direction of up to £2.5million to enable a contribution to be made to the Pension fund as soon as possible to improve the revenue position of the General Fund. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that the Capital Programme meets the Council's objectives and officers can plan the implementation of the approved schemes. |
Agreed | ||
| 88 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM CABINET: 26 JANUARY 2016 - TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR 2016/17 Referral Appendix A - Treasury Management Policy Statement Appendix B - Treasury Management Practices Appendix C - Treasury Strategy Statement 2016/17 The Council considered the Minute of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 26 January 2016, in respect of the proposed Treasury Management Strategy for 2016/17 (Minute 105 refers). A copy of the report considered by the Cabinet was included with the agenda, as were the following appendices: Appendix A - Treasury Management Policy Statement; Appendix B - Treasury Management Practices; and Appendix C - Treasury Strategy Statement 2016/17. It was moved by Councillor T.W. Hone, seconded by Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham and upon being put to the vote, it was RESOLVED: (1) That the Treasury limits for 2016/17 be approved as follows: (i) Interest Rate Exposure (as at Paragraph 3.4, Appendix C); (ii) Maturity Structure of Borrowing (as at Paragraph 3.4, Appendix C); (iii) Investment Strategy to continue to use Building Societies and UK Banks, as detailed in Paragraph 8.5.1 of the report (as at Paragraph 4.2, Appendix C); (iv) Total Principal Sums invested for periods longer than 364 days (as at Paragraph 4.3, Appendix C); and (2) That the Treasury Management Strategy for 2016/17, as set out at Appendix C to the report, be approved, and that it be noted that there are no changes from the approved 2015/16 Treasury Strategy. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure the Council's continued compliance with CIPFA's Code of Practice on Treasury Management and the Local Government Act 2003 and that the Council manages its exposure to interest and capital risk. |
Agreed | ||
| 89 |
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS Report There were no questions from Members. |
Noted | ||
| 90 |
NOTICE OF MOTIONS Report There were no notices of motions. |
Noted | ||
| PART II | ||||
| 91 |
PART 2 REPORT RELATING TO MINUTE 84 ABOVE Data/Council/201602111930/Agenda/Report This is on the E-Genda Committee Management System. |
Noted | ||