Agenda item

Report number: COU/WS/22/021

 

A.      Referrals from Cabinet: 18 October 2022

 

There are no referrals emanating from the Cabinet meeting held on 18 October 2022.

 

B.      Referrals from Cabinet: 8 November 2022

 

1.       West Suffolk Statement of Licensing Policy

 

Portfolio holder: Councillor Andy Drummond

 

C.      Referrals from Cabinet: 6 December 2022

 

These referrals have been compiled before the decisions have been taken by the Cabinet and are based on the recommendations contained within each of the reports listed below.  Any amendments made by the Cabinet to the recommendations within these reports will be notified to members in advance of the meeting accordingly.

 

1.       Delivering a Sustainable Medium Term Budget

 

Portfolio holder: Councillor Sarah Broughton

 

 

2.       Treasury Management Report (September 2022)

 

Portfolio holder: Councillor Sarah Broughton

 

 

3.       Western Way Project Review – December 2022

 

Portfolio holder: Councillor Joanna Rayner

 

 

4.       West Suffolk Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme (LCTRS) 2023 to 2024

 

Portfolio holder: Councillor Sarah Broughton

 

 

5.       Council Tax Base for Tax Setting Purposes 2023 to 2024

 

Portfolio holder: Councillor Sarah Broughton

Council considered the referrals report of recommendations from Cabinet, as contained within report number: COU/WS/22/021.

 

A.      Referrals from Cabinet: 18 October 2022

 

There were no referrals from Cabinet emanating from the meeting held on 18 October 2022.

 

B.      Referrals from Cabinet: 8 November 2022

 

1.      West Suffolk Statement of Licensing Policy

 

Approval was sought for a revised West Suffolk Statement of Licensing Policy to cover the period 2022 to 2027.

 

The Licensing Act 2003 required a licensing authority to prepare and publish a statement of its licensing policy at least every five years. The policy must be kept under review during the five-year period and the licensing authority may make any revisions as it considered appropriate, such as those relating to feedback from the local community on whether the licensing objectives were being met, so it continued to be relevant and fit for purpose throughout the relevant time period.

 

As set out in section 1.5 of the referral report, the proposed substantive changes to the statement were minimal and they were primarily dictated by changes in guidance and legislation.

 

Members noted that there was a statutory duty to undertake a consultation to gauge impact and opinion among key stakeholders. This was held between 21 June and 22 July 2022. Further details of the consultation and the three responses received were set out in section 4 and 5 of the Cabinet report (Report number: CAB/WS/22/060), and Appendix A attached to that report. No comments received resulted in necessary changes to the Statement of Licensing Policy.

 

Councillor Andy Drummond, Portfolio Holder for Regulatory and Environment, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council.

 

On the motion of Councillor Drummond, seconded by Councillor Robert Everitt, it was put to the vote and with the vote being 49 for the motion, none against and one abstention, it was

 

Resolved:

 

That the revised West Suffolk Statement of Licensing Policy 2022 to 2027, as contained in Appendix B to Report number: CAB/WS/22/060, be adopted.

 

 

C.      Referrals from Cabinet: 6 December 2022

 

Following the publication of the agenda and papers for this meeting, which took place before the Cabinet meeting was held on 6 December 2022, the Chair confirmed that no changes had been made to the recommendations contained in the referral report.

 

1.      Delivering a Sustainable Medium Term Budget

 

Approval was sought for proposals for inclusion in the medium-term financial plans.

 

On 17 November 2022, the Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee (PASC) considered proposals for delivering a sustainable balanced budget for 2023 to 2024 and for developing the medium-term plans. This included a number of key budget assumptions proposed and the rationale behind those assumptions, as set out in section 2 and Table 1 of Report number: PAS/WS/22/021.

 

The recommendations, which had been endorsed by Cabinet on 6 December 2022, were now presented for approval by Council. These, together with any further recommendations emanating from PASC and Cabinet in the coming weeks, would be incorporated into the budget setting process, the composite report for which would be considered by Cabinet and Council in February 2023.

 

Councillor Sarah Broughton, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Property, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council. These included the fact that despite the Government’s announcement in the Autumn Statement that councils could now raise their council tax to the maximum of three percent without the need to hold a referendum, West Suffolk Council was at this stage, proposing to increase its proportion of council tax by £4.95 (and not £5.61 as could have been permitted under the new arrangements) for an average Band D property in 2023 to 2024. This would be debated further as the budget developed through the decision making process and for approval in February 2023. Although to be noted with caution, it was anticipated that a balanced budget would be achieved for 2023 to 2024; however, there remained challenges to overcome. A more certain position would be known in the new year.

 

A number of questions followed where concern was expressed that the proposed budget did not make provision to address a perceived disparity between funding of street lighting by town, parish, district and county councils in the areas of the former Forest Heath District and St Edmundsbury Borough Councils.  In response, Councillor Broughton stated that as previously explained, West Suffolk Council was working with Suffolk County Council, as the authority with the responsibility for the majority of street lighting provision, and town and parish councils, to examine this complex historic issue in more detail, in accordance with the recent decision of Cabinet.

 

Having considered the process and approach to setting the Council’s 2023 to 2024 budget and the principles and challenges faced in achieving this, the majority of members supported the recommendation of the Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee and subsequently Cabinet.

On the motion of Councillor Broughton, seconded by Councillor David Roach, it was put to the vote and with the vote being 38 for the motion, 11 against and 1 abstention, it was

 

Resolved:

 

That the proposals, as detailed in Section 2 and Table 1 at paragraph 3.2 of Report number PAS/WS/22/021, be included in the medium term financial plans to 2027.

 

 

2.      Treasury Management Report (September 2022)

 

Approval was sought for the Treasury Management Report for the first half of the 2022 financial year.

 

Councillor Sarah Broughton, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Property, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council.

 

On the motion of Councillor Broughton, seconded by Councillor Sara Mildmay-White, it was put to the vote and with the vote being 48 for the motion, none against and two abstentions, it was

 

Resolved:

 

That the Treasury Management Report (September 2022), as contained in Report number: FRS/WS/22/005, be approved.

 

 

3.      Western Way Project Review – December 2022

 

Approval was sought for a number of recommendations as a result of an interim review being undertaken on the Western Way project.

 

The Western Way (WW) project in Bury St Edmunds was part of a network of existing or planned community hub projects across the whole West Suffolk area being delivered by partners in the public, charity and community sectors. These ranged in scale from a community-led hub project in Clare up to the multi-agency Mildenhall Hub which opened in June 2021.

 

WW was approved for delivery by Council in late 2019 and achieved planning consent in 2021 on the completion of its Section 106 agreement. After reviewing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, Council gave support for a phased delivery of the project in June 2021. In both instances, a set of financial tests were set to safeguard the interests of taxpayers. A final review of these tests by Cabinet was currently required before any contract could be awarded. This would not occur before March 2023.

 

Given the current economic situation and the changing requirements of partners, Cabinet had asked that an interim review of the status of the project be carried out before the end of 2022 so that Council could consider whether it wished to continue with the current project. Cabinet report number: CAB/WS/22/068, as attached in full to the Council referral report, had provided that review.

 

Councillor Joanna Rayner, Portfolio Holder for Leisure, Culture and Community Hubs, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council. These included:

 

a.       Smaller phase 1 scheme: the original proposal for the initial Western Way Development had an approved expenditure cap of £140 million. During the scoping of this and working closely with consultants, this figure was reduced to around £100 million to reflect the impact of the pandemic and a phased approach being needed. A smaller phase 1 scheme, for consideration by Council at this meeting, requested support for a reduced spending cap of £75 million, of which £40 million would deliver a brand new leisure centre. Within this cap: over £5 million would be sourced from Suffolk County Council (SCC) and developer contributions; and £10 million related to interim works to the remainder of the Western Way site not needed in phase 1 to ensure this could also continue to generate an income to the Council as landowner.

 

b.       Leisure centre: the existing Bury St Edmunds leisure centre provided a valued service to the local community; however, it was approaching 50 years old and in need of immediate repairs. That, coupled with a number of factors detailed in the report including that it was no longer large enough to suitably deliver an acceptable service to cope with the growth in population to 2040, meant a ‘do nothing’ option could not be applied.  Refurbishment options had been considered as detailed in Appendix 1; however, a new leisure centre was considered to return the best financial position over a 40-year period.  Just a basic refurbishment to extend its life by 20 years would cost around £13 million. This would only delay a new build by about 20 years at which point the costs to rebuild would have escalated considerably.

 

c.       Renewables: the proposal was to invest £10 million on renewable energy during phase 1. It was expected that this would generate around £980,000 net a year from the phase 1 site alone. Such investment would also align with the Council’s ambition to address climate challenges. The planning consent allowed delivery of a scheme in several phases so the site would never sit empty; however, the rest of the frame and its roof would be required to be in good condition to make use of it alongside a completed phase 1. An additional £9 million would therefore enable the rest of the frame and roof to be brought up to a standard which allowed the installation of further renewables outside of phase 1. This cost could be met from any extra renewables income and any rent pending phase 2.

 

d.       Other partners/rest of site: Whilst the phase 1 scheme would be around a third smaller than originally anticipated, the design was sufficiently flexible to adapt and grow to accommodate changing needs of the population and partners. The proposal recommended by Cabinet also included options for phase 1 that aligned with the Council’s strategic vision delivered elsewhere whereby a range of services were provided from one community hub. This proposal was, therefore, not only about replacing the leisure centre.

 

Other potential services in a smaller phase 1 hub included a small health centre; some provision for office, stores and meeting room space; a potential SCC archive office; and a SCC children’s pre-school. The aforementioned would need to be cost neutral or they would not be included in the scheme.  

 

e.       Mitigation of income risk and treasury management approach: The large income risks associated with the earlier scheme had been removed as the Council would no longer be borrowing on behalf of others or to cover the delivery of commercial offices that may have taken time to become occupied. A conventional long-term treasury management approach to borrowing money could now be adopted as the Council had better control over when the most appropriate time would be to borrow thus mitigating against higher interest rates.

 

f.       Ask of Council: members were reminded that final approval was not sought at this stage to building phase 1. As recommended by Cabinet, the request was to reaffirm support for the re-profiled project and to proceed to the second stage of tendering within a clearly defined, affordable budget. Gateway reviews would continue to be undertaken at relevant stages.

 

Councillor Rayner concluded her speech and moved the recommendations, as set out in the referrals report. The motion was duly seconded by Councillor Patrick Chung.

 

The debate ensued and the majority of members were supportive of the project. Comments of support included:

 

·         a keenness to see the existing leisure centre replaced;

·         a satisfaction to see the cost of phase 1 of the project reduce significantly whilst still creating a laudable, exciting, ambitious project that would substantially deliver much needed modern facilities and services for the community;

·         the importance of promoting healthy living and wellbeing and how the delivery of phase 1 would actively contribute to this; and

·         the investment in renewables, which whilst generating income, accorded with the Council’s commitment to become carbon neutral by 2030.

 

However, some members raised questions, comments and/or concerns, which included:

 

·         whether the option to refurbish the existing leisure centre had been fully explored;

·         whether any elements of the existing leisure centre could be reused;

·         the future of the building that would have been brought up to a standard to accommodate solar panels on the roof, should a phase 2 not proceed;

·         the impact on traffic flow and the potential for an increase in congestion in the Beetons Way/Western Way area;

·         whether alternatives had been fully explored to promote better health and wellbeing, such as decentralising leisure facilities within new housing developments like Marham Park, which in turn would help promote active travel;

·         whether any changes to the design of the proposed buildings took into account new building regulations;

·         that the project no longer made sufficient provision in phase 1 for commercial elements; 

·         whether the environmental credentials planned would be met particularly if funding was not achieved to help mitigate the risk;

·         that the implementation of value engineering measures should not result in facilities being below a desired standard;

·         that the intended 8-lane swimming pool in the new leisure centre, designed to Swim England/Sport England’s county-level competition standard, was of sufficient width Some members felt that if the Council was to build a new leisure centre that it needed to be ambitious and include a pool suitable for short course championship events to the international competition standard of World Aquatics (formerly known as FINA) i.e. 10 lanes. It was also raised whether sufficient seating would be provided for spectators.

 

The concern regarding the size of the pool led to an amendment being proposed by Councillor Richard Alecock, which was duly seconded by Councillor John Burns. The amendment to the substantive motion sought to request that investigations be undertaken to ascertain the costs and implications involved for making the prospective swimming pool wider.

 

A debate ensued on the amendment. Recognition was given to the merit of a wider pool; however, it was considered by the majority of members that it was inappropriate to approve any changes to the recommendations in the substantive motion. The inclusion of a wider pool would almost certainly mean the overall project cost envelope would be exceeded in revenue and capital terms and/or other elements of the swimming provision would have to be omitted. Therefore, it was not felt to be prudent to make alterations to the specification or budget at this time, when it was not known whether the inclusion of a wider pool was appropriate or achievable. 

 

As stated by Councillor Rayner, under (f) above, approval was not sought at the meeting to proceed to the project build, but to progress to the next stage. If there was merit in providing a wider pool, this would be looked into separately and members advised accordingly.

 

Following Councillor Rayner’s right of reply on the amendment, the amendment to the substantive motion was put to the vote and with the vote being 12 for the motion, 36 against and one abstention, the amendment was lost.

 

The debate returned to the substantive motion; however, no further speeches were made. Councillor Rayner gave her right to reply, which included responding positively to questions and statements raised during the debate on the substantive motion where these issues had not already been covered by the referral report or previous business cases or responses.

 

 

On the motion of Councillor Rayner, seconded by Councillor Chung, it was put to the vote and with the vote being 36 for the motion, 12 against and one abstention, it was

 

Resolved: That

 

1.       This review and update of the business case for the Western Way (WW) project, Bury St Edmunds and, as part of that wider scheme, the replacement of the Bury St Edmunds Leisure Centre, be approved, so that Cabinet and officers can continue to deliver phase 1 of the project and any interim works to the rest of the site on the revised basis set out in this review and in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.

 

2.           The existing authorities, financial provisions, safeguards and financial tests for delivery of the project be updated as follows:

 

a.       The remainder of the due diligence for the second stage of tendering be carried out in accordance with the two new gateways defined in Section E of this review.

 

b.            For either facility to be included in the phase 1 construction contract, Suffolk County Council must have entered into a formal pre-let agreement for an archive facility and/or pre-school which meets the One Public Estate principles of full cost recovery.

 

c.            The previous spending caps and financial tests for the hub and leisure centre be replaced by a new combined and reduced net capital expenditure limit of £65 million for the total phase 1 scheme defined in this report i.e. project costs, market analysis, enabling works, construction of the initial community hub, installation of renewables.

 

d.       In addition to this cap on expenditure, at the time the main construction contract is signed, the phase 1 scheme must not increase the Council’s existing Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) provision of £724,000 for Bury St Edmunds Leisure Centre and, in relation to other ancillary elements of the new hub, be capable of achieving at least a break-even position over the whole life of the borrowing.

 

e.            In addition to the phase 1 scheme defined in the review, a further capital allocation of up to £10 million be made in the Council’s capital programme for interim works to the remainder of the Western Way site as defined in Appendix 3 of this report (CAB/WS/22/068) and also on the basis of at least a break-even income position over the life of the borrowing.

 

f.             Subject to consultation with the relevant portfolio holders, approval be given for interim or enabling works ahead of the main contract for phase 1, to be financed from within the new combined WW capital budget of £75 million. But only where these works will increase the commercial value of the site irrespective of whether the WW project proceeds or not.

 

g.         The cash flow risk being managed.

 

h.       The most beneficial and economic funding method for the project is identified, including entering into agreements with third-party investors if required.

 

i.             Any phase 2 scheme for a permanent use of the remainder of the WW site be subject to a new and separate business case to councillors before the conclusion of the phase 1 construction programme.

 

(Councillor Ian Houlder left during the consideration of and John Augustine left the meeting at the conclusion of this particular referral.)

 

 

4.      West Suffolk Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme (LCTRS) 2023 to 2024

 

Approval was sought for proposed changes to the West Suffolk Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme.

 

Each year the Council was required to review its Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme (LCTRS). Cabinet Report number: CAB/WS/22/069 provided an annual review of the 2022 to 2023 scheme and proposed to make changes to the scheme for 2023 to 2024, having been subject to preceptor, stakeholder and public consultation, as required by the relevant regulations when amendments to the scheme were proposed.

 

Councillor Sarah Broughton, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Property, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that the proposed changes to take effect from 1 April 2023, were as follows:

 

The current West Suffolk Working Age LCTRS scheme provided a maximum benefit of 91.5 percent for working age claimants and the scheme also fully protected war pensioners. The aim in designing the scheme was to achieve a balance in charging an amount of council tax to encourage customers back into work whilst setting the amount charged at an affordable and recoverable level during the year.  A separate statutory scheme applied to pensioners who could receive up to a maximum 100 percent reduction of their council tax bill.

 

The Council identified potential changes to the LCTRS for 2023 to 2024. This would be for one year only and designed to support low-income working age residents, in light of the current pressures on the cost of living.

 

The proposed change to the LCTRS where it was proposed should take effect from 1 April 2023 (and last for one year only) was that the maximum reduction on council tax paid should be increased from 91.5 percent to 100 percent. This would be a means tested scheme.

 

This would reduce the amount that many council tax payers had to pay and could result in some working-age residents paying zero council tax.It should be noted that the maximum reduction would not only apply to those already receiving a 91.5 per cent reduction. The increase would effectively ‘stretch’ the reductions that could be received, thereby benefitting a wider range of customers.

 

The background to the proposed changes were detailed within section 2 of the Cabinet report.

 

Separate from these proposals, the figures used in the calculation of how much a council tax payer needed to live on (known as the applicable amounts) would be automatically increased in 2023 to 2024 in line with Government policy. This would enable a number of new residents to claim council tax support for the first time.

 

A detailed discussion was held with members supporting and acknowledging the benefits of the proposed changes, including the importance of publicising the revised scheme to residents to ensure that those eligible had access to it.

 

On the motion of Councillor Broughton, seconded by Councillor Brian Harvey, it was put to the vote and with the vote being 48 for the motion, none against and one abstention, it was

 

Resolved: That

 

1.       The Local Council Tax Reduction (LCTRS) Scheme for 2023 to 2024, as outlined in Report number CAB/WS/22/069, be reviewed.

 

2.       The changes to the scheme outlined in section 2 of Report number CAB/WS/22/069 and that the maximum discount change only relates to 2023 to 2024, be agreed.

 

 

5.      Council Tax Base for Tax Setting Purposes 2023 to 2024

 

Approval was sought for the council tax base for tax setting purposes for the 2023 to 2024 financial year.

 

The council tax base was the total taxable value at a point in time of all the domestic properties in the council’s area. It was a yearly calculation and represented the estimated number of chargeable dwellings after allowing for exemptions and discounts, projected changes in the property base and after applying an estimated collection rate. The council tax base was used in the calculation of council tax, further details regarding which was set out in Report number: CAB/WS/22/070.

 

Councillor Sarah Broughton, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Property, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council.

 

On the motion of Councillor Broughton, seconded by Councillor David Roach, it was put to the vote and with the vote being 48 for the motion, none against and one abstention, it was

 

Resolved: That

 

1.       The tax base for 2023 to 2024, for the whole of West Suffolk be 57,987.01 equivalent band D dwellings, as detailed in paragraph 2.3 of Report number CAB/WS/22/070.

 

2.       The tax base for 2023 to 2024 for the different parts of its area, as defined by parish or special expense area boundaries, be as shown in Appendix 3 of Report number CAB/WS/22/070.