Agenda item

Report number: COU/WS/23/014

 

A.      Referrals from Cabinet: 13 June 2023 and 18 July 2023

 

There are no referrals emanating from the last meetings of Cabinet held on 13 June 2023 (verbally reported at Council on 20 June 2023) and 18 July 2023.

 

B.      Referrals from Cabinet: 19 September 2023

 

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.       Annual Treasury Management and Financial Resilience Report 2022 to 2023

 

Portfolio holder: Councillor Diane Hind

 

2.       Treasury Management Report (June 2023)

 

Portfolio holder: Councillor Diane Hind

 

3.       De-carbonisation Initiatives Fund

 

Portfolio holder: Councillors Gerald Kelly and David Taylor

 

4.       Western Way Project

 

Portfolio holders: Councillors Cliff Waterman, Victor Lukaniuk, Ian Shipp and Diane Hind

Council considered the referrals report of recommendations from Cabinet, as contained within report number: COU/WS/23/014.

 

A.      Referrals from Cabinet: 13 June 2023 and 18 July 2023

 

There were no referrals emanating from the last meetings of Cabinet held on 13 June 2023 (verbally reported at the last meeting of Council) and 18 July 2023.

 

B.      Referrals from Cabinet: 19 September 2023

 

Following the publication of the agenda and papers for this meeting, which took place before the Cabinet decisions were taken on 19 September 2023, the Chair confirmed that no amendments had been made by the Cabinet to the recommendations contained in the referral report.

 

1.      Annual Treasury Management and Financial Resilience Report 2022 to 2023

 

Approval was sought for the Annual Treasury Management and Financial Resilience Report (2022 to 2023).

 

Councillor Diane Hind, Portfolio Holder for Resources drew relevant issues to the attention of Council.

 

On the motion of Councillor Hind, seconded by Councillor Rowena Lindberg, it was put to the vote and with the vote being unanimous, it was

 

Resolved:

 

That the Annual Treasury Management and Financial Resilience Report 2022 to 2023, as contained in Report number: FRS/WS/23/003, be approved.

 

2.      Treasury Management Report (June 2023)

 

Approval was sought for the Treasury Management Report (June 2023).

 

Councillor Diane Hind, Portfolio Holder for Resources drew relevant issues to the attention of Council.

 

Councillor Julia Wakelam asked a question in connection with the ethical standards of those providing the Council’s investments, particularly around their environmental impact credentials.

 

A written response would be provided following the meeting by Councillor Hind. In accordance with the Council Procedure Rules, this response would be circulated to Councillor Wakelam and all members and published on the Council’s website.

 

On the motion of Councillor Hind, seconded by Councillor Rowena Lindberg, it was put to the vote and with the vote being unanimous, it was

 

Resolved:

 

That the Treasury Management Report (June 2023), as contained in Report number FRS/WS/23/004, be approved.

 

3.      Decarbonisation Initiatives Fund

 

On 19 September 2023, the Cabinet received the report of the West Suffolk Environment and Sustainability Working Group which confirmed the Council’s commitment to addressing the Climate and Environment Emergency and to reaching net zero by 2030 in respect of Council operations. In June 2023, the Leader of the Council had also expressed the new Cabinet’s wish to consider additional actions the Council could take to support and encourage West Suffolk residents, businesses and partners to address climate change.

 

Approval was sought to create a £1 million fund to support third parties in pursuing decarbonisation initiatives. An initial priority area for that spending had been identified which could result in a large environmental improvement for the district in keeping with the Council’s adopted priorities. Namely, the upgrade of streetlighting owned by town and parish councils.

 

The Cabinet report (CAB/WS/23/040) provided background to the ownership of the majority of streetlights in the district, including the agreed actions emanating from the audit undertaken in 2022. The proposals for Council’s consideration were set out in section 2 of the Cabinet report, which was attached in full to the referrals report.

 

Councillor Gerald Kelly, Portfolio Holder for Governance and Regulatory, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council.

 

In response to questions, Councillor Kelly informed Council that Cabinet wanted to establish the principle of the fund, and set it up flexibly for future use, linking it to the wider climate change action plan.

 

Other than the grant to upgrade the streetlights owned by town and parish councils’ schemes, no other schemes had been considered for its use at this stage. No comparative exercise had been undertaken regarding how different schemes might compare in terms of decarbonisation per pound spent and this would be extremely complex to do at this stage as West Suffolk Council (WSC) did not own the streetlights in question. 

 

Given the issues town and parish councils were having in respect of funding the conversion of their lights to LED which had already been acknowledged as part of the audit and that the upgrade would create a large impact on decarbonising a public asset quickly and efficiently, Cabinet considered this was an appropriate scheme to allocate an initial tranche of funding.

 

The evolved Environment and Sustainability Working Group would consider proposals for future use of the Fund and make recommendations to Cabinet, as appropriate. 

 

Other members expressed their support for this Fund recognising the benefits of supporting third parties in pursuing decarbonisation initiatives which in turn, supported the Council’s wider commitment for encouraging a reduction in carbon emissions and tackling climate change throughout the district.

 

Recognition was also given to the potential impact on Abbeycroft Leisure’s energy costs should the decision be taken not to pursue the previously approved Western Way project (see item 4. below).

 

On the motion of Councillor Kelly, seconded by Councillor David Taylor, it was put to the vote and with the vote being 50 for the motion, none against and one abstention, it was

 

Resolved:

 

1.       A Decarbonisation Initiatives Fund of £1 million be created, funded by the Strategic Priorities and Medium-Term Financial Strategy Reserve.

 

2.       The first call on that fund be a grant scheme for the upgrade of streetlights owned by town and parish councils to light-emitting diode (LED) lanterns on the basis outlined in Report number CAB/WS/23/040.

 

3.       Cabinet be authorised, if applicable, to agree the use of any remaining balance in the Fund for additional decarbonisation initiatives. 

 

4.       The Council’s Section 151 Officer be authorised to make the necessary changes to the Council’s prudential indicators.

 

4.      Western Way Project

 

Approval was sought for a number of recommendations emanating from a review undertaken on the future of the Western Way project.

 

Phase 1 of the current Western Way (WW) project in Bury St Edmunds was approved in principle by Council in December 2022, and its final target budget was approved by Cabinet in March 2023 (approximately £61 million including land acquisition costs). However, approval to sign a contract and deliver the first stage of the project was subject to financial tests being met after the final stage of tendering with the preferred contractor, Morgan Sindall, in summer 2023. A business case for phase 2 of the project had not yet been considered by councillors, but a further budget of up to £10 million had been approved to address the remainder of the site in the meantime.

 

When the new Cabinet was appointed in May 2023, it announced its intention to review the future of the WW project in the light of changed economic circumstances. Report number: CAB/WS/23/041 was the outcome of those deliberations by the Cabinet and was attached in full to the referrals report.

 

The report explained that, as things stood, second stage tenders from sub-contractors had been received for the phase 1 scheme and were still being evaluated and value-engineered by the contractor and project team to reduce their cost to a viable level. There was also considerable pressure on the revenue side of the project, for example increased interest rates, which would have to be explored and mitigated if Council decided that the project would still go ahead.

 

Cabinet felt that work to further adapt the scheme to meet the viability tests would delay not only certainty on the future of leisure services but also improvements to the current leisure facilities themselves (either as a newbuild or refurbishment). Certainty over the other elements of the project (a pre-school, archive and health facility) would also be affected.

 

Ultimately though, even if the viability test could be met, this would still be a very large capital investment in excess of £50 million for West Suffolk Council (WSC). The project also relied on achieving significant new income streams at a time of great economic uncertainty.

 

Cabinet had therefore concluded that a project at this scale (with further project costs and time required to both confirm and then maintain its possible viability), carried significant risk to the authority and taxpayers at a time of major financial pressure on local authorities and household budgets. Pressure which had worsened since December 2022. The risk of this financial investment was therefore felt by Cabinet to currently outweigh the potential outcomes of the WW scheme.

 

Cabinet proposed instead to carry out essential maintenance for the existing leisure centre within existing budgets and explore alternative options for the Olding Road site.  In relation to the leisure centre, this approach replaced the risks of a very large and complex capital project, and the revenue risks of it being underwritten by new savings and income, with those of a smaller and simpler capital project, which would be funded entirely within existing revenue budget commitments so as not to put further pressure on the Council’s budget. While, at the same time, keeping all options for the future of the Olding Road site open.

 

More rationale for the proposal was contained in the press statement released by Cabinet on 8 September 2023, which was attached as Appendix 1 to Report number CAB/WS/23/041.

 

The remainder of Report number CAB/WS/23/041 set out the practical implications and risks of this new proposal and sought new authorities to take the project forward accordingly. This was divided into the various different elements of the project.

 

In addition, a summary of the identified opportunities, risks and financial implications contained in an addendum to Report number CAB/WS/23/041, was attached for Council’s consideration. This analysis had been undertaken by the Council’s statutory officers and was circulated to Cabinet prior to its meeting on 19 September 2023 for consideration in conjunction with the full report.

 

Councillor Cliff Waterman, Leader of the Council, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council. He reiterated the key factors that had been considered and the earlier rationale which had led to the proposal for progressing the WW project in its current form. He and his Cabinet felt that in the present economic climate and the financial risks associated with that, and given how the scheme for a variety of reasons had already evolved from a very different ambition to a much smaller project, the decision to revise the project further was deemed to be the most sensible and pragmatic way forward.

 

Councillor Waterman was confident that a refurbishment of the existing Bury St Edmunds Leisure Centre within already available budgets for the centre would provide very good quality leisure facilities moving forward. He enthused about the possibilities and potential uses for the existing Olding Road site, options for which would be provided in an initial business case early in 2024.

 

Councillor Waterman moved the motion to accept the recommendations set out in the report, which was duly seconded by Councillor Ian Shipp.

 

The debate ensued on the substantive motion, which commenced with Councillor Andrew Smith, deputy leader of the Conservative Group, expressing concern that the proposal to cancel the WW project in its current form was premature. Similar concerns regarding the financial risks were shared; however, it was felt these could be satisfactorily mitigated. He expressed his disappointment that the ambition to provide a new, fit-for-purpose leisure centre coupled with the delivery of other services by trusted partners which was considered to enhance the vibrancy of Bury St Edmunds and surrounding communities would not be met. A period of reflection to further consider the implications of the proposals was urged to be sought.   

 

Councillor Joanna Rayner, former Portfolio Holder for Leisure, Culture and Community Hubs, who under the previous administration had been the lead member for the Western Way project, felt there was a lack of clarity regarding the proposed budget for the revised scheme with no clear commitment on what would be spent including how the future of the leisure centre would be secured. She subsequently moved an amendment to the substantive motion, which was duly seconded by Councillor Andrew Speed. The amendment was as follows, with the relevant changes shown in bold text and strike-through:

 

That:

 

1. A decision onthe delivery of the Western Way project in Bury St Edmunds be paused revised as set out in this report and in accordance with the following resolutions;

 

2. Officers be authorised, in consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Leisure and Resources, to bring back to Council a detailed plan todeliver a refurbishment of the existing Bury St Edmunds Leisure Centre and details of the spend committed to deliver these works; provided that the total cost of these works is fully met by the Council’s already available budgets for the centre and any new third-party funding that can be obtained, as set out in section 3 of this report;

 

3. A budget of £75,000, funded from the Strategic Priorities and Medium-Term Financial Strategy Reserve, be approved to develop an initial business case for alternative options for the Olding Road site and an options appraisal brought back to Council alongside recommendation 2;

 

4. The existing allocation of up to £1 million from the original West Suffolk Operational Hub project towards remediation of the former council depot be retained on an invest-to-save basis in the Council’s Capital Programme to cover the cost of any immediate works to the existing Olding Road site which will add value to this asset and/or reduce holding costs irrespective of which future option for its use is adopted; any expenditure from this allocation to be approved by the Council’s section 151 Officer in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Resources;

 

5. A provision of up to £2.4 million from the Strategic Priorities and Medium-Term Financial Strategy Reserve is approved to fund any abortive costs arising from the new approach to the Western Way project;

 

6. The current Section 73 planning application to allow phasing of the original planning consent for Western Way remain on hold until a new decision is reached by Council on the future of the Olding Road site;

 

7. Officers be authorised to appoint a new external project team and contractor(s) to progress the new approach, within the new spending

 

8. authorities set out above and in accordance with the Council’s contract procedure rules; and the Council’s Section 151 Officer be authorised to make the necessary changes to the Council’s prudential indicators.

 

The debate ensued on the amendment to the substantive motion.

 

Several members of the Conservative Group spoke in support of the amendment which included the following comments:

 

·         That there was insufficient information and detail in the report to make an informed decision on the new proposals. It was therefore felt appropriate to pause the existing project while the full implications of the revisions were properly worked through.

·         The potential impact on the renewable energy income stream that formed part of the current scheme, including the immediate impact on the Council’s carbon footprint.

·         A lack of clarity regarding a longer term commitment for the delivery of leisure services in Bury St Edmunds.

·         Recognition and a shared concern regarding the potential financial risks; however, it was felt that greater consideration should be given to the mitigation measures and the longer term benefits. Examples of other significant projects were given with the difficulties that had been experienced and overcome to enable them to come to fruition.

·         That it was difficult to provide details of the proposed revisions to the scheme with residents as the plans had not been shared within the report. It was felt that given the significance of the project and the financial spend involved, the detailed plans to deliver a refurbishment of the leisure centre should come back to Council for a decision and not delegated to officers, in consultation with portfolio holders.

 

Other members spoke on the amendment to the substantive motion, which included:

 

·         Other costs were likely to be incurred if the present scheme was paused and these may rise in the current economic climate.

·         Detailed plans for the revised scheme were available, which included costings for delivery.

·         The principle of the amendment was understood; however, the majority of members felt that should the present scheme be paused, this would create further uncertainty for residents, particularly for those that used the leisure facilities.

 

Following Councillor Waterman’s right of reply on the amendment, the amendment to the substantive motion was put to the vote and with the vote being 18 for the motion, 33 against and one abstention, the amendment was lost.

 

The debate returned to the substantive motion. The rationale for the proposals were reiterated, including highlighting the financial risks in the present economic climate which were considered to be too significant to outweigh the continuation of the current scheme. The importance and benefits of delivering quality leisure provision was recognised and plans would be progressed to work with Abbeycroft Leisure to meet this provision across the district within budget. Longer term budget provision would be made for all West Suffolk leisure centres to address ongoing maintenance needs which in turn should prolong their longevity.

 

Potential alternative options for generating income from renewable energy throughout the district by alternative methods to those proposed in the current scheme were also highlighted, together with the initial impact the build of a new leisure centre would have on the district’s carbon emissions.  

 

Other members expressed their concerns should the decision be taken as proposed in the substantive motion. These included:

 

·         reiterating the rationale and benefits for replacing the Bury St Edmunds leisure centre.

·         The perceived lack of detail and evidence in the report to make an informed decision.

·         The potential impact on the reputation of the Council.

·         The perceived adverse impact on West Suffolk’s residents, users of the leisure facilities and the potential other service providers and commercial opportunities proposed in the current scheme.

·         The proposals for the revised scheme potentially intimated that West Suffolk Council was not forward thinking, visionary, aspirational or ambitious and that the district was not worthy of investment.

·         Whilst the difficulties faced in the current economic climate were recognised, it was felt that payback of the borrowing over the long term would still be satisfactorily achievable at an affordable rate of interest.

 

A request was made for a recorded vote, which was duly supported by more than the Constitutionally required ten members.

 

Following Councillor Waterman’s right of reply, the substantive motion was put to a recorded vote, the outcome of which was as follows:

 

For the motion:

Councillors Alecock, Armitage, Anderson, Bradshaw, Brown, Dawn Dicker, Roger Dicker, Firman, Halpin, Hanlon, Higgins, Hind, Kelly, Lindberg, London, Luccarini, Lukaniuk, Miller-Jones, Neal, O’Driscoll, Savage, Sayer, Shipp, David Smith, Liz Smith, Stennett, Taylor, Thorndyke, Wakelam, Waldron, Waterman, Wijenayaka, Wittam and Yarrow.

 

Against the motion:

Councillors Broughton, Bull, Chester, Chung, Glossop, Griffiths, Hopfensperger, Houlder, Lynch, Mager, Marks, Mason, Mildmay-White, Rayner, Richardson, Andrew Smith, Speed and Stamp.

 

Abstentions:

None

 

It was therefore

 

Resolved: That

 

1.       The delivery of the Western Way project in Bury St Edmunds be revised as set out in this report and in accordance with the following resolutions.

 

2.       Officers be authorised, in consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Leisure and Resources, to deliver a refurbishment of the existing Bury St Edmunds Leisure Centre provided that the total cost of these works is fully met by the Council’s already available budgets for the centre and any new third-party funding that can be obtained, as set out in section 3 of this report.

 

3.       A budget of £75,000, funded from the Strategic Priorities and Medium-Term Financial Strategy Reserve, be approved to develop an initial business case for alternative options for the Olding Road site.

 

4.       The existing allocation of up to £1 million from the original West Suffolk Operational Hub project towards remediation of the former council depot be retained on an invest-to-save basis in the Council’s Capital Programme to cover the cost of any immediate works to the existing Olding Road site which will add value to this asset and/or reduce holding costs irrespective of which future option for its use is adopted; any expenditure from this allocation to be approved by the Council’s section 151 Officer in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Resources.

 

5.       A provision of up to £2.4 million from the Strategic Priorities and Medium-Term Financial Strategy Reserve is approved to fund any abortive costs arising from the new approach to the Western Way project.

 

6.       The current Section 73 planning application to allow phasing of the original planning consent for Western Way remain on hold until a new decision is reached by Council on the future of the Olding Road site.

 

7.       Officers be authorised to appoint a new external project team and contractor(s) to progress the new approach, within the new spending authorities set out above and in accordance with the Council’s contract procedure rules.

 

8.       The Council’s Section 151 Officer be authorised to make the necessary changes to the Council’s prudential indicators.

 

  

(At this point, the Chair adjourned the meeting for a short comfort break during which Councillors Bradshaw, Firman, Glossop, Griffiths, Luccarini, Mager, Marks, Mason, Rayner, Richardson and Stamp left the meeting and did not return. The meeting resumed at 10.32 pm).