Issue - meetings

Recommend Minute of Cabinet held 16 September 2020 (to follow)

Council noted that that the corresponding recommended minute of Cabinet held 16 September 2020 was included with the supplementary agenda after the statutory deadline.  The Mayor agreed to accept the recommended minute onto the agenda, because of the urgent need for Council to consider this alongside Report CAB3256.

Councillor Cutler (Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Risk), moved that the recommended minute be approved and adopted (seconded by Councillor Learney, Cabinet Member for Asset Management and Housing).

Council proceeded to ask questions and debate the matters in the report and recommended minute.

Following questions and debate, in accordance with legislative requirements on recorded votes at Budget Meetings, a recorded vote was taken on recommendations 1 and 2 of the cabinet recommended minute as set out in the supplementary agenda.

It was noted that Councillor Clementson had left the meeting before the recorded vote was taken.

Division Lists

The following Members voted in favour of the recommended minute of Cabinet:

Councillors Achwal, Becker, Bell, Bentote, Bronk, Clear, Craske, Cutler, Evans, Fern, Ferguson, Gordon-Smith, Hiscock, Hutchison, Laming, Learney, Murphy, Porter, Power, Prince, Thompson, Tod, Weir, Williams

The following Members voted against the recommended minute of Cabinet:

None

The following Members abstained from voting on the recommended minute of Cabinet:

Councillors Brook, Cook, Cunningham, Gemmell, Godfrey, Horrill, Humby, Lumby, Mather, Mclean, Miller, Pearson, Read, Ruffell, Scott, Weston

Recommendations 1 and 2 of the cabinet recommended minute carried.

Council then proceeded to vote on recommendation 3 of the cabinet recommended minute, which was also carried.

RESOLVED:

1.    The Revised Revenue Budget as set out in Appendix 1 to Report CAB3256 be approved

2.    The Revised Capital Programme, as set out in Appendix 3 to Report CAB3256 be approved

3.    The efforts of community groups and local councils in supporting essential work to support our district is recognised and that the Leader of the council writes to all groups to thank them for their ongoing support.  

1.    That due to the continuing restrictions on operation of public venues and associated operating costs of the Guildhall , that the Guildhall remain closed to general public hire for the next 12 months but that a “venue only” service be provided.

2.    That virtual meetings of the council’s committees continue for the remainder of the 2020/21 committee calendar but this be reviewed on a quarterly basis.

Councillor Cutler introduced the report which was based on proposals which had been presented at an all Member briefing on 23 July 2020.  He highlighted the intention to retain the Guildhall on a venue only hire basis for the next 12 months and also to continue with virtual meetings with the decision next reviewed at the end of 2020.

At the invitation of the Leader, six members of the shadow cabinet addressed the meeting, as summarised briefly below.

Councillor Miller

Queried the calculations on savings provided by the guildhall proposals, and also whether it was an appropriate time to restrict use.  Questioned the possible effect on Abbey House.

Councillor Lumby

Questioned whether the guildhall proposals had adequate regard to the terms of the “Bapsy bequest” and requested that the related legal advice be shared with members.

Councillor Read

Requested assurances that the guildhall proposals would not impact on the operation of Abbey House.

Councillor Horrill

Noted the removal of the St Clements surgery replacement from the capital budget and requested an update on the current situation regarding this project.  With regard to the Strategic Asset Purchase budget reduction, asked what projects would no longer be progressed?  Reiterated comments made at Scrutiny Committee regarding the impact be of reductions to the housing repairs and fire safety budgets.

Councillor Pearson

Queried the figures relating to the reduction in carbon emissions from council buildings and also reduced vehicle emissions since the Covid restrictions came into place.  Questioned when the proposals relating to garden waste would be communicated with residents and also queried the budget relating to open space.

Councillor Godfrey

Believed the proposals resulted in a reliance on use of council reserves which was unsustainable.  Queried the level of capital savings set out in the report and the impact on current projects.

The Strategic Director: Services responded to comments made including confirming that full analysis on savings generated as a result of the guildhall proposals had been undertaken.  He emphasised that it was not a proposal to close the guildhall, but continue to maintain as a community asset which would be available to hire on a venue only basis over the next 12 months.  He emphasised it was a bequest to the city to develop a community asset, not specifically to the guildhall.

Cabinet Members also responded to a number of the comments made above, including confirming that all residents would shortly receive further details about the garden waste collection scheme.  It was emphasised that a number of the points had already been raised and answered at the Scrutiny Committee on 7 September, a summary of which was contained at paragraph 6.4 of the report.  The capital budget for the St Clements surgery replacement had been removed following agreement at a previous Cabinet that the project would be financed by private investment and a further report would be brought to Cabinet in the next few months.

Cabinet members also responded to comments made regarding reserve levels and the capital programme and requested  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5

Report references SC034 and CAB3256.

Report ref SC034 and CAB3256

The deputy leader and cabinet member for finance and risk introduced the report which was being presented to cabinet on the 16 September 2020.  The report proposed a revised budget to address the £5.1m deficit and to ensure that the council could balance the general fund budget by March 2021. It was recommended that scrutiny committee comment on the proposals within the report.

The committee asked questions and raised comments which were responded to by officers by the cabinet member for housing and asset management and the deputy leader accordingly. At the conclusion of questions and debate, it was noted that a range of views had been expressed and that not all members of the committee supported the recommendations within the report. It was requested that officers give further consideration of whether restricted reserves and in particular Community Infrastructure Levy funding could be considered as part of the capital programme.

 RESOLVED:

1.    that the comments of the committee are noted.

2.    that officers give further consideration of whether restricted reserves and in particular Community Infrastructure Levy funding could be considered as part of the capital programme.