Agenda and minutes

Apologies for Absence were received from Councillor Riley and from the Chief Executive.

To consider the Minutes of the meeting held on 1 October 2024.

It was RESOLVED:

that the Minutes of the meeting held on 1 October 2024 be signed as a true record.

It was RESOLVED:

that the Order of Business be confirmed as printed on the Agenda.

There were no Declarations of Interest.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Martin Cook

This report gives details of the forecast outturn position for 2024/25 for:

1.           The General Fund Revenue Budget, General Balances, and the Council’s Reserves.

2.           The Housing Revenue Account.

3.           The Shared Revenues Partnership.

4.           The Capital Programme, for this and future years.

5.           Treasury Management.

59.1.    Councillor M Cook introduced the report, noting that there had been little variance as the report reflected the Budget Delivery Plan agreed in September. Changes to the Capital Programme were proposed as were a number of write-offs, mostly relating to avoidance schemes or where companies had entered administration.

59.2.    Councillor Fisher commented that paragraph 2.8 of the report was inaccurate as the Government was not intending to continue with the previous government’s spending plans in many areas. Councillor M Cook replied that the reference was to the Government’s spending plans in relation to Local Government Finance, which was the topic of the report; he did not agree therefore that the report was inaccurate, and given that the paragraph was not a recommendation he didn’t think it needed to be clarified.

59.3.    Councillor Fisher noted that the Council had borrowed £30m to support its cashflow and said that finance costs were now 15% of revenue. Councillor Fisher asked whether the Council was convinced that it would be able to repay its debts. Councillor M Cook noted that borrowing was comfortably within the limits set out in the Treasury Management Strategy and that the Council had never failed to repay loans and wouldn’t start now. Councillor M Cook suggested that the correct time to debate debt levels was at Full Council when the Treasury Management reports were discussed, which took place twice each year.

59.4.    Councillor Fisher said that he did not feel it was unreasonable to ask a question about figures contained in the report presented and reiterated his question about the affordability of the Council’s borrowing.

59.5.    The Director – Resources and Housing, Ian Blofield, reported that the Council had taken out loans in anticipation of capital receipts, which would allow these to be paid off. The Budget Delivery Plan would deliver savings which would help the Council to meet its liabilities. The reserves within the Housing Revenue Account previously used to build new homes had also been depleted and so borrowing was also being taken out to fund building works.

59.6.    Councillor M Cook added that the Council did not now keep large reserves in instant access accounts and so short term borrowing might be needed to provide quick access to cash.

59.7.    Councillor MacDonald asked that more detail in relation to the £674k variance in Maintenance and Contracts be emailed to him.

It was RESOLVED:

a)            that Executive notes the service budget performance and the future year effects and approves resulting budget changes made for the General Fund, the Housing Revenue Account, and the Shared Revenues Partnership (SRP).

Reason: to facilitate effective budgetary control and forecasting.

b)           that Executive approves the transfers to/from reserves and contingencies (as detailed in paragraphs 5.7 and 8.11 of the report).

Reason: to facilitate effective budgetary control and forecasting.

c)            that Executive notes the position on the 2024/25 and future years Capital Programme and approves the changes to the capital programme identified in Section 11 of the report.

Reason: to facilitate effective  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Philip Smart

Ipswich Borough Council operates a fleet of vehicles which require both preventative maintenance and repair. This includes servicing, MOTs, repairs, accident damage and other statutory inspections.

The Council’s existing contract for vehicle maintenance and repairs is due to expire on 31 July 2025. The Council’s fleet of specialist, light commercial, gardening vehicles and machinery (where appropriate) will be covered by this contract.

This report seeks approval for the procurement and award of contracts for the servicing, maintenance and repair of the Council’s fleet of vehicles, plant and equipment.

60.1.    Councillor P Smart introduced the report, explaining that the Council’s vehicle maintenance and servicing requirements had been split into 4 lots. Councillor Smart proposed that the award of the contract be delegated to the Head of Waste and Fleet so long as it was within the budget allocated. Tenders would be scored on a 60% price / 40% quality basis and vehicle maintenance space would be available by separate contract at the new depot site, if needed.

60.2.    Councillor Fisher noted that the budget was just 4% higher than the previous contract and that inflation had been significantly higher than this and asked how the increase in costs was expected to be limited to that amount. Councillor P Smart noted that the vehicle replacement programme meant that much of the fleet was now electric and that electric vehicles had a lower maintenance requirement. The Head of Waste and Fleet explained that there would be further replacement of the oldest remaining vehicles in the fleet and that these would be used to provide parts for other vehicles which would further reduce costs.

It was RESOLVED:

a)            that Executive authorises the Head of Waste and Fleet, in consultation with the Head of Procurement, Head of Finance, and Head(s) of Legal Services, to progress with the procurement of a Vehicle Maintenance and Servicing Contract.

Reason: To enable bids to be received and evaluated from appropriate

contractors.

b)           Subject to a), that Executive authorises the Head of Waste and Fleet, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Environment & Transport, Portfolio Holder for Resources, Director of Operations & Place, Head of Finance, Head(s) of Legal Services and Head of Procurement, to award the Vehicle Maintenance and Servicing Contract for a 48 month period, provided that it is within the budget set out in paragraph 2.20 above, with the option and the authority to extend the contract for up to two additional 12 month periods providing sufficient budget remains and satisfactory performance is maintained by the contract holder at time of extension.

Reason: To award a contract to the successful bidder(s).

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Neil MacDonald

Executive is requested to authorise officers to dispose of land at Eastern Gateway within agreed parameters as set out in the exempt Appendix 2.

61.1.    Councillor MacDonald introduced the report, explaining that the report proposed the sale of the last plot at the former Sugar Beet site. Councillor MacDonald said that the Council had remediated a difficult site and provided space for businesses, with in excess of 900 jobs related to the site.

61.2.    Councillor Fisher commented that the proposed sale would be at the lowest price per acre achieved so far and asked for confirmation that the Council was not selling the site at a low price just to get a capital receipt. The Head of Property, Mel Chiknagi, explained that as this was a larger plot than the others a lower price per acre was to be expected; a letter of reassurance had been provided by the Council’s property agents confirming that, in their opinion, the sale represented best value.

61.3.    Councillor Fisher commented that the proposed sale would allow the developer to make a profit on the development, an opportunity which he said that Council should have taken up. Councillor MacDonald said that whilst the Council had acted as an enabler on this difficult site it was not a property developer.

61.4.    Councillor M Cook noted that Ipswich Borough Council would not benefit from additional income from the site as this would reduce the amount of money received through ‘Fund B’ contributions.

61.5.    Councillor MacDonald commented that the state would break even on the development and had created lots of jobs. Councillor Fisher said that the state would not break even as £3.9 million of public funding had been provided by the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and commented that private developers made money out of redeveloping similar sites.

61.6.    Councillor Jones compared the contributions made by the LEP to those made through the Housing Infrastructure Fund towards the Ipswich Garden Suburb where public money had been spent to provide infrastructure to enable development by private sector housebuilders. Councillor Fisher felt that these weren’t comparable because the Council didn’t own the land on which the Garden Suburb would be built.

61.7.    Councillor J Cook noted that Babergh District Council hadn’t taken any action to redevelop the site and that if Ipswich Borough Council hadn’t decided to act as an enabler it would likely still be a vacant brownfield site. Councillor Ross noted that Government would benefit from additional business rates as a result of the development.

61.8.    Councillor MacDonald commented that the Sugar Beet site had been on sale for 15 years before the Council bought it and so private sector development seemed very unlikely.

It was RESOLVED:

that the Head of Property be authorised, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Place, the Director – Operations & Place, the Section 151 Officer and the Head of Legal Services – Non Contentious, to enter into contracts to dispose of the plots identified in Appendix 1 to the report on terms as they see fit providing these are within the parameters set out in exempt Appendix 2 to the report.

Reason: To enable the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

To consider excluding the public (including the Press) from the meeting during consideration of the following items under Regulation 21 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 as it is likely that if members of the public were present during these items there would be disclosure to them of exempt information falling within paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

It was RESOLVED:

that the public (including the Press) be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items under Regulation 21 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 as it was likely that if members of the public were present during these items there would be disclosure to them of exempt information falling within paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Neil MacDonald

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Neil MacDonald

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Neil MacDonald