Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: Yes
Is subject to call in?: No
To ensure that decisions are made in respect of the Housing Revenue Account capital budget for 2014/15 and beyond, in an appropriate time frame. Any alternative budget proposals will also be reported for consideration.
Matter
for Decision:
As part of the 2014/15 budget process, the range of
assumptions on which the HRA Business Plan and Mid-Year Financial Review were
based upon, were reviewed in light of the latest information available,
culminating in the preparation of the HRA Budget Setting Report.
The HRA Budget-Setting Report provided an overview of the
review of the key assumptions. It set out the key parameters for the detailed
recommendations and final budget proposals, and was the basis for the
finalisation of the 2013/14 revised and 2014/15 budgets.
The resulting recommendations referred to the strategy are
outlined in the HRA Budget Setting Report.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing:
The
Executive Councillor resolved to recommend to Council:
Treasury Management
i.
Approve the revised approach to treasury
management, setting-aside a proportion of the surpluses generated over the life
of the Business Plan to allow for potential debt redemption, but re-investing
up to 75% of the surplus generated in the acquisition or development of new
affordable housing, as outlined in Section 7 of the HRA Budget Setting Report.
Housing Capital
ii.
Approve the capital bids, shown in Appendix H of
the HRA Budget Setting Report, to include resource to implement the Cambridge
Public Sector Network across housing offices, to purchase an additional module
for the Housing Management Information System, to undertake emergency water
mains replacement at Kingsway and to carry out remedial works to a specific HRA
dwelling and the surrounding block.
iii.
Approve the re-phasing of £15,000 of resource
between 2014/15 and 2013/14 to complete communal floor covering works to an
entire block whilst the relevant equipment is on site.
iv.
Approve the re-phasing of funding for UPVC
window replacements of £500,000 from 2014/15 and £850,000 from 2015/16 into
later years in the Housing Capital Investment Plan, recognising that it was too
early to move to a full investment standard.
v.
Approve the re-phasing of £250,000 from 2014/15
to 2015/16 in respect of the communal areas uplift, recognising that the full
programme of works had not yet been finalised.
vi.
Approve the gross funding of £16,210,000 for the
development of the affordable housing project at Clay Farm, in line with the
scheme specific report being presented to Community Services in January 2014,
which assumes 75% affordable rented and 25% shared ownership housing.
vii.
Approve the funding of £2,875,000 for the
provisional purchase of 13 market housing units on the garage re-development
sites (or other units of existing market housing), recognising this as an
appropriate use of retained right to buy receipts.
viii.
Approve the earmarking of the required level of
additional funding for new build investment in 2016/17 and 2017/18 to ensure
that the anticipated level of future retained right to buy receipts can be
appropriately utilised.
ix.
Approve the revised Housing Capital Investment
Plan as shown in Appendix M of the HRA Budget Setting Report.
x.
Approve a provisional addition to the Housing
Capital Allowance of £30,591,000 in respect of anticipated qualifying
expenditure in 2014/15.
Reason for the Decision:
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:
Not applicable.
Scrutiny Considerations:
The Committee received a report from the Business
Manager/Principal Accountant regarding Housing Revenue Account Budget Setting
Report.
The Director of Customer and Community Services, reminded
the Committee of the procedural process for considering the Labour Group
Amendment.
In response to questions from the Committee, officers
confirmed the following:
i.
Technological improvements were taken into account
when considering the boiler replacement strategy.
ii.
The major
voids budget bid was higher than normal as the intention was to address long
standing problems with a dwelling that was in poor repair and presented access
problem. Value for money would be considered as part of the project appraisal.
iii.
The set
aside sum for the repayment of debt was considered viable but was reviewed
regularly.
Councillor Price proposed the Labour Group Amendment and
outlined the proposal as per the report.
Diane Best raised concerns that the proposal could have
unforeseen consequences for leaseholders. She was concerned that the shift from
Decent Homes work to communal areas would add to leaseholder costs. The
Business Manager/Principal Accountant confirmed that this would be the case if
additional fencing was considered for specific areas. Cost of under £250 per
unit would be incorporated into the annual services charge. Higher spends would
be subject to the normal consultation process.
The following comments were made in relation to the proposed
increase in the budget for fence repairs:
iv.
Some Councillors reported that this was the
number one complaint from tenants whilst other Councillors had not been made
aware of any problems.
v.
The competing needs of various elements within
the budget were debated.
vi.
Some members suggested that poor fencing
resulted in neighbour disputes, problems with animals and reduced quality of
life.
vii.
There was no clear estimate on the level of
unmet fencing need as this would be dependant what level of provision was
deemed appropriate.
The Committee considered the affordability of the proposals
and the impact on long term debt. Councillor Price stated that the proposals
were affordable and that the current situation put the long term need for more
housing ahead of the needs of existing tenants. The Executive Councillor
expressed concern that any increased spend in one area would result in a
corresponding decrease in another.
On a show of hands the vote for the Labour Group Amendment was tied at 4
votes to 4 and lost on the Chair’s casting vote.
The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the
substantive recommendations.
The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.
Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
dispensations granted)
Not applicable.
Publication date: 28/02/2014
Date of decision: 16/01/2014