Issue - decisions

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.