Agenda item

To receive any questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public.

Paul Elstone

Agenda Item 5 2025/26 Budget and in particular Annex 2 HRA Capital Programme 2025 to 2030.

Question 1:

I note that the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Capital Programme document now shows most if not all the names of the HRA Projects as opposed to just Project Numbers. Additionally, there was a column showing previous years’ expenditure.

Thank you for taking on board the request to have this information provided.

However there remain four very important omissions.

• There was no initial budget forecast column.
• There was no total expenditure to date column.
• There was no final budget expenditure column for completed projects.
• There was no description provided explaining the reason for any budget overspend against initial forecast.

Would Cabinet give full consideration to these requirements? Requirements that fully support good cost management, good governance plus openness and transparency?

Question 2:

Project 41 – Fir Close Shows an expenditure to date of £111,000 and a further expenditure of £185,000 this if I read the confusing budget sheet correctly or a total of £296,000

It had been noted the budget had increased by £10,000 in the last month.

To put this cost into perspective, Fir Close module was a demonstration unit first built around 6 years ago and never intended for occupancy. It had been converted for single person occupancy only.

A module that was now costing an exorbitant £8,000 per square metre.

The 5 properties remaining for sale at Haddon Heights, Bampton and using sale price and not build cost, had a cost of £2,900 per square metre. For the 39 properties at St Georges Court their cost was under £3,300 per square metre.

There was irrevocable evidence available to show that by any measure this Council was paying an exorbitant cost for its new build social homes.

Would Cabinet implement a fully independent Value for Money Assessment, and if not precisely why not?

Question 3:

Given there had now been substantial payments made on certain HRA projects: 

HRA Project 20 shows a project spend to date of £363K out of a total project value of £16.49 million.

HRA Project 8 shows project spend to date of £371K. 

Project 33 a spend of £162K. 

Project 29 a spend of £62K.  

Spends that should already or would form part of budget statements and also which should already clearly show on the supplier invoice payments data base.

Where precisely were these individual HRA projects?

Response from Cabinet Member for Finance, Governance and Risk:

Project 8 – Roundhill, Lower Cotteylands – project now live and progressing.

Project 33 – Churchill Drive, Crediton – project now live and progressing

Project 29 – Glebelands, Cheriton Bishop – project no longer going ahead

Project 20 – This project was currently paused, but may come forward again in future years. As such, naming the project would be inappropriate without full consultation to the local residents and community.

As had previously been advised, the Council publish the names of the projects once they reach a point where the viability of the development had been established through careful planning and design, and importantly where we had undertaken appropriate consultation with local tenants and communities.

I was glad that the additional information relating to prior year spend had been helpful.

Question 4: Supplementary Question.

Given the answer received to Question 3 it was now a difficult question to ask.

Can it be confirmed that the £16.49 million project i.e. Project 20 related to Knightswood, Cullompton as there was information in the public domain.   

The Leader stated that Mr Elstone would receive a written response to his questions 1, 2 and the supplementary question in the usual way.