Agenda item

The Panel received a report with an overview of the Constabulary budget and the Police and Crime Commissioner’s (the “Commissioner”) approach to budget setting.  The Panel made comment, asked questions, and received responses from the Commissioner and his staff regarding the report, which included:

1.     Mr Leigh sought clarification on paragraph 6.5 that ‘the OPCC and Constabulary, through its Treasury Management Strategy, will aim to minimise these costs through internal rather than external borrowing when cash balances enable this’.  Mr Haylett responded that there was the option to borrow more and do so prudently.  A 5% general reserve was kept.  It was believed that it was more on the cashflow side where borrowing was minimised.  Further information would be provided to the Panel.

2.     Mr Leigh also raised the increased capital requirements for the 2 big building projects, the Cambridge Southern Police Station / Southern Hub and the Operational Support Unit (Public Order) training facility and new Firing Range.  He referred to the anticipated cost for the Police Station / Southern Hub appearing to have gone up from £35m in February 2021 to £45m currently.  The current proposed cost of the Operational Support Unit in the capital programme appeared to have risen to £12.3m.  He asked whether the land secured through an option agreement for the Firing Range project with a budget in the capital programme of £5.1m was part of, or in addition to, the £12.3m figure.  The concern was expressed that the inflation in the capital costs, for which there was no grant funding available, therefore translated into a revenue cost.

Mr Haylett advised that the figures were broadly from the medium term financial strategy and capital programme from earlier in the year.  A comprehensive paper explaining the updated position would be provided at the next meeting in January.  The position was similar throughout the public sector that a double whammy was being faced with significant inflation, including in the construction sector and at the same time a significant increase in interest rates.  Any borrowing was at a much higher interest rate.  The January paper would include the borrowing strategy containing advice from the Treasury Management specialists. 

Mr Haylett also emphasised the need for the building projects, including there currently being an old estate that required updating.  There were risks, including HM Inspectorate of Inspection’s view following its next inspection of Parkside.  The Public Order training facility was to replace the facilities previously used at Alconbury (MOD land that has been disposed of) and the Chief Constable had a requirement to maintain a certain number of trained public order officers so that the country was able to respond wherever a national incident occurred.  The training facility had to comply with the accreditation requirements.  Officers were currently being sent a considerable distance to receive training.  The replacement Firing Range project was becoming an operational imperative for the training of firearms officers, which needed to comply with health and safety issues such as air and noise pollution.  Specialist facilities were expensive.

3.     Councillor Barkham enquired about the income generation opportunities referred to in paragraph 5.2 of the report.  The Commissioner stated that there was not a great deal of scope for these opportunities.  One example was that the Deputy Chief Constable had developed a national training programme which was being used internationally. A potential opportunity could be if another police force was to use the updated discussed building projects upon completion.

4.     In response to questions from Councillor Wilson, the Commissioner re-iterated the firm commitment (as had the Chief Constable) that there would be a city centre police station staffed by local officers.  It was still being discussed what the best value for money option was in respect of Parkside.  In relation to the building projects, policing and emergency services were not a statutory party for Section106 commitments and would not receive funding unless it was via the local authority.  The Commissioner added that he was aware there was national work proceeding which was seeking to enable police and the emergency services to become a statutory party for S106 funding.

5.     The Commissioner confirmed in response to Councillor Varkey that Parkside would not be functioning as it currently is in the future.  Parkside custody would be moving to the Milton site.  It was an operational point but the Commissioner did not accept that there was a specific safety issue if a detainee was released in the middle of the night.  He commented that there were less detainees as people were arrested less often than in the past, the Police had a duty of care and quite often people were taken home from the cells.  It was consistent with the national model that the facilities would not always be in the middle of cities and towns.

ACTION

The Panel NOTED the report.