Agenda and minutes

None received.

None.

Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of the following items on the agenda. The code of conduct for Members requires that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest.

Cllr S Penfold declared that he had been a Member of the Cromer Tennis Hub Project Board from February 2018.

Cllr J Rest declared that he had been a Member of the Cromer Tennis Hub Project Board.

To pass the following resolution, if necessary:

“That under section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of part 1 of schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”

The Chairman noted that discussion of the full audit report would require that the meeting be moved into private business.

It was proposed by Cllr J Rest and seconded by Cllr P Fisher to exclude the press and public.

RESOLVED

That under section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of part 1 of schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.

The Chairman noted that the Committee had met on 9^th March to discuss and note the non-exempt appendices of the full report in public, and had now received the full exempt report for discussion. He stated that the loss of public money was a serious concern and he hoped that Members could now be confident of the lessons learnt, and that recommendations could be made, if necessary, to avoid similar occurrences in the future.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          Cllr S Penfold referred to project governance and inception, noted his concerns and asked what the auditors would have expected at this stage of the project. The IA replied that in terms of governance, she would have expected a clear project lead and terms of reference to be identified, as well as clarity on how the project would be reported to Committees, and who had responsibility for project related decisions. She added that the Project Board also required greater clarity of its role in relation to the oversight and management of the project. The IA referred to project inception, and stated that she would have expected minutes to outline the clear benefits of the project over alternate projects that could have been considered. She added that the initial report would have also benefitted from greater scrutiny.

      ii.          Cllr S Penfold asked Cllr T FitzPatrick whether he had regrets regarding the project’s inception. Cllr T Fitzpatrick replied that at the outset there had been a project initiation document prepared by officers, as well as a report prepared by external consultants, which had been reviewed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, prior to Cabinet approval. He added that the project also sought to provide benefits for the wider District, beyond Cromer. It was noted that following Cabinet’s recommendation for approval, the project had been approved by Full Council, at which point it progressed to the Project Board, and at this time, both the Tennis Club and Cromer Academy were supportive. Cllr T FitzPatrick stated that whilst he ceased to be Leader of the Council as the project progressed, he did regret that the Project Board’s Terms of Reference had not been more clearly defined, which could have helped when issues began arise. He added that he also regretted that concerns regarding the Tennis Club’s growing disapproval of the project had not been raised earlier with the Project Board. Cllr T FitzPatrick stated that despite the withdrawal of LTA funding, the project had continued, though there had been a breakdown in communication between the Project Board, Cabinet and Council.

     iii.          Cllr S Penfold noted that during the project’s inception, there was no record of a full discussion on the feasibility study at Cabinet, and he did not therefore feel it was fair to place full blame on the Project Board. Cllr T Fitzpatrick replied that he was not placing full blame on the Project Board, and noted his recollection that a presentation was provided to Councillors, which had caused the majority of discussion to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.