Agenda item

Decision

RESOLVED

1.1           To delegate to the Asset Strategy Manager (Estates), in consultation with the s.151 officer, the existing allocated capital budget to action remedial works as soon feasibly possible to the property, as outlined in the Intrusive Inspection and Damp Investigation Report, subject to the vacation of the tenant (RNLI).

1.2           Delegate to the Asset Strategy Manager (Estates), in consultation with the s.151 officer, to utilise any remaining capital budget to undertake energy improvement works to the property in order to increase the energy performance rating to the required standard for leasing.

1.3           Delegate authority to the Asset Strategy Manager to commence negotiation of terms for a new lease, with the existing RNLI tenant, with a further report back to Cabinet in accordance with governance procedures.  

Reason for the decision:

To address the ongoing issues with damp in the building and increase the energy performance of the building for leasing.

The Chairman explained that following the previous report to Cabinet on 4^th September 2023, detailing the options available, a visit to the property and technical briefing was made available for members. To gain further clarity over the damp issues, at the 8^th January 2024 Cabinet meeting it was agreed to commission further additional investigation into the fabric of the building to identify the cause of damp, establish remedial options and budget costings.  This investigation has since been completed and officers now sought approval to use the existing capital budget and move forward with repairing the building. He added that the energy efficiency of the building needed to be improved to save costs and meet net zero goals. It was hoped to complete the works within 32 weeks and within the allocated capital budget. He said that it was hoped that a joint press release could be released with the RNLI, following discussions about the heads of terms of the lease for the museum.

The Estates & Asset Strategy Manager advised members that if approved, a 32 week programme would be commence in the autumn to remediate the damp and undertake the energy improvement works. The cost would be £828k plus some additional costs for the energy works. A capital budget of £1m had already been approved by Full Council and it was intended to keep within that budget.

The Chairman invited members to speak:

Cllr C Cushing said that he was surprised by the lack of detail included in the report. He said in district terms, this was a large project costing almost £1m and he sought clarification as to whether the funding included the cost of repairs to the lift. Cllr Cushing added that at the September meeting of Cabinet, all of the reports and accompanying appendices were exempt and not in the public domain. This caused some concern as the public were keen to see the RNLI museum retained and would want reassurance regarding discussions over the heads of terms for the lease. He then asked for some assurance regarding the future resistance of the building to storm surges, if the proposed work was undertaken. He asked what would happen if the RNLI did not choose to take on the lease for the museum.

The Chairman replied that there was another tenant in the upper part of the building operating a very successful restaurant. He reiterated that the capital budget for this project had already been approved and several options were being presented. Regarding guarantees, he said that it hard to be certain that a major storm surge would not cause damage. That said, in terms of the long-term damp issues, a guarantee that this would not reoccur would be expected. He added that there was also an intention to update the public toilet provision on the site.

Cllr Cushing said that there were several building across the district that required a substantial amount of money spending on them and he felt that there was nothing in the report that demonstrated the case for the Rocket House requiring such a spend over other premises, adding that it would have been very helpful to have a business case included in the papers which would demonstrate the need to spend so much money. The Chairman replied that the alternative option of losing the building operationally would still require a decision as to what to do with it long-term. It would also impact on the viability of neighbouring assets as the public conveniences were integral to the services along the seafront. That said, he was pleased with the work undertaken by the Estates Team on this project and had worked very hard to identify the main challenges. In terms of the future, it would require close monitoring and members could visit the site again if they wished to.

Cllr L Withington reiterated the Chairman’s comments regarding the work of the Estates Team.

Cllr A Fitch-Tillett said that the decisions taken by the Administration in 2003 had left the Council in an impossible position. By supporting the construction of this unfortunate building. Even at the time the hazards of ground water intrusion were clear and concerns had been raised. She said that Cabinet was now in the unenviable position of having to support something that they knew to be a monumental mistake. If the RNLI museum did not continue at the site, then Council’s reputation would be damaged nationally. In addition, disabled visitors would no longer be able to access the promenade and tourists would not be able to enjoy the excellent views from the upper floor of the building. She concluded by saying that it was an unenviable position to be put in. The Chairman said that Cabinet could not take responsibility for a decision taken 20 years ago and it wasn’t helpful to focus on this. He said he acknowledged the concerns over the location of the building but the design of the building had been intended to counter these. Regarding access, he said this was one of the issues that the Council was trying to preserve. In conclusion, he said that the intention was that the RNLI Museum would continue to have a future in the town and joint press release would be issued soon.

Cllr N Dixon said that he agreed that Cabinet had been placed in a very difficult position. Any decision taken should be evidence based and devoid of party politics. He referred to the meeting of Cabinet on 4^th September 2023 and the range of options considered and there was an expectation that these options would be fully explored. He therefore asked where the options appraisal was and said that members should see this before almost £1m was committed to the project. He then asked where the business case was, saying that the extensive history of the building could provide a good indication of future issues. He asked how much the building had cost the Council since its construction and what were the annual revenue costs. This information would inform the future financial viability of the project and this was particularly important as the Council was currently facing a revenue deficit and needed to find income streams or ways of doing business more efficiently.

Cllr Dixon referred to the report presented to the Cabinet meeting of 4^th September, which indicated that the building would not be economically viable without external funding. He sought clarification that no external funding was available and that the Council was intending to cover the costs. He went onto say that it was important to review the history of the building and the decisions that had been made in the past, to ensure that the correct process was followed and the latest report presented to members did not provide enough information to support this. Cllr Dixon concluded by saying that the Chairman should consider his personal interests in this matter as a local member for Cromer and said that he was surprised that he had not declared a non-pecuniary interest at the start of the meeting. The Chairman replied that he did not have an interest in this matter. It was not in his ward and he had no connections at all to the building. Cllr Dixon said that the Chairman may want to consider public perception, adding that if a similar, large-scale project funded by the Council was underway in his ward, he would declare an interest as a local member.

The Chairman reiterated that he had no interest in the Rocket House building and did not need to declare an interest. He said that in terms of the current situation, he said that he was not aware of the extent of the problems before he took on the role of Leader of the Council. In terms of capital versus revenue budget, he confirmed that this was a capital funded project. Income-wise, rent had been received from both tenants and until recently, the building had been sustainable. However, as time had moved on, the problems had become clearer and the issues caused by general wear and tear were understandable. What was less excusable was the extensive damp problem which was proving difficult to resolve. As he said previously, one of the key issues was that the Rocket House linked so closely to other Council-owned assets along the promenade and it was key to the future of the area and its economic prosperity.

The Chairman said that the building was structurally very strong and he said that this should reassure members that any investment made would be sound for the long term. He added that alternative options such as demolition, closure and relocation but none were felt to be sustainable and would have required outside funding. In conclusion, he reminded members that the capital budget had already been agreed for the project and it was anticipated it would be completed on time and under budget. Cllr Dixon asked where the options appraisal and business case for this project. He added that although there was an approved capital budget in place, a decision to progress with the project had revenue implications and it was not clear whether this had been considered. The Chairman said that he felt he had covered this already, adding that there would be an opportunity to review the rents for the building in the future. All of the options that had been considered had been covered previously. Cllr Dixon said that there should be an options appraisal report and business case that supported this.

Cllr L Vickers said that she agreed with the previous speakers that the public needed more information and an options appraisal and business case would provide this.

Cllr C Cushing commented on the Chairman’s earlier assurance that members had already seen the detail supporting the options considered. He said that he had looked through all the previous reports and they had been confidential documents and the public had not been able to see the key information. The Chairman replied that any options appraisal would always be exempt and not available for the public to see. He reiterated that he had clearly set out the consequences of not undertaking the work.

It was proposed by Cllr T Adams, seconded by Cllr C Ringer and

RESOLVED

1.1           To delegate to the Asset Strategy Manager (Estates), in consultation with the s.151 officer, the existing allocated capital budget to action remedial works as soon feasibly possible to the property, as outlined in the Intrusive Inspection and Damp Investigation Report, subject to the vacation of the tenant (RNLI).

1.2           Delegate to the Asset Strategy Manager (Estates), in consultation with the s.151 officer, to utilise any remaining capital budget to undertake energy improvement works to the property in order to increase the energy performance rating to the required standard for leasing.

1.3           Delegate authority to the Asset Strategy Manager to commence negotiation of terms for a new lease, with the existing RNLI tenant, with a further report back to Cabinet in accordance with governance procedures.  

Reason for the decision:

To address the ongoing issues with damp in the building and increase the energy performance of the building for leasing.