Agenda item

Recommendations from Cabinet 06 June 2022

The following recommendations were made by Cabinet to Council at the meeting held on 6th June:

 

a)    Agenda item 14 - Cromer Pier Infrastructure Works

 

RESOLVED to

 

  • Recommend to Full Council that a capital budget of £1,134,000 is approved to enable the works to be completed,  to be funded from capital receipts

 

b)    18 - Approval of Insurance Contract

 

RESOLVED to

 

  1. Recommend to Full Council that additional budget provision is made for 2022/23 of £81.2k to be funded from the Delivery Plan Reserve if required at the year end.

 

Minutes:

The Chairman invited Cllr L Shires, Portfolio Holder for Organisational Resources to introduce the first recommendation:

 

Cabinet Agenda 06 June 2022 – Agenda Item 14: Cromer Pier Infrastructure Works

 

Cllr Shires proposed the recommendations. She queried the inclusion of exempt papers in the agenda as there had been an agreement at the Cabinet meeting that some of the financial information should be shared in the public domain. The Chief Executive replied that the capital budget amount was specified in the recommendation which was included in the public papers.

 

Cllr C Cushing said that £1,134k was a huge sum of money to come out of the Council’s purse and he had queried the bulk of the financial information being included in exempt papers at the Cabinet meeting. He said that he had concerns that this seemed to be yet another large amount of money being requested for the Pier. He added that for many residents of the District, the Pier was not always seen as a huge asset but more of a financial ‘black hole’. He asked what other options had been considered for maintaining the pier in the future to prevent further requests to release substantial amounts of money and why, despite previous assurances that the Council would not need to continue to keep paying out for the maintenance of the pier, were members being asked yet again to support such a request.

 

Cllr Shires replied that this was the third and final phase of the project. She said that the work was necessary to ensure that the pier was a safe structure for the public to access. The alternative would be to dismantle the pier and she did not think that this was a feasible option. Cllr Cushing said that he felt there was more work to be undertaken regarding how much money had been spent in recent years on maintaining the pier and what guarantee was there to assure members that this large tranche of money would be enough. The Chief Executive said that advice had always been sought regarding any works to the pier. It was a Grade II listed structure and the Council had a duty to maintain it. He said that alternative models of funding had been explored including sponsorship and the establishment of a trust but they were not considered appropriate at the time. He concluded by saying that many local authorities had responsibilities and obligations to preserve and maintain historic assets. Cllr Cushing commented that there should be a further discussion at some point to review the options available.

 

Cllr T FitzPatrick said that he was baffled why there were exempt papers for thisitem. He said that he understood that the contract had been awarded for both the capital project and the insurance contract (the second recommendation). He said that the cost to residents was over £10 a head. He asked about the tender process and that there was only one tender received. The Chief Executive replied that there had been an open tender process but only one tender had been received. Cllr FitzPatrick asked whether he could ask questions about the tender process given that the information was included in an exempt appendix. He referred to both of the Cabinet recommendations that were presented to Full Council for approval. Both related to tenders for large sums and in each case only one tender had been received. He said that this was concerning and he asked whether the tender process had been undertaken properly. He then asked about the valuation for insurance purposes and asked whether that was for the reconstruction of the pier. The Chief Executive replied that this was the next agenda item. There were two recommendations. Both related to the pier but they were separate recommendations. He said that he was at a total loss to understand why the residents of North Norfolk could not have the full financial details of the proposals shared with them. He asked the Monitoring Officer to state which paragraphs within the documents indicated that the information should be exempt. The Monitoring Officer referred Cllr FitzPatrick to the relevant paragraph pf the legislation which was provided at the top of the exempt document. Cllr FitzPatrick said that he was not satisfied with the Monitoring Officer’s response. The Monitoring Officer explained that both exempt appendices related to contracts that had not yet been awarded and outlined ongoing negotiations and were therefore not suitable for publication in the public domain.

 

Cllr Shires suggested that the two recommendations were dealt with separately as there seemed to be some confusion. Cllr FitzPatrick said that his main query was regarding why the information in the appendices for both recommendations was exempt. As far as he could see, only the name of the winning bidder needed to be kept confidential and he could not understand the justification for keeping the rest of the information confidential, unless the Council was in the standstill period for either contract. Cllr Shires replied that the insurance contract had not yet been awarded and that was why it was fully exempt. The Chief Executive clarified that there were two recommendations. The first item was to establish a capital budget for the works on the pier, following a tender process. The second item related to the awarding of the insurance contract for the pier. For the latter, a series of options had been presented to Cabinet and their preferred option was presented to Full Council. He explained that there was a significant increase in the insurance for the pier specifically with the Council’s insurance premium renewal. He said that additional budget provision was therefore required for the insurance of the pier and Cabinet had recommended to Council the amount of excess in the event of catastrophic loss of the pier. With reference to Cllr FitzPatrick’s question regarding the valuation of the pier, the Chief Executive said in terms of the discussions and learning from the capital budget recommendation, the construction cost issues and the specialist marine environment, the valuation for a total rebuild needed to reflect these and the related insurance risk. Cllr FitzPatrick commented that he had deliberately not mentioned the name of the insurer so as not to breach confidentiality, yet the Chief Executive had now disclosed this information, he reiterated his request to have an explanation as to why the financial details for both recommendations were in exempt appendices.

 

Cllr N Housden said that he agreed with Cllr T FitzPatrick as the capital sum was included in the public papers and he too did not therefore understand why the rest of the information was in exempt appendices.

 

The Chairman thanked everyone for their comments and said that she would now put the recommendations to the vote in turn.

 

Cllr T Adams requested a recorded vote.

 

It was proposed by Cllr T Adams, seconded by Cllr L Shires and

 

RESOLVED with 19 votes in favour and 11 against

 

That a capital budget of £1,134,000 is approved to enable the works to be completed, to be funded from capital receipts

 

It was proposed by Cllr E Seward, seconded by Cllr L Shires and

 

RESOLVED

 

That additional budget provision is made the insurance contract for Cromer Pier for 2022/23 of £81.2k to be funded from the Delivery Plan Reserve if required at year end.

 

12 members abstained.

Supporting documents: