Report to follow.
Minutes:
The Deputy Leader, Cllr E Seward, introduced this item. He began by thanking the officers for their hard work in preparing the bids and the two local MPs for their support, which would be crucial to how they were progressed. He said that the Council had to submit applications which met the criteria and that had the best chance of succeeding. The two bids that had been prepared were both very strong and met the criteria.
The Chief Executive apologised for the lateness of the report. A number of the officer team had recently had Covid. He said that there had been a presentation to Cabinet on 11th July. It had been explained that Cabinet had been advised that there was ongoing work regarding the costs for each project. This work was progressing well. The deadline for submission via the Government portal was midday on 2nd August. He concluded by saying that both bids reflected the Council’s ambitions as well as the Government’s levelling up agenda. He then invited the Corporate Director for Communities to introduce the Fakenham bid.
The Corporate Director for Communities explained that the bid for Levelling Up funding in Fakenham related to the proposed extension to the existing sports facility at Trap Lane in Fakenham; owned by the Council and operated by Everyone Active as part of the existing Leisure contract. The current facility comprised a sports hall, fitness suite, multi-use area, dance studio, changing rooms and reception area. The proposal saw an extension, which would include a 25m four-lane swimming pool with moveable floor and relocation of the fitness suite. Additionally, a new 3G all-weather artificial grass pitch was proposed to the north of the existing buildings. He showed members some images of the proposed facilities. He then explained that an allocation of £1,000,000.00 had been made within the cost amount for the provision of carbon reduction measures. The measures would be split between retrofitting the existing building and new provision on the new development. A public consultation process had received over 1000 responses, all overwhelmingly positive. He concluded by saying that FMG had provided a business model, setting out projected membership and usage of the facilities and details of this were set out in the exempt appendix.
The Chairman invited members to speak:
Cllr G Perry-Warnes asked what would happen if the project went over budget and if the Council would be liable for any excess payments or whether a 10% to reflect contribution to reflect the match-funding would be sufficient. The Director for Communities replied that the Council would be liable for funding any increase but everything had been done to mitigate this happening. Including ‘inflating’ the prices to reflect the likely award date, in line with industry standards.
Cllr J Toye asked whether there would be a full tender process later on if the bid was successful. The Director of Communities confirmed that the full process would be followed.
Cllr C Cushing thanked officers for all their hard work in such a short space of time. He asked if there was any indication of when the Government might respond. The Chief Executive replied that there was a lot of uncertainty at Government level generally, however, the message to local authorities was that it was ‘business as usual’. It was expected that an analysis of the bids at government level would be made in October and an announcement on the awards would be occur in November or December. The programme of delivery was for the period to March 2025. For Fakenham, if successful, it was anticipated that procurement would take place in the first six months of 2023.
Cllr N Housden referred to the costings and the projected commencement date and he asked whether the profiling of building costs could be adjusted in line with likely increases as the project progressed. The Director for Communities replied that once the bid was submitted that was it as far as funding was concerned. He added that he was confident the project could be delivered within the proposed timeframe, however, if it slipped for any reason then that would put additional pressure on the cost. Cllr Housden then asked then asked if inflation increased dramatically, if the project could come back to Full Council for further consideration before a decision to proceed was taken. The Director for Communities replied that if funding was awarded, then once the tenders were received, the Council would need to take a decision at that point as to whether to proceed or not.
Cllr J Rest sought reassurance that the submission of two bids would not cause a conflict with one another by effectively being in direct competition with each other. The Chief Executive replied that there was one bid for each Parliamentary constituency and they went through a separate appraisal process. He added that all efforts had been made to ensure that both bids were pitched at a scale that was robust and provided value for money, however, it was possible that one could be successful and the other not.
Cllr T FitzPatrick thanked the officers for their hard work. He said that it was a high quality bid, adding that it was important to apply for any Government funding that was available, especially for Fakenham and would support ambitions to ‘level up’.
It was proposed by Cllr J Rest, seconded by Cllr T FitzPatrick and
RESOLVED to:
A. The Broadland Constituency proposal – Fakenham Sports and Leisure Hub (FLASH) project
1. Sign off the submission of the Levelling Up Fund bid for the Fakenham Leisure and Sports Hub for a total cost of £10,951,419.00 with grant amount of £9,856,277.00 being applied for.
2. That, in the event that the Levelling Up fund bid in respect of the Fakenham Leisure and Sports Hub is successful:
· Agree to the release of the equivalent value of the Section 106 monies for off-site indoor sports provision for the Fakenham Urban Extension to the value of £408,337.00
· Agree to underwrite the provision of match funding for the 3G pitch to a maximum value of £575,000.00 in the event that Football Foundation funding is not forthcoming or the funding does not meet the full contribution level.
· Recognise the ongoing revenue cost implications associated with the enhanced facility and impact that will have on future revenue or contract payments.
The Chairman then asked the Chief Executive to introduce the bid submission for Cromer.
He began by explaining that this bid differed to the Fakenham one, as that was a complete project and this one was an ‘umbrella’ bid, aimed at reviewing and strengthening the tourism offer in Cromer. He said that if the principle of the project was endorsed, then there was scope to discuss with the Government, a priority ranking of elements within any cost envelope that was approved.
The Chief Executive said that the financial modelling, reflecting construction inflation and ‘optimism bias’ had resulted in a bid valued at £8.5m. If the grant application was successful, detailed costs would be prepared for each project element, packaged as appropriate to achieve value for money.
He explained that, as for the Fakenham bid, there was a match-funding requirement of 10%. Detailed consideration had been given to how this match-funding sum might be financed relative to ongoing obligations and liabilities the Council had in respect of the maintenance and repair of tourism infrastructure assets and contract costs with respect to grounds maintenance, lighting, pest control etc where the provision of new infrastructure could realise efficiencies for the Council moving forward and it was proposed that that the Council should seek to confirm matchfunding of the full £730,000 from the capital receipts budget, which would only be drawn down for this project if the Levelling Up application was successful. He added that Cromer Town Council and the Friends of North Lodge Park had provided match-funding offers of £120k between them.
The Chairman invited members to speak:
Cllr J Toye requested that the cycling offer was as strong as possible and that storage was considered too at the railway stations. The Chief Executive replied that the offer on the Runton Road car park included a cycle hire, repair and hub stop with lockers too. It was hoped to establish Cromer as a potential cycle hub area.
Cllr E Spagnola, said that as a local member, she welcomed the inclusion of changing places facilities and increased accessibility for everyone. She said that she lived in an area of the town that was quite poverty stricken and there were several children who were neuro-diverse and she was delighted to see the increase in access provision. In addition, the provision of a free splash pad and play are would make a huge difference to these families in particular.
Cllr L Shires agreed with Cllr Spagnola that there were high levels of inequality in Cromer for wellbeing and health. The provision of free, green areas for families to access easily would be true levelling up and should be welcomed.
Cllr S Penfold asked whether the Cromer bid linked up with any other projects such as the Deep History Coast. The Chief Executive replied that there were appropriate references throughout the bid to the Deep History Coast and that it would enhance the green flag status of the District. He added that there was strong community engagement with the project.
It was proposed by Cllr E Seward, seconded by Cllr V Gay and
RESOLVED that
B. The North Norfolk Constituency proposal – “Cromer – New Facets for Norfolk’s Gem” project
1. Council signs off the submission of the Levelling Up Fund bid for the Cromer, New Facets for Norfolk’s Gem project for a total cost of £8,495,000 with a grant amount of £7,645,000 being applied for.
In the event that the Cromer Levelling Up fund bid is successful:
2. Agree to the District Council providing £730,000 in match-funding financed from Capital Receipts.