Agenda item

The following recommendations were made to Full Council at the Cabinet meeting held on 5^th December:

 

1.    Agenda item 7: Fees and Charges 2023 - 2024

 

RESOLVED to recommend to Full Council:   a) The fees and charges from 1 April 2023 as included in Appendix A. b) That Delegated Authority be given to the Section 151 Officer, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Finance and relevant Heads of Service, to agree those fees and charges not included within Appendix A as required as outlined within the report   2.    Agenda item 8 - Treasury Management Half Year Report   RESOLVED to recommend that Full Council approves the Treasury Management Half Yearly Update   3.    Agenda Item 12 - North Walsham Market Place Improvement Scheme   RESOLVED to recommend to Full Council that £400,000 be allocated from the Business Rates Retention Reserve for the completion of the NWHSHAZ place-making scheme.     4.    Agenda Item 18 – Former Shannocks Hotel site, Sheringham   RESOLVED to recommend to Full Council   1. to confirm support for the serving of the General Vesting Document to take ownership of the site as soon as possible   2. To approve the additional capital budget for the full valuation cost as set out at section 6 of the confidential appended report, and an additional £10,000 to cover the costs associated with the purchase of the property to be financed from the Capital Projects Reserve and Delivery Plan Reserve.     Overview & Scrutiny Committee considered the above recommendations at their meeting on 14th December. As this took place after the Full Council agenda was published, the Chairman of the Committee, Cllr Dixon will provide an oral update on any recommendations made by the Committee.

 

 

 

1.    Fees & Charges 2023 – 2024

 

The Chief Executive introduced Tina Stankley, the new Director of Resources. He then said that following the announcement earlier that day regarding the provisional Local Government financial settlement, it was suggested that this item be deferred to allow for further consideration and revisions by Cabinet, ahead of the Budget preparation process.

 

RESOLVED

 

To defer the Fees and Charges 2023 – 2024, pending further consideration by Cabinet

 

Two members abstained.

 

2.    Treasury Management Half Year Report

 

Cllr E Seward, introduced this item. He referred members to the figures on short-term borrowing and highlighted the increase in interest rates from 0.36% to 2.65% and which was starting to have an impact on short-term borrowing costs. 

 

RESOLVED

To approve the Treasury Management Half Yearly Update

 

Two members abstained.

 

3.    North Walsham Market Place Improvement Scheme

 

Cllr N Housden said that he wished to raise the following point of order:

To propose a notice without motion under section 15.1 s (page 26 of the Constitution):

 

To ‘require that a report be made to a future meeting where the person responsible has declined or failed to arrange for a report’. He said that the report as currently presented did not contain sufficient detail for members to reach a decision. Moreover, despite repeated requests from the Overview & Scrutiny Committee for additional information, this had not been forthcoming, and he believed that members could not reach a qualifiable or accurately informed decision regarding the recommendations before them. He therefore proposed that the item be deferred to the next meeting of Full Council.

 

Cllr C Cushing seconded the proposal.

 

The Chairman invited the Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Growth, Cllr Kershaw, to respond. Cllr Kershaw said that the proposals had been considered by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee and the Cabinet Working Party for Projects also regularly reviewed the project. The Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee attended these meetings and no questions were raised. Additional information had been sent to all Members by the Corporate Business Manager in the last two days. He said that costs were rising at 40% and the project needed to be completed by March 2023 and it would be unwise to delay it further. He said that it was an excellent project and could potentially be de-railed if it was delayed further.

 

The Scrutiny Officer then read out the following statement from Cllr N Dixon, Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee, who was not able to attend the meeting:

 

‘In respect of the N Walsham Market Place Improvement Scheme I have to say the following as Chairman of OSC:

 

In the nearing 4 years I have Chaired OSC this is the least comfortable recommendation it’s made to Full Council. The merit of the overall Scheme or the need to deliver it wasn’t challenged. Around an hour was spent on this item; firstly, to understand the reasons why information requested in Oct and during the Dec Cabinet meeting hadn’t been supplied in timely or adequate manner. Secondly, this was crucial to OSC understanding how the contingency fund for the Scheme had been spent and, more recently, what the £400k would be spent on and why no mention of such a significant request hadn’t been made during earlier reports to OSC. There was insufficient information given during the meeting to answer crucial questions about how, where, when and why the extra money was needed. Moreover, concerns were raised about “project creep”, rescoping and descoping of various parts of the Scheme and how they variously impacted on costs and funding needs. Concern was also raised about project governance and management, especially of risk and cost escalation, and would there be further requests for funding. The lack of transparency and justification was a major concern. In order not to delay matters, and knowing it would be discussed at this meeting tonight, OSC pragmatically took a leap of faith and agreed the recommendation subject to the following 2 caveats and that OSC will review the Scheme progress in a scheduled report to OSC in Jan 23:

 

1. That Full Council be supplied with a much more detailed explanation and breakdown of the spend of the £400k, so that it can be satisfied on its justification - you will have to decide tonight on whether that’s been done?
2. That GRAC reviews the project governance and management of the scheme; in particular, regarding changes to its scope, risk rating & mitigation and whether it complied with the project management template developed by GRAC It also needs to look at lessons learnt and ensure appropriate remedial actions are taken.

That concludes my submissions on behalf of OSC.’

 

The Vice-Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Cllr S Penfold, confirmed that there had been a robust debate by the committee and further actions had been requested. However, the committee had supported the Cabinet recommendations and in recent days, further information around costings had been provided to members.  He felt that this was sufficient reassurance to proceed with the decision.

 

Cllr N Housden said that the Portfolio Holder’s response was factually incorrect. He said that the Overview & Scrutiny Committee had asked for figures in September, October, November and December. The December information came to members at 4pm the day before the Full Council meeting and the figures did not ‘stack up’. They did not provide the detail that had been requested and did not set how they related to the final completed works on site.

 

Cllr V Gay, said that as a local member for North Walsham, as far as she was aware that had not been any project ‘creep’ for the scheme. She added that there had been an unprecedented level of scrutiny via the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and now at Full Council. In addition, there was a project board which had accorded fully with the governance framework in line with audit requirements. She said she felt that the time for lessons learnt would be once the project was completed.

 

Cllr J Toye said that he had attended the Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting when additional information had been requested and he understood the reasons for this, however, the funding model and the timescales within which it had to be spent, made it clear to him that members had to take a ‘leap of faith’ and make the commitment.

 

Cllr L Shires said that Cllr Housden had mentioned that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had not received information. She said that if the Committee were not satisfied with the quality of the information provided, yet had supported the recommendation to approve the additional funding, it did not make sense. Cllr Housden replied that, as stated in the statement read out by the Scrutiny Officer, the recommendation was made with the caveat that the additional information was provided before the Full Council meeting so that members could make an informed decision. He added that he personally had requested information on the contingency figures several times at Overview & Scrutiny Committee and this had still not been provided.

 

Cllr P Heinrich said that it needed to be recognised that the original ‘wish list’ for the project was much more extensive than the project that was now proposed for completion. In fact, several things had been removed from the scheme to ensure that costs did not spiral. He added that it was one of the most successful of the Heritage Action Zone projects in the country and the Council had a moral duty to see it through to completion. If it required a small amount of additional money then so be it.

 

Cllr N Housden outlined all of the questions that he had raised at Overview & Scrutiny Committee which had still not been answered. 

 

1.    If the scheme was reduced, had a cost revision been completed which would confirm that the project would be completed within existing budget and on time, what would that final cost be and are there savings?

2.    What would the additional cost, if any be, if the project was completed as a reduced scheme but a further bidding round was undertaken to raise the additional finance and what time scale was envisaged for the raising of funding and then site mobilisation to undertake the works?

3.      What are the specific benefits (within the report but not detailed) to capitalise on greater outcomes if a further £400k was committed to the project?

 

The Chairman then asked Cllr C Cushing, seconder of the motion, to speak:

Cllr Cushing began by saying that the oversight of the project seemed to be shambolic. He said that when the report was presented to Cabinet, requesting the additional funding, both himself and the Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee, had asked why had the request suddenly come forward, when only two months previously, Members had been told that the project was running on track. He went onto say that a detailed breakdown of the £400k had been asked for as well as further information as to what had happened to any contingency funding. He reminded members that four out of nine Cabinet members were elected members at either district or county level and although, it was understandable that they had an allegiance to North Walsham, they needed to be seen to be open and clear and be challenging of any figures that were presented.

 

Cllr Cushing said that the Overview & Scrutiny Committee had reluctantly agreed to support the recommendations on the proviso that the detailed figures were provided before they were considered by Full Council. He said that members had been surprised to hear at the Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting that a substantial amount of the project was being managed by the County Council. He concluded by saying that this was public money and it was important that all proposals were fully scrutinised.

 

Cllr Kershaw said that this funding was to finish the scope of the project. It was not an extension but members needed to be aware that costs had risen hugely due to inflation caused by the wider economy. He said that he was happy to have a meeting to discuss the figures once they were available but the project could not be delayed any further as it would end up costing more in the long run.

 

Cllr Housden requested a recorded vote.

 

When put to the vote, 19 members voted against the motion to defer, 11 voted in favour and two abstained. The motion was therefore not supported.

 

The Chairman advised members that the vote on the original, substantive motion would now be taken. Cllr T FitzPatrick requested a recorded vote. When put to the vote, 19 members voted in favour, 11 against and 1 member abstained.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED

 

That £400,000 be allocated from the Business Rates Retention Reserve for the completion of the NWHSHAZ place-making scheme.

 

Cllr E Seward said that he objected to Cllr Cushing implying that Cabinet members were not even-handed when considering proposals. Cllr Vardy raised a point of order. He said that the vote had been taken and there should be no further discussion on the item.

 

4.    Former Shannocks Hotel Site, Sheringham

 

Cllr A Brown, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enforcement, introduced this item. He explained that it was a long-standing matter and formed part of the compulsory purchase procedure. He said that although the landowner had demolished the building in 2021, it was incumbent upon them to progress with developing the site. There was no evidence of this and steps needed to be taken now to progress the CPO process.

 

Cllr C Heinink, Local member for Sheringham thanked everyone for progressing this matter.

 

RESOLVED

 

To confirm support for the serving of the General Vesting Document to take ownership of the site as soon as possible

 

To approve the additional capital budget for the full valuation cost as set out at section 6 of the confidential appended report, and an additional £10,000 to cover the costs associated with the purchase of the property to be financed from the Capital Projects Reserve and Delivery Plan Reserve.