Agenda item

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube

 

The Manager, PMO presented the Project Highlight reports.

 

The Assistant Director, Property and Projects explained that the Board could identify any of the projects for a “deep dive” and relevant officers invited to attend a meeting to give a presentation and answer any questions.

 

St George’s Guildhall and Creative Hub Project

 

Councillor Parish drew attention to page 21, St George’s Guildhall and Creative Hub project and explained that the Council had not agreed to underwrite the £3m whilst other funding options were explored.  This had been highlighted to the Chair of the Town Deal Board and was accepted that the Borough Council could not afford to underwrite £3 m.  He requested that the project definition on the report was updated.

 

The Chair, Councillor Beales confirmed that at the first meeting of the Town Deal Board following the May Election it was acknowledged by the Chair that the Borough Council would not underwrite the £3m and agreed that the report required updating.

 

The Monitoring Officer explained that as the previous Cabinet and Full Council had agreed to underwrite the £3m it would be required to go through the democratic process again to get formal agreement.  A Cabinet report would be put forward to enable Councillors to consider all options which would be considered by Cabinet and ratified by Full Council for rectifying the capital programme.

 

Councillor Morley confirmed the report would need to go to Full Council and outlined reasons why the whole document required rephasing accordingly.

 

Councillor Kemp added that these issues needed to go through a process and that the £3m was in the original budget and required Cabinet and Full Council approval and did not disagree with the variation.  Councillor Kemp referred to page 22, a red RAG rating for resources for the £12m Guildhall project and the lack of capacity in the project team to oversee and apply for funding and asked what plans were in place to address this.

 

In response, Councillor Morley explained that the CIO had been accepted by the Charitable Commission and the Trustees had been appointed and that the report should be from the Trustees on progress and was an interim period that regarded sorting out for the £9m project.

 

The Chair, Councillor Beales advised that the focus was now on the £9m project.

 

The Assistant Director, Property and Projects commented that a number of good points had been made and that there was an error in the highlight report as there has been a shift in emphasis following the new Administration and would be picked up and amended prior to the next report.

 

Councillor Moriarty referred to page 21 – last report resource red and resource had now moved to amber as things progressed.

 

The Chair, Councillor Beales that the Town Beal Board project was in his Portfolio and the Assistant Director, Property and Projects had referred to Portfolio Holders and added that Councillor Ring has the most detailed knowledge of this project and consideration should be given as to how to bring in that knowledge in relation to the CIO and wider membership of MMPB.

 

Councillor Ryves referred to the Guildhall project and asked if it was now a £9m project does the underlying defection of the budget reflect that as there was an ambiguity if it was being presented as a £12m with the relevant infrastructure.  In response, the Chair, Councillor Beales advised it was investigative work that the Guildhall had not been assessed in its lifetime and would be fully assessed and the budget would have to fit accordingly.

 

Councillor Ryves commented that he was not aware that the underwriting had been agreed by Full Council.  In response, the Monitoring Officer explained that  it had been definitely underwritten, but at the same time the Cabinet report and the recommendation made it absolutely clear that there was to be an options paper brought back so that Cabinet could again look at this “floating £3m” and that she fully understood the Administration’s policy position on that but it was formally underwritten with the strict proviso that another options paper would come back on the £3m.

 

Councillor Parish, Leader explained that he had taken advice on what he could do/not when he became Leader of the Council and advised that he could refuse to underwrite the £3m and made it public and informed the Chair of the Town Deal Board that the Council could not afford to underwrite the £3m which had been accepted.

 

The Monitoring Officer undertook to meet with Councillor Parish outside of the meeting regarding authority as Leader and the process required to amend the underwriting decision previously made by Full Council to remove the underwriting from the Capital Programme.

 

Councillor Dickinson explained that the £3m had been allocated in the capital programme which was approved by Council as part of the Capital Programme and added that she agreed with the Monitoring Officer in that the Cabinet report was specific in terms of a provisional underwriting and a further report would be brought back and that there were two aspects to this.

 

In response to questions from Councillor Morley regarding the current position of the Guildhall Informal Working Group, Councillor Moriarty undertook to clarify the position.  The Monitoring Officer explained that the terms of reference for the informal working group could be examined outside of the meeting to determine if the terms of reference had been fulfilled and if there was any purpose to continue.

 

Following a discussion it was agreed that MMPB would undertake a “deep dive” into the Guildhall project at a future meeting.

 

Parkway

 

Councillor Parish referred to page 75 – Parkway and advised that the title had been amended to Florence Fields and a Cabinet report was being drafted to change the tenure mix.

 

The Chair, Councillor Beales confirmed there was ongoing work to explore tenure mix.

 

Councillor Morley asked if there was still opposition to the Florence Fields development and if so what could be done to address the concerns raised.  Councillor Ware advised that she had attended a meeting with project officers a couple of months ago and added that clearly the project was underwritten by the funders on the particular basis of tenure and explained that it could not be changed without negotiations and added that she thought those negotiations had not taken yet place.

 

The Chair, Councillor Beales commented that there was a significant amount of work being carried out on the financial implications of altering the tenure mix and the economic possibilities.

 

The Monitoring Officer explained that the Cabinet Report had stated that a report on tenure mix was intended to come forward in October 2023 but advised that there was some slippage as what had been identified and that the tenure mix paper would need to be tied in with a financing paper with the companies because whilst we know the financing arrangements this would feed into the tenure mix discussion and that this would now be around January 2024 after the financing decision.

 

Councillor Ware commented further on the local opposition point.  Letters have been written to businesses, residents, etc and added that she was attending a local school meeting to discuss a presentation because there was opposition but she thought the Council could do some good public information on the benefits that will arise for the area which she did not feel had been well presented to date.  The Chair, Councillor Beales invited Councillor Ware to discuss this outside of the meeting to remedy the situation.

 

Councillor Ryves referred to Parkway and the output figures being 65% open market sales units and commented this was a grey area.  In response, the Chair, Councillor Beales explained that it remained to be seen but the political objective was to increase the percentage of private rented sector and affordable rented.

 

Following a further question from Councillor Ryves in that any major changes would require Full Council approval, the Chair, Councillor Beales advised that any major changes would require Full Council approval and advised that preparatory work was being undertaken to put into the democratic process and all Councillors would have the opportunity to comment.

 

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that any major changes would require the approval of Full Council.

 

Southend Road, Hunstanton

 

Councillor Parish referred to page 84, Southend Road, Hunstanton for the delivery of 32 flats (open market and affordable units) and that he had been present when the application had been considered several times by the Planning Committee.  Councillor Parish explained that at the penultimate Planning Committee he proposed that officers should ensure that the development couldn’t be holiday accommodation and ensure that it was offered to local residents.  Officers came up with a solution which was proposed at the final Planning Committee where approval was granted.  The flats were to be offered to local people and protected from second homes and holiday flats.  Cllr Parish said that the minutes were vague which would not determine it but the recording was available and would confirm the decision.

 

The Monitoring Officer undertook to check the recording of the Planning Committee to clarify the decision and include this in future Project Highlight Reports so that the position was clear.  The Chair, Councillor Beales added that within the working environment and the officer team, the definite understanding was that the flats were to be offered first to local residents and the same ambition was also for Florence Fields.

 

Councillor Blunt concurred with the comments made by Councillor Parish.

 

Councillor Morley commented that had undertaken a recent site visit with the Chair, Councillor Beales and added that progress had not been made as much as expected.  Councillor Morley highlighted the figures set out in the financial summary spend to date in this financial year was £598,761 which was £2,299,283 behind forecast and commented that there had not been as much progress as expected.  Councillor Morley added that the comments indicated that there was an issue about the cavity wall risk and that more detail should be explained in the highlight report. In response, the Chair, Councillor Beales suggested that the Board undertook a “deep dive” into Southend Road, Hunstanton project.

 

The Assistant Director, Property and Projects explained that this was an evolving process and the specific queries raised would be discussed with the relevant Project Manager and responses reported back to the next meeting of MMPB.

 

The Chair, Councillor Beales highlighted the importance of needing a reporting process being place.

 

Councillor Morley added that when the risk was identified by the Project Manager, commentary should be issued to explain what the issue was and the degree of risk. 

Councillor Morley suggested that MMPB could be invited to submit questions in advance of the meeting, upon receipt of the papers, in order that a response could be given at the meeting.

 

Councillor Ryves asked Councillor Morley what were the financial impacts if the Council moved towards restrictions for purchase of the flats.  Councillor Morley explained that the financial assessment had been agreed by the Leader. The Chair, Councillor Beales explained that this was a question he had asked the corporate project officer team and had been informed that officers were not concerned with the impact because there was enough demand for local buyers.

 

Councillor Moriarty commented that he was not aware of the process in the past but asked if the Chair would be minded to have a sifting session prior to each meeting, which the Chair, Vice Chair and officers would attend and invite in advance of that any deep dives required and also when the Agenda was published, if there were questions be submitted in advance to officers.

 

The Chair, Councillor Beales suggested that a deep dive of one of the projects be presented to the next meeting either the Guildhall, King’s Lynn or Southend Road, Hunstanton and invited comments from the Board or identified at a sifting meeting.

 

Councillor Blunt commented that his preference was to identify a deep dive project at the end of this agenda item.

 

Southgate, King’s Lynn

 

Councillor Parish referred to page 93 Southgate and commented on the overall rating – green and referred to a recent article in the local newspaper which had implied that more money was required in order to complete the project and that this might not come forward yet because of increased cost and asked if there was a funding issue.  Councillor Kemp explained that her understanding was that the project was funded last year by a £24m levelling up grant which had been awarded against the cost of £26m and added that Norfolk County Council had agreed to provide the remainder of the funding.

 

Councillor Morley stated that the Southgate had been split into two project reports for Southgate  - Master planning and STARS project.  Councillor Morley pointed out the highlight report stated that the Department of Transport still had to ratify the funding for the gyratory.  In conclusion, Councillor Morley suggested that the Board undertake a deep dive of both Southgate projects.

 

Following comments on from the Board on the grants received to develop the projects, Councillor Kemp explained that her understanding was that part of that funding, STARS was a wider project which included changing the gyratory around King’s Lynn so that was included in the £24m as well as work to the Southgate.  Councillor Kemp commented that Members should be aware that the project was not a decongestion scheme and had been said that it could lead to greater queues at various times of the day and that was a worry and therefore the Council should not promote a scheme which could cause more congestion than at present and this was of great concern and stated she wished it to be put on record.

 

The Chair, Councillor Beales stated that Southgate would be added to the list of deep dive projects.

 

Councillor Ryves added that his understanding was that the project included provision of 150 residential units and asked how the units would be funded.  In response, the Assistant Director, Property and Projects explained that there were two projects and the road, etc had been the subject of discussion for a number of years.  The Board had received an overview of the land assembly acquired including Brownfield site for development and funding available would be considered at a later date.  The Manager PMO explained that according to the highlight report, the outputs for the master planning for Southgate included 115 housing units but that it was too early to estimate the cost.  The Chair added if the context could be added to the report as it was an important point.

 

The Assistant Director, Property and Projects explained that in addition to the Council’s Regeneration Team undertaking the master planning exercise, small slithers of land were being made available to deliver the road infrastructure.  The Board was advised that the master plan indicated what the site could accommodate but the costing and viability studies had not been carried out because the road did not currently exist and would be looked at in the future.

 

Councillor Morley provided an overview his understanding as to why the project had been split into two separate reports.

 

NORA – Development Spec Units Phase 2

 

Councillor Morley referred to page 65 and commented that the summary indicated red and the project had been stopped and asked if it affected the other Town Deal projects relating to the Active Travel Hub, etc and asked whether there was a link that meant other projects were also required to be looked at with more scrutiny.  In response the Assistant Director, Property and Projects explained that route of Nar Ouse Way and that the Enterprise Zone phase 1 and phase 2 was on the east and the active travel hub was on the west.  Phase 1 and 2 were separate from the Active Travel Hub.

 

The Assistant Director, Property and Projects advised that the Council had gone out to tender but had been too high for Phase 2 and was pushed back in the Capital Programme to see if a better price could be obtained in the future.

 

Councillor Morley asked if the project needed to be revisited to see if was a feasible project.  In response, the Assistant Director, Property and Projects explained that road infrastructure had been put in place into eastern side which open up 38 acres of development land and it was hoped would attract the private sector investment.

 

The Chair, Councillor Beales added that his understanding was there was no infrastructure impact on the Hub and sought clarification for the next meeting.

 

The Chief Executive explained that the issue in relation to the spec units phase 2 was a funding issue for that project in that the Council had funding with the new Anglia LEP and with the increases in prices the Council had to go back and there was an issue securing the funding.  It was highlighted that there were different issues alongside the rising costs from the Towns Fund project.

 

In response to questions from Councillor Blunt on the Enterprise Zone infrastructure project impacting on other phases and the South Lynn Surgery, the Assistant Director, Property and Projects explained that there were several projects coming together at the same time and the NHS had a hard time line to deliver the surgery to be open at the end of March 2024 and provided an overview of the reprofiling of the road infrastructure and delays of other projects.

 

Councillor Kemp stated that in her view the surgery should be listed as a major project and expressed thanks to the Assistant Director, Property and Projects and his team for progress the project.

 

Riverfront Regeneration Project

 

The Assistant Director, Property and Projects responded to questions and comments from the Board.

 

Councillor Morley commented that consideration should be given to undertaking a deep dive on the Riverfront Regeneration Project.

 

Following questions from the Chair, Councillor Beales on the content of the Regeneration and Development Panel and the link with the deep dive of projects by the MMPB, the Assistant Director, Property and Projects  confirmed that update reports on projects could be presented to the Regeneration and Development Panel.

 

Councillor Dickinson suggested that two deep dives be undertaken at the next meeting.

 

It was agreed by the Board that deep dives would be undertaken on the Southgate and Southend Road at the next meeting.

 

RESOLVED:  MMPB would undertake a “deep dive” into the following projects and these would be programmed:

 

•           Guildhall, King’s Lynn.

•           Southend Road, Hunstanton.

•           Riverfront Regeneration.

•           Southgate – Master planning and STARS.