Agenda item

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery (copy enclosed).

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Service Delivery updating Members on the current position with Section 106 (S106) contributions and seeking approval to recruit a new fixed term resource to deliver the Council’s S106 programme of works.

It was noted that the Council received S106 contributions as part of the Planning Approval process for large applications.  Table 1 in the report set out the S106 financial contributions held by the Council and potential projects to be delivered subject to community engagement.

The report advised that the South Essex Parking Partnership (SEPP) had recently confirmed the Council would receive £137,000 for 2023 / 24 to delivery capital projects within car parks.  As the Council had already identified a capital sum to deliver such projects from existing budgets it was suggested that the surplus capital funding be used to fund a new fixed term Project Manager position to deliver the S106 Programme of Work.  The report provided further information on this post and the proposed use of the capital monies.

In response to a lengthy debate that ensued, and questions raised by Members, further information was provided by Officers which included:

·                  Confirmation that the projects detailed were historic.

·                  Members were advised that the SEPP monies had been approved and received by the Council.

·                  In respect of the proposed timeline, Officers noted it was ambitious and subject to various dependencies but believed it was deliverable and confirmed that Members (both Ward and others) would be engaged with regarding the projects, as would other stakeholders.

·                  Officers confirmed that they had recently met with the Youth Strategy Group to discuss the work they had carried out in relation to skateparks.  Some Member referred to the importance of involving potential users of skateparks etc. at the design stage, this was noted.

·                  It was explained when S106 contributions were due the Council worked out the indexation using the section industry figures and this was then added to invoices.  The contributions in relation to the projects outlined in the report had been received and the date for the first pay back (should the monies not be used) was October 2026.  It was noted that having received the monies the Council was now subject to inflationary pressure and hence the need to progress these projects.

·                  There were no restrictions on the use of the capital which became available through use of the SEPP funding to fund projects previously identified for capital spend.

·                  The priority of the proposed S106 Project Manager would be to deliver the S106 Programme of Work, and if they had capacity they would then support / help with the Council’s capital projects.

·                  It was noted that there could be potential revenue savings once existing assets were replaced with new, however any additional new asset would require a revenue budget for ongoing maintenance.

Councillor A S Fluker raised concern regarding the proposed new S106 Officer post and the need for possible further consultation, the annual costs related to such projects, what other projects the post would be required to deliver and the importance of statutory play areas including the possibility of discussions with the Royal Horticultural Service and Writtle College in respect of these areas.  He questioned if Officers had explored options for an external design delivery package which would deliver consultations and negate the need for a new in-house post.  Councillor Fluker then proposed that either this report be deferred until more information was received, or that the Council didn’t appoint a person or take the monies related to the post from funds but explore the opportunity of going to a design and build company who would look at this as a whole project and potentially save the Council some money.  This proposal was not seconded.

Councillor M F L Durham declared an interest that he was an Essex County Council Cabinet Member for Country Parks. 

In response to a question, it was confirmed that the Council had not consulted with a design and build company as the preference was to have a project manager within the team who knew the Council processes, area, priorities and could work with local people and Members to bring the scheme forward.  Members were advised that if the Council went to a design and build company there would still be an internal resource requirement to manage the project.

The Chairperson commented that there had been a lot of previous work carried out in respect of the design for the skatepark in Maldon.  This had involved consulting with the young users of the existing facility and also with some specialist design and built contractors.  He stated that this preliminary work should not be discarded as some of the work envisaged for the new Officer has already been done and should not be duplicated.

Councillor M E Thompson clarified that her earlier reference to deferral was not a proposition.

The Interim Chief Finance Officer explained that the money proposed from the Capital Programme had come from capital reserves and if not spent would have to be returned to the capital programme for other projects.  The monies could not be returned to the general fund.

At this point Councillor Fluker proposed that the report be deferred to allow the Head of Service – Assets, Coasts and Countryside to speak to Skateboard GB and Maverick Clark and Kent and come up with an alternative to the £140k spend.  This proposal was duly seconded.

Councillor R S Siddall spoke in favour of the recommendations and commented that there was an immediate need for these projects to be delivered as soon as possible. He then made a political statement at which the Chairperson intervened and informed Councillor Siddall that this debate was not an opportunity to make party political comments.

In response to a question, the Officer advised that if Councillor Fluker’s proposal was agreed he would need to speak to colleagues about the Council’s capital programme but believed it would fall further behind.

Following further discussion, Councillor Fluker clarified his proposal was that the decision on this item of business be deferred for four weeks in order for the Head of Service – Assets, Coasts and Countryside to answer some of the questions raised so that the Council could either go down the turnkey solution or not, due to the sum of monies involved.  He also requested that his vote be recorded.  The proposal was seconded.

The Chairperson then put the proposal in the name of Councillor Fluker to the Committee.  Upon a vote being taken this was declared lost.  In response to his earlier request, it was noted that Councillor Fluker had voted in favor of the proposal.

The Chairperson then put the recommendations as set out in the report and upon a vote being taken this was agreed.  In response to his earlier request, it was noted that Councillor Fluker had voted against the recommendations.

At this point Councillor R H Siddall withdrew some of his earlier comments and apologised for any offence caused.

RESOLVED

(i)                That the list of Section 106 contributions and potential youth projects, the ‘Programme of Works’ (as of June 2023) as set out in Table 1 within the report be noted;

(ii)              That a Project Manager post be recruited (fixed term) to deliver the Section 106 Programme of Works, funded from capital reserves utilising an identified surplus;

(iii)             That subject to (i) and (ii) above that project progress be reported to the Strategy and Resources Committee a quarterly basis.