Agenda item

To receive –

 

·         The report of the Deputy S151 Officer

 

·         Recommendations from Community & Resources Committee and Internal Overview & Scrutiny Committee

 

Minutes:

The Deputy S151 Officer presented the report, the purpose of which was for Members to consider, formulate and recommend updates to the Capital Programme 2022/23.

 

The Capital Programme includes authorised projects which require updating due to inflationary pressures, along with new PIDs (Project Initiation Documents) which require authorisation from Members before inclusion.

 

A detailed and informative slide presentation was given highlighting the salient points in the report.

 

Councillor Cottle-Hunkin read to the meeting a statement received from Deputy Mayor of Gt Torrington, Councillor Keeley Allin, who urged Members to give their support to the Pannier Market Gt. Torrington as a capital project for this year.   She asked that the following be included in the project - renovation of the frontage of the Pannier Market, any cosmetic works inside the Pannier Market and work to the Market House.

 

Councillor Laws raised a concern in relation to the costs towards the linear defence works at Westward Ho! and asked whether Central Government should accept a bigger responsibility towards this.  Members were advised that Officers will be working with the Environment Agency on a scheme and will be looking to get as much funding towards this as possible.

Councillor Hodson who is working with the LGA Special Interest Group on coastal issues, spoke on issues highlighted within the Group and confirmed discussions will continue with the appropriate Agencies.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Hodson, seconded by Councillor Newton that the recommendations stated in the report be approved. 

 

A debate then followed during which Members suggested the following changes to the list of recommended PIDs for inclusion in the capital programme:

 

C200 – Caddsdown Disabled Access Pathways and C204 – Sandymere Road to be deleted to release up monies for more urgent items, namely Gt. Torrington Pannier Market and Victoria Park. 

 

Officers explained why Caddsdown Pathways was considered to be a priority – to ensure compliancy (at present do not have adequate disabled parking) and to leave would have an effect on Insurance.

 

Members were reminded that those PIDs that fall below the project score of 65 will be referred back to Officers for further work/refinement and possible future consideration.

 

Councillor Newton, as a member of the Working Group who had revised the scoring system for the PIDs to ensure the quality and robustness of the projects approved, addressed the meeting, and explained why he was opposed to changes being made.

It was proposed by Councillor Craigie, seconded by Councillor Hames that Caddsdown Disabled Access Pathways be removed and Victoria Park to be included.

 

(Vote:  For 5, Against 22, Abstentions 2)

 

The motion was lost.

 

 

It was proposed by Councillor Brenton, seconded by Councillor Cottle-Hunkin that both Caddsdown Disabled Access Pathways and Sandymere Road be removed and Gt Torrington Pannier Market and Victoria Park be included.

 

(Vote:  For 7, Against 22)

 

The motion was lost.

 

A vote was then taken on the substantive motion to accept the recommendations in the report which had been proposed by Councillor Hodson, seconded by Councillor Newton and –

 

Resolved:

 

a)     That the Capital Programme be updated for building cost inflation

 

b)     That the Vehicle Programme be updated for inflation

 

c)      That the Vehicle Programme is Balanced long term, by increasing the contributions from revenue.

 

d)     That the following PIDs that met the minimum recommended project score of 65, be included in the Capital Programme:

 

o   C202   Core Server

o   C200   Caddsdown Disabled Access Pathways

o   C199   Revs & Bens Digitisation

o   C204   Sandymere Road

 

With the PIDs that fall below this score being referred back to officers for further work/refinement, and possible future consideration.

 

(Vote:  For 22, Against 7)

 

The motion was carried.

 

 

Supporting documents: