Content

RESOLVED that Cabinet
–

 

(a)   
notes the increased capacity requirements on the Council’s
resources to deliver a number of projects and schemes highlighted
in the report, in addition to responding to the Council’s
existing functions and responsibilities.

 

(b)   
subject to (a) above, and the allocation of
£1.000m of funding set out within item A.9 elsewhere on the
agenda,  a Project Delivery Unit is
agreed to be established for an initial period of 24 months from
the date of the first officer starting in role;

 

(c)   
accepts:
 

(i)     
£90,000, made available by the Government as
capacity funding to support the Levelling Up Partnership
Project

(ii)    
a sum of £86,000 made available by the
Government as capacity funding to support the Levelling Up Capital
Project in Clacton;
 

(d)   
subject to (a) to (c) above, transfers both the
£90,000 and £86,000 above to the funding of the Project
Delivery Unit, bringing the total initial funding to
£1.176m;

 

(e)   
notes the Chief Executive will undertake the
activities required to recruit the necessary capacity within the
Project Delivery Unit, as Head of Paid Service (being non-executive
functions);

 

(f)    
recognising the impact on the Council, supports the
Council acting as the Accountable Body for the Partnership to the
benefit of Clacton and Jaywick,
delegates entering into any agreements with Partners to the
Corporate Director (Place and Economy), in consultation with the
Section 151 Officer, and where necessary by entering into
funding agreements with partners to do so;

 

(g)   
recommends to Full Council to approve that Tendring
District Council act as the Accountable Body for the Partnership
(or alternative relationship determined by Government in revised
policy), which forms part of the Council’s Corporate Plan
24-28, ‘Our Vision’ and therefore, within the Policy
Framework;

(h)   
subject to (g) being approved by Full Council, the
delegation by Cabinet in December 2023, can be exercised by the
Corporate Director (Place and Economy) in consultation with the
Section 151 Officer and the Monitoring Officer to enter into any
agreements with MHCLG for this Partnership;

 

(i)    
subject to (g) being approved by Full Council and
Cabinet, and Government approving business cases for funding, the
Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth, Regeneration and Tourism be
required to report to Cabinet the scope and details of the
individual Partnership Projects together with the relevant
Portfolio Holders taking the lead on delivery prior to
implementation;

 

(j)    
notes that the Chief Executive has nominated the
Corporate Director (Place and Economy) as the lead officer for the
Partnership; and

 

(k)   
notes the Levelling Fund and Capital Regeneration Projects Portfolio
Working Party terms of reference will be extended to include this
Partnership and Town Board matters.
 

Reasons for the decision

In the light of the
fact that:-
 

(1)   the Council wished to strengthen and deepen its
project management capacity. Creating a team of additional officers
would enable the Council to progress its agreed major capital
delivery schemes, provide advice and systems for project managers
across the organisation, and protect existing business-as-usual
operations from the impact of major new projects taken on by the
authority. In short, without this additional capacity the Council
would not be able to deliver the projects under the Long Term Plan
for Towns and Levelling Up Partnership
and the opportunity to invest tens of millions of pounds in the
District would be lost.

 

(2)   the recommendations were made to capitalise on the
Government’s funding opportunity to address key
socio-economic challenges in Clacton and Jaywick, improve local infrastructure, enhance
community services, and ultimately contribute to the long-term
regeneration of the area. This was a once in a decade opportunity
for Tendring to deploy investment on this scale, in addition to
other levelling up funding, to be benefit of Clacton and
Jaywick.

 

(3)   the recommendations were
framed to meet the current situation, namely that the Government
had announced support for the Levelling Up Partnership in May 2024,
but business cases were yet to be approved by HM Treasury, and new
Ministers had not yet decided on continuing with the Levelling Up
Partnership policy and fund since the Parliamentary General
Election on 4 July 2024.

Alternative options considered

Project Delivery Unit
 

1.  
To deliver within existing resources.  The Council considered continuing to deliver major
projects within existing resources. The benefit of this approach is
that it keeps a tight reign on revenue
spend. However, it brings with it risks to the delivery of many
millions of pounds of capital spend, with the increased risk of
overspend, either due to late delivery, or not managing contractors
and costs effectively.

2.  
To procure a company to provide additional resource. We
explored the potential to contract in a company to provide
additional capacity. This has the advantage of a quick turn around time once procurement was undertaken,
as large companies have existing capacity. However, it is more
appropriate for a small number of large projects that are clearly
scoped with detailed requirements, rather than for a wider range of
smaller projects with emerging requirements, where the likely costs
of a large outsourcing company would be not be value for money.

3.  
To employ interims. This has the benefit of pace,
flexibility and control, as interim staff can be directly line
managed, and are usually available on very short notice and expect
to have fixed term appointments, not permanent contracts. However,
there is a very significant cost to interims, quality is not always
assured, and so with a fixed budget more capacity can be provided
through a more a more traditional recruitment route. The Council
remains open to the potential for interim recruitment depending on
the outcome of its initial recruitment efforts.
 
Levelling Up
Partnership
 
Not to accept
the principle of entering the Partnership: This option was
considered. Given the scale of the project work in the limited time
available, and the risks to the Council if there were overspends at
a time of tight finances, the option of not taking the projects
forward was considered. However, it was ultimately dismissed as it
would forfeit significant government funding and the opportunity to
address important local issues.