Decision

£1,296,560 is being allocated from this Pathfinder programme contingency to the Clock House project.

Reasons for the decision

At the Cabinet meeting on 26 June 2025 a Pathfinder programme funding reallocation was presented for approval. Cabinet agreed to the reallocation of funding across the Ramsgate schemes, including an allocation of funding to contingency. Cabinet agreed that £1,247,603 would be added to a programme wide contingency fund with a total of £1,369,492. The contingency fund is to be allocated to any of the projects as required with the agreement of the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council.

The below table outlines the project budget position. An additional budget of £1,296,560 is required in order to facilitate the physical delivery works which will be undertaken by Willmott Dixon Construction (WDC). The council agreed to enter into a contract with WDC in July 2025 with the understanding that additional budget (as outlined in the table 1) was required to meet their contract.

Table 1

Description

Amount (£ excl VAT)

Clock House Budget

£3,950,000

Budget Uplift

£1,296,560

Revised Budget

£5,246,560

Alternative options considered

Option 2 - Do something - if the projects have to be delivered within their existing budget and no additional funding is allocated, an alternative option would be to close some of the projects and focus the funding on others. This would not deliver the wider long-term regeneration benefits or the agreed grant funding outputs, which could jeopardise the funding allocations needed to fund the works. This option was not recommended.

Option 3 - New Project - use the funding from the Port Infrastructure scheme to deliver a different project in Ramsgate that will provide the same level of outputs. A Project Adjustment Request and Business Case with Benefit Cost Ratio would need to be completed in order to gain MHCLG approval. This would add significant time to the programme and would make a scheme undeliverable. This option was not recommended.

Option 4 - Do nothing - an alternative option to those selected is to do nothing, this would result in reduced delivery of these grant-funded schemes and the necessity to return £7.6m of grant funding to MHCLG. This option was not recommended.

Option 5 - Different re-allocation of funding - Members could decide to alter the reallocation of funding across the projects, or across the whole programme, including the Margate schemes. However, this would not optimise the delivery of the programme outputs and outcomes, and Cabinet has agreed to keep the funding in the town it was awarded to. This option was not recommended.