Decision Maker: Cabinet

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: Yes

Is Callable In?: Yes

Date of Decision: June 26, 2025

Purpose: The requirement to reallocate funding within the Simplification Pathfinder Pilot programme from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, following the formal decision to close the Pathfinder Port Infrastructure project, within the Green Port Intervention.   The funding reallocation was for the Green Campus, Clock House, Harbour Placemaking, Broad Street, Fishing Facilities and to Contingency.   As the Accountable Body for the projects within the Simplification Pathfinder Pilot, the council is the ultimate decision maker.

Content: Cabinet agreed the following:   1.  To note that confirmation has been sought from MHCLG for the deadline of using the allocated grant funds will be extended to the end of the financial year 2026-27, on the basis of the updated programme following the reallocation of funding;   2.  The reallocation of funding from the Pathfinder Port Infrastructure project to the following projects:   Project Additional Funding Allocation Green Campus £2,000,000 Clock House £1,700,000 Harbour Placemaking £2,000,000 Broad Street £585,000 Fishing Facilities £100,000 Contingency £1,247,603 Total £7,632,603   3.  That £1,247,603 will be held as a programme wide contingency fund, 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;   4.  The continuation of the fishing facilities scheme, with the required budget in place to deliver the scheme.

Reasons for the decision: The Simplification Pathfinder programme has faced significant challenges to deliver the schemes due to scope and subsequent budget constraints. One of the reasons is due to market inflation. With the grant funding having been awarded in 2019, rising costs of materials and services have impacted the deliverability of the schemes.   On the basis of the decision to close the Pathfinder Port Project, there was a requirement to reallocate the funding. On the basis of government guidance, this needed to be to already identified projects in the Pathfinder programme.

Alternative options considered: ·  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.   ·  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.   ·  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.   ·  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.