Decision details

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.

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.

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.