On 20 December 2024, Cabinet accepted the Community Regeneration Partnership funding and commenced delivery. Prior to this, the programme was accepted into the Policy Framework by Full Council on 8 June 2024 and the principle of entering the Partnership approved by Cabinet on 26 July 2024. Subsequently, the funding has been received and a Memorandum of Understanding entered with MHCLG which includes TDC as the Accountable Body. The funding period lasts until 31 March 2026.
The scope and details of the Ten_13 project were then approved by Cabinet on 17 March 2025.
The report presented to Cabinet in March 2025 included the appointment of a Property Agent to progress negotiations.
The Property Dealing Procedure was initiated in relation to the project by the Portfolio Holder for Assets in November 2025, in advance of the wider Cabinet governance due to the pressing nature to establish the feasibility of the project. In the instance that the potential acquisition is not deemed feasible, the Memorandum of Understanding relating to the funding programme allows for the funding to be reallocated to other project(s) within the funding programme, which would be subject to Cabinet approval.
The Project Initiation Document was approved by the Regeneration Capital Delivery Board in April 2025.

To enter contract with Whybrow

Option 1 – Not to appoint this company: In line with the Procurement Procedure Rules for this value level, a minimum of three quotations were sought electronically on the basis of a written specification. One compliant quotation was received and has been assessed by an evaluation panel of officers to meet the Council’s requirements.
Option 2 – Not to appoint at this time: Due to the limited funding envelope, delaying appointing to this key role in the project team could negatively impact on the feasibility of the project and risk the funding secured.
Option 3 – Carry out the Property Agent services internally: this approach was not selected by the Project Board in the Project Initiation Document due to the relative risk profile of the project and the resultant value of impartial advise from an independent surveyor; and due to internal surveyor capacity.