Agenda item
This report implements the commitment given at the 17 December 2024 meeting of the Committee by the Leader (Minute 64 refers) to “pull together a comprehensive list of all of TDC’s current projects” and to submit these at a meeting of the Committee.
Minutes:
It was reported that this report of the Leader of the Council had implemented the commitment given at the 17 December 2024 meeting of the Committee by the Leader (Minute 64 referred) to “pull together a comprehensive list of all of TDC’s current projects” and to have submitted these at a meeting of the Committee. The list had originally been submitted to the 14 April 2025 meeting of the Committee. However, the Leader had submitted his apologies as he could not himself attend that meeting. Consequently, the Committee had deferred consideration of the report submitted. Following letters between this Committee’s Chairman and the Leader, it had been agreed that the Leader would attend this meeting of the Committee on 1 July 2025 to review progress with the projects. Appendix B to that report had been updated from that submitted to the 14 April 2025 meeting.
Members were reminded that the 14 April 2025 meeting of the Committee had also considered the outcome of the Chief Executive’s internal report, through Internal Audit, of the issues around unauthorised expenditure associated with the works at Spendells House (in Walton-on-the-Naze) to provide 32 rooms for temporary accommodation for homeless families. Although that report had been solely that of the Chief Executive, the Committee had considered that there were matters that it wanted to address to the Leader. Through that report, the opportunity had been provided for the Committee to ask those questions.
|
Questions by Members: |
Answers: |
|
Given the impending inevitable LGR impact, are we trying to stretch ourselves too far to deliver the Carnarvon Terrace project? |
Councillor Mark Stephenson – Despite it being the biggest current project that TDC are running, I do not think we are overstretching. The Project Delivery Unit are delivering this project, and updates are provided regularly, the next one being in five days. As we have been discussing, there is always an element of risk with larger projects, however, until the price comes in, we are not able to fully risk assess the project.
|
|
Following the presentation we previously received from them, can we be given an update on Spendells from the Project Development Unit (PDU)? |
Councillor Mark Stephenson – We will liaise with Officers to provide an update for an All Member Briefing as soon as possible.
|
|
There have been concerns with overspends on projects. How can we be reassured that issues won't repeat themselves? What due diligence is in place? What changes of process have been put in place to ensure that the same mistakes aren't made? |
Councillor Mark Stephenson - The problem with the overspend on Spendells was not in the process, it was that the process was ignored. We now have a document implemented as part of the process that ensures processes such as Finance, Governance and Decisions, are all followed, which the PDU have provided. Also, all projects have a project lead, and the reports now have a higher level of detail, showing how up to date we are. Following the issues with Spendells, this has prompted more inquisition on projects being delivered. Ian Davidson - When an officer makes a significant error, there have been processes that have been completed and there have been ramifications. The reassurance is in that when the processes aren't followed, there are measures in place, which we have seen unfold and outcomes as a result of that.
|
|
What was it that made the £380,000 up, for example, was it things that were not picked up on the original specification? |
Ian Davidson - This has been previously discussed and answered and was contained within the report that I submitted to the Committee in April 2025.
|
|
There are some projects listed that the Project Delivery Unit are overseeing, and some they are not. What are the criteria for this? |
Lee Heley – Primarily, the PDU is overseeing the projects being funded by the MHCLG (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government).
|
|
Would Spendells have been overseen by the PDU had it been in place at the time? |
Ian Davidson – It is a possibility, but it is impossible to say definitively because we did not have it in place at the time.
|
|
Is there any reassurance that Portfolio Holders can give us from a lessons learned perspective? |
Councillor Peter Kotz - Every time I meet with Officers, the first thing to be discussed is risk management and risk mitigation. That is a standing item purely because the one thing we can do when assessing ongoing projects is to minimise risk by asking these questions. By having these questions answered it allows me the knowledge to make the best decisions.
|
|
Looking at Spendells from a Cabinet perspective, the oversights came to light on 8th February 2024, but Cabinet didn’t know until the end of February 2024, why not? |
Councillor Mark Stephenson – A written response will be provided. |
|
What action did the Portfolio Holder take at the time? |
Councillor Andy
Baker - Conversations were had with the Corporate Director and the
Leader to question what we knew, how we had planned to deal with
it, and how it was going to be done, but until the full report was
received in May, and we knew exactly what the cost was, I was in a
position to possibly mislead this Committee or the Cabinet.
|
|
The list set out a vast amount of exciting, diverse and beneficial projects across the District and I feel the Cabinet should be commended for the work they are doing. Do you agree?
|
Councillor Mark Stephenson - I do agree. There are 54 projects and over £60 million being spent. There are also a lot of other daily tasks that Officers and Cabinet Members face alongside the management of these projects . |
|
Are we still going to be looking for new sources of funding as the Councils merge? If we do get the funding, how do we assure that the funding stays in Tendring and doesn't get spent elsewhere? |
Councillor Mark Stephenson - When we take on funding, we must ensure it meets our Core Priorities and make sure we have capacity and that time scales can be met. We are very good at partnership working and we are already working with who we anticipate being the Councils that will form our new Unitary Authority. This is something I feel the Committee should take forward as part of the LGR discussions as currently it is impossible to say how specific things will be affected.
|
|
Is there any money available to help us work with Town and Parish councils and other organisations? |
Ian Davidson - It depends on the project. It will be a mixture but whatever we do, it will take the capacity of the organisation to do it. We will continue to work with organisations going into LGR because it is going to be so important.
|
The meeting was adjourned for approximately 40 minutes at this stage for the Committee to consider their recommendations to Cabinet.
Councillors Stephenson, Baker and Kotz, as well as Ian Davidson, Richard Barrett and Lee Heley, left the meeting at this point.
Upon the resumption of the meeting it was moved by Councillor Bensilum, seconded by Councillor Harris and RESOLVED that the Committee recommend to Cabinet that:-
(a) due to the reliance on the newly established Project Delivery Unit for the larger Capital Delivery projects, Cabinet should give consideration to how non-Project Delivery Units projects are being managed and risk assessed;
(b) the criteria for projects within the Project Delivery Unit currently depends upon its funding source, Cabinet is requested to confirm this and consider expanding the scope of the Project Delivery Unit to other Capital Delivery Projects;
(c) Cabinet members should be reminded of their roles and responsibilities on managing projects, budget controls and risk assessments; and
(d) Cabinet should give consideration to not only risk management in relation to the individual projects but the totality of what Cabinet is seeking to seeking to achieve, based on the projects list presented to the Committee.
Supporting documents:
-
A.2 Report (plus Appendix A )- Update on Corporate Projects, item 12.
PDF 59 KB -
A.2 Appendix B to update report on projects, item 12.
PDF 150 KB -
A.2 Appendix C, item 12.
PDF 34 KB


