337
Councillor J. Young (by reason of serving as a member of the Greenstead Board) declared a non-pecuniary interest in the following item pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 7 (5).
A Panel member queried what was expected of the Panel in its consideration of this item, voicing concern that the Panel would not have sufficient time to consider fully the business cases and give a meaningful recommendation that they be approved by Cabinet, or not. It was argued that each could take half a day to review fully, in line with Green Book methodology and guidance. It was suggested that the Panel could give some guidance to Cabinet regarding this and schedule more in-depth scrutiny of the specific business cases on future dates. The Panel agreed to concentrate on the other elements of pre-decision scrutiny listed in the covering report and accept that the 151 Officer and colleagues had carried out the necessary due diligence and evaluation and could give Cabinet assurance on project viability.
Adrian Pritchard, Chief Executive, gave assurance that the business cases provided contained all the detail and assurance needed to show that all business cases had been properly prepared. The 151 Officer could also give assurance regarding the strength and viability of the business cases. The Chief Executive gave a presentation to describe the history of the Town Bid/Deal and the governance structures in place to oversee the projects and use of funds. £19.2m (including £1m of accelerated funding) had been offered to Colchester, with the geographic area of the Town Deal being set out by Government, with no influence being possible from the Council or its partners. Other pots were and would be available for rural areas. The way to partner with communities and partners had been set out to allow partnership working in deciding the content of the Town Bid for funding. The Council was the accountable body for the funding received from Government. The budget was laid out and challenges noted, including increasing costs for major developments. Adjustments had been necessary to meet inflationary effects and keep to the budgets allocated.
Lindsay Barker, Strategic Director of Policy and Place, provided highlights relating to the projects within the business case for the ‘Town Centre and Gateways’. This included two accelerated schemes, with Balkerne Gate improvements having already been delivered and phase two of the work being led by Amphora officers. A lease had been secured for Jumbo, from the owner, and the Deal would fund repairs and allow for further funding to be sought. The potential opportunities for using Jumbo were outlined. Elsewhere, work on St. Isaac’s Walk would improve accessibility, especially for people with limited mobility, and would provide secure bike storage.
Early action had been taken to mitigate the effects of increasing costs, with recommendations taken to the ‘We are Colchester’ Board. Quality was important and some changes were taken to the Board for approval. Some allocations remained unchanged where this was part of other projects or wider funding arrangements. A high-level overview was given to explain the changes to budget.
Community 360 was lead partner on delivering a hub in Holy Trinity Church, benefiting from officer expertise provide by the Council. The Council would contribute around a third of the cost to open this hub and fund public realm improvements around the hub.
Plans were detailed for improving physical connectivity, with detailed plans and a strategy already in place. 2.9km of the route from the Town centre to Greenstead and the University was to be upgraded, with plans in place both for a scheme if additional funding is won, and alternatively if extra funding is not won and the scheme has to be split up with some works to be carried out at a later date.
Dan Gascoyne, Chief Operating Officer, introduced and presented the ‘Heart of Greenstead’ Project, explaining where it linked to other project work. This project accounted for around a third of the overall funding offered and was targeted at tackling inequalities in Greenstead. The area’s background was summarised, along with the need for investment. Previous plans were described along with the viability gaps in funding from which they suffered. The £6m funding covered much work, with further funding, around £2m-£3m, highlighted as coming from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
The partners and stakeholders in consultation and delivery were noted and an overview was given of the planned outcomes and aims was given. The options considered were detailed and the expansion of plans to encompass the expected wider business case for an expanded scheme was explained. A refreshed masterplan had been designed in a community-led approach, including an expanded aim for new affordable housing provision. The planned community and wellbeing hub was described, delivering the ‘neighbourhood’ model and the timeline was given for the project, including information on risks identified and mitigations laid out.
The Chief Executive explained that the Council’s 151 Officer had a role to examine the plans to ensure viability, project proportionality (including between the size of business cases and the size/value of the projects themselves). Green Book assessments had been carried out and then the Chief Executive had a duty to achieve sign off for the business cases via the Town Deal Board [We Are Colchester]. Assurance was given to emphasise the senior management role in leading and stewarding each project.
Praise was given to the work of officers and the wide range of partners working on the projects and seeking to leverage further funding. The connectivity of the schemes was also praised, and Panel members recommended that all councillors watch the footage of the presentation given.
Officers were asked whether there was the ability to transfer funding between projects, if necessary, how spending would be monitored, and what would happen in the event of a change in the Council’s political administration. It was agreed by the Chief Executive that some flexibility in moving funding around was key to ensure this was used where necessary and the Panel were informed that the Town Centre Deal Board were aware of the possible need for changes to be approved as work progressed.
The Panel discussed when it could conduct a future review of the business cases and queried what post-implementation reviews from past projects had fed into this process. The Chief Executive noted that some previous post-implementation reviews had identified insufficiencies in project management resources and that this learning point had informed the appropriate management of these projects, taking advantage of the funding granted for such management. Previous experience had showed that it was important to use the Green Book methodology and the Council had learned how to carry this out. As the accountable body, the Council had service level agreements with some delivery partners, such as the County Council, and assurances were given regarding oversight of projects and the seeking of funding to further improve the projects where possible. An emphasis was placed on the Government funding provided to pay for the time of expert officers who brought their technical expertise. It was hoped that Government would respond quickly once the projects are put forward in March, and a future review, by the Scrutiny Panel, of project work would be then useful around six months after that point, according to the Strategic Director for Policy and Place. The Chief Operating Officer suggested that the business cases/projects be brought individually for scrutiny, to allow the Panel a chance to examine them in greater depth individually. It was suggested that the Panel could be given a timetable of the project work so that it could assess when best to revisit each project and help officers to lay out a timetable for the Panel to scrutinise each project.
Returning to implementation reviews, a Panel member argued the merit of these in order to assess if each project had achieved its aims, factoring in the cost of such reviews in the long term. It was noted that some of the outcomes listed were not easy to assess regarding their achievement, and a member argued that there was no guarantee provided that sufficient resources had been allocated to allow for a full review. Whilst some outcomes were easy to see, some were harder to judge, ceteris paribus, due to changes caused by other variables. It was therefore argued by one member that assessment methods should be built in to the business cases.
Pam Donnelly, Strategic Director of Customer and Relationships, addresses points made. The Strategic Director acknowledged the importance of efficient connectivity between projects and agreed that embedding of the outcome evaluation process was a necessity, giving assurance that Matthew Brown, Economic Regeneration Manager, was already working on this. Work was planned to pool data with partners to show impacts and trends, and there would be reliance on community engagement, especially on the ‘Heart of Greenstead’ project. The Chief Operating Officer highlighted that the management case contained detailed information on the monitoring and metrics relating to objectives. The Economic Regeneration Manager explained the content and project management work done to set out outcome monitoring. Some was mandatory, where partners or Government required specific monitoring to be carried out, in some cases in order to ensure necessary funding be provided for five years of project work. The University was a partner and the project work drew upon their expertise, along with an officer who possessed a specific background in research.
Officers were also asked how overlaps between the integrated projects were minimized and how the additional workload on senior officers would be managed, on top of their usual duties, and overloads avoided. It was explained that key skills had been embedded in teams across the Council since fundamental service reviews had been carried out, including high-level project management capacity. Collaborative and flexible working arrangements were in place, with resourcing to avoid officer overload, with support provided by partners such as Community 360. Work was spread throughout the management team, with specialist help bought in to provide specific skills where needed.
A discussion on how to use experience and knowledge gained was held, including on seeking and using funding for projects in rural areas. Efforts to seek rural funding were to be carried out with partners such as the Parish Council Forum to identify where funding could be sought.
A Panel member outlined the Council’s work with the County Council [ECC] on youth service provision, against a background of diminishing revenue funding and the County Council’s narrow statutory duty for service provision. It was queried what provision there was for providing wider services, resources, and facilities. The Strategic Director of Customer and Relationships explained that the work proposed was to upgrade existing facilities and resources, examples being refurbishment and provision of IT equipment. Glenn Crickmore, Youth Service Lead at ECC, informed the Panel that services were still being provided and that Colchester was lucky to still possess many operating voluntary groups, with some new groups being set up and funding being won where possible. A Panel member asked the extent to which the Wilson Marriage Centre would be open for use by the public and whether it would be linked to those pursuing a new learning shop. It was explained that the part of the Centre receiving funding could be accessed separately to the main site and that project partners were keen to ensure it was open for public access, with a café and other facilities. The site was somewhat hidden, so work was planned to promote and signpost it. The Strategic Director of Policy and Place pledged to report back on any links between the Wilson Marriage work and other Adult Learning providers.
The Strategic Director of Customer and Relationships explained the importance of the central location of the Town House youth facility. A minimum of five extra youth service volunteer roles were to be created and there was the potential for these to be focused on rural outreach work. Engagement had been carried out and would continue throughout the project. Part of the emphasis was on working with communities to open and support youth groups across rural areas and training would be provided to those who wished to become new youth workers.
A discussion was held on increasing costs/inflation, and officers were asked if Government could be asked to cover inflationary increases in project costs. The Council had asked this of Government, but no response had been received as yet. Assurances were requested that the Chief Executive and Section 151 Officer were confident in the deliverability and risk mitigations of the projects. An update was also requested as to whether it was still expected that around £100m in leveraged funding would be obtained. Assurances were given by the Chief Executive who expanded on this to say that the Section 151 officer at ECC also examined the business cases to ensure the required level of assurances were in place. ECC would also monitor delivery, objective achievement and budget keeping, alongside the monitoring done by the Council. The Strategic Director of Policy and Place explained that the greatest risk lay with the Council, especially regarding inflationary costs. Much work had been done to mitigate these risks and the Council’s risk exposure had been reduced by cost management. Once Government funding had been unlocked, partners would then be able to apply for the additional leveraged funding needed. The Chief Operating Officer explained that inflation was predicted to rise to 7% and then fall back to 2% after a few years. Agile project management would allow the projects to adjust to meet new circumstances. The ‘Heart of Greenstead’ project funding also included £2.3m in estate regeneration funding from an additional bid. There was potential to gain further funding and there was a need to cater for asset management of existing Council homes in the area.
Responding to questions regarding cost of work already done by the Council, and ongoing revenue costs, the Economic Regeneration Manager explained that Government funding had been received to meet costs of the early programme, including an up-front payment of £910k which covered the Council’s costs. The Chief Operating Officer explained that part of the financial cases given was to ensure sustainability and that revenue costs could be met.
A Panel member asked what engagement had been carried out with Stanway and Highwoods to identify their needs.
The £500k funding for public realm provision at the County Hospital was examined and it was asked what value would be added by this, above the improvements expected to be provided by the developers. The Strategic Director of Policy and Place explained that the £500k was fixed and that the value added would include making connections to the history and past communities of the site, with areas open to the public, not just residents.
The role of the ‘We are Colchester’/Town Deal Board was outlined. The creation of the Board had been a condition set by Government for receiving funding and the Board would continue to monitor delivery and outcomes, bringing partners’ expertise to project delivery and oversight.
A Panel member emphasised the need for people and communities to be actively engaged in the projects. It was argued that more volunteers should be sought, with training and encouragement to seek people to help run services whilst increasing their skills. The Strategic Director of Customer and Relationships outlined the changes experienced by the local supply of volunteers during the pandemic, and the work of Community 360 and the University to research volunteer work, patterns and pressures. The volunteer market was therefore well understood. It was suggested that the Scrutiny Panel might wish to look at how these projects could be used to make the most of volunteers in working within communities.
RESOLVED that a timetable be brought to Scrutiny Panel as soon as possible, and at the Panel’s meeting on 7 June 2022 at the latest, to set out a recommended timetable for future scrutiny of each Town Deal project by the Panel, with projects being brought to Scrutiny Panel grouped thematically.
RECOMMENDED to CABINET that: -
(a)
Cabinet urges all Group Leaders to encourage their group members to watch the presentation on the Town Deal Business Cases, as given at this meeting
(b)
Cabinet gives attention and provides assurance to show that officers and Cabinet have carried out due diligence and sufficient work to ensure the viability of each business case, prior to their approval
(c)
Community buy-in be fostered as fully as possible, such as by encouraging volunteering by members of affected communities, where possible, to assist in the delivery of Town Deal projects.
(d)
Cabinet notes the view of Scrutiny Panel that the Town House should be seen as for use by all young people in the Borough, not just members of specific groups, clubs or societies, and that open access to youth services and adult learning opportunities be a commitment of the Council