Decisions

The Leader introduced the report of the Director of Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services (previously circulated) updating Members on the outcome of the negotiations with the Science Museum Group (on behalf of the National Railway Museum (NRM)) with regard to Locomotion No 1; Beamish Museum with regard to the Replica of Locomotion No 1; and requesting that consideration be given to acquiring the Replica of Locomotion No 1 from Beamish Museum.

The submitted report stated that a Memorandum of Understanding on the future loan exhibits from the NRM had been agreed and Locomotion No 1 had been transferred to Locomotion in Shildon; it would return to Darlington in 2025 for a period and then on an on-going basis moving forward; and that in addition, the Council had secured the transfer of ownership of the Replica of Locomotion No 1 from Beamish Museum to the Council.

Discussion ensued on how the replica of Locomotion No 1 came to be under the ownership of Beamish Museum; when it was last working; on the amount of work required for it to work again; and the Memorandum of Understanding.  The Chair and the Director of Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services responded thereon.

RESOLVED – (a)  That the acquisition of  the Replica of Locomotion No 1 from Beamish Museum, as detailed in the submitted report, be approved.

(b)  That the provision of a grant to Beamish Museum, to a maximum of £150,000, be approved, to enable them to restore the Locomotive Dunrobin.

(c)  That the Director of Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services, be authorised, in consultation with the relevant Portfolio holder, to finalise terms.

(d)  That the Assistant Director Law and Governance be authorised to complete the legal agreements necessary for the acquisition and grant.

REASONS – (a) To enable the Council to finalise the acquisition of the Replica of Locomotion No. 1.

(b)  To support the Council’s plans for the Head of Steam and the bicentenary celebrations in 2025.

The Cabinet Member with the Resources Portfolio introduced the report of the Director of Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services (previously circulated) requesting that consideration be given to the release of capital funding allocated in the Capital Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) 2021/22 to 2024/25 for the purpose of carrying out capitalised repairs in corporate buildings; advanced design fees to bring forward regeneration projects and prepare sites for development; and for the purpose of carrying out energy saving measures in corporate buildings.

The submitted report requested the release of £250,000 allocated in 2021/22 Capital MTFP for Capitalised Repairs and essential remedial works; £150,000 for advanced design work to develop schemes to bring sites forward for development to create jobs and support the local economy; and the government grant of £443,313 to progress the proposed works to reduce gas consumption at the Town Hall and the Hippodrome.

Particular references were made at the meeting to the scheme to replace the existing heating system at the Town Hall and to the need to include information in future reports showing the effect that the Council’s initiatives were having on carbon impact and climate change.

RESOLVED – (a)  That the £250,000 allocated in the Capital Medium Term Financial Plan for Capitalised Repairs, as detailed in the submitted report, be released.

(b)  That the £150,000 of Advanced Design Fees to bring forward regeneration projects and to carry out necessary preparatory work on those development sites, as detailed in the submitted report, be released.

(c)  That the grant funding of £443,313 from the Heat Decarbonisation Scheme for energy saving measures at the Town Hall and Hippodrome, as detailed in the submitted report, be released.

REASONS – (a)  To safeguard the condition of the Council’s corporate buildings, reduce energy consumption and to meet statutory and legal obligations.

(b)  The Advanced Design Fees will enable progress to be made on bringing forward regeneration projects and sites for development. 

The Cabinet Member with Local Services Portfolio introduced the report of the Director of Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services (previously circulated) advising Members of the receipt of two objections to a proposal for waiting restrictions on George Stephenson Drive and requesting that consideration be given to whether to proceed with the proposal.

The submitted report stated that concerns had been received from residents via a Ward Councillor in respect of the parking on the bend of George Stephenson Drive on the approach to the junction with West Auckland Road; residents were currently parking on and around the bend which was causing visibility issues for vehicles entering and leaving George Stephenson Drive; Officers had previously consulted on solutions to manage parking at this location and received numerous informal objections on both occasions; since then there had been additional development adjacent which had exacerbated the issue; and that further informal and formal consultation had been undertaken on a proposal for waiting restrictions to prevent parking and improve the visibility/road safety issues, as shown on the plan appended to the submitted report.

It was reported that there had been four submissions to the statutory consultation, once of which was fully supportive of the proposal; one submission stated restrictions were not sufficient; and two objections to the scheme.

Particular reference was made at the meeting as to why the parking restrictions had not been implemented earlier.

RESOLVED - That the objections received, as detailed in the submitted report, be set aside and officers be authorised to proceed with the proposal to introduce the waiting restriction scheme as shown at Appendix A to the submitted report.

REASON - To improve the traffic flow, visibility and road safety of vehicles entering and leaving George Stephenson Drive.  The Council, acting in its capacity as the Highway Authority, have a duty of care to ensure the safety of the travelling public and a duty under the Traffic Management Act 2004 to maintain the expeditious movement of traffic.

The Cabinet Member with the Stronger Communities Portfolio introduced the report of the Managing Director (previously circulated) requesting that consideration be given to the establishment of a pilot scheme to enable Councillors to utilise the fund, at their discretion, to deliver the objectives of the Stronger Communities Fund (SCF).

The submitted report stated that the approved Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) allocated £50,000 to establish a Stronger Communities Fund (Minute 56/Feb/21 refers); the scheme would operate for one year during which time its success would be reviewed, after which consideration would be given to whether the pilot scheme would become a permanent feature of the MTFP; and that £1,000 would be allocated to each Councillor to be used to deliver the objectives of the SCF which were to build Stronger Communities by supporting individuals and groups to enhance access to opportunities to improve health and wellbeing outcomes and to investing in environmental improvements that enhance the local area to the benefit of the local community.

It was reported that the scheme would be administered with maximum flexibility to enable learning and  benefits to be easily achieved by the pilot; Councillors could merge their allocations with other Councillors within their wards and across the Borough, should they so wish to do so; a third party could be used to allocate funds on their behalf; and that grants and investments should only be made to individuals or ‘not for profit’ organisations.

RESOLVED – (a) That the pilot Stronger Communities Scheme, as detailed in the submitted report, be approved.

(b)  That the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Cabinet Member with the Stronger Communities Portfolio, be delegated responsibility, to determine if any proposals made by Councillors were out with the ‘spirit’ and procedures of the fund.

REASONS – (a)  To determine the scheme.

(b)  To govern the scheme flexibly.

To consider the Annual Procurement Plan and to agree direct contract awards.

The Cabinet Member with the Resources Portfolio introduced the report of the Managing Director (previously circulated) requesting that consideration be given to the Annual Procurement Plan (also previously circulated) including the assessment of contracts that are considered to be strategic or non-strategic and updating Members on the outcomes of procurement(s) previously designated as Strategic; the decisions taken by the Procurement Board to waive the Contract Procedure Rules; and Savings and Social Value measures achieved in the previous financial year.

The Cabinet Member with the Resources Portfolio reported at the meeting that there were four contracts that were designated strategic in the update to the Annual Plan and not three as detailed in the submitted report.

RESOLVED - That the assessment of strategic and non-strategic contracts as presented in Appendix 1 of the submitted report, be approved and it be agreed that:-

(a)     further reports/updates on the procurement process for those contracts designated as strategic (including decisions made by the Procurement Board) be brought to Cabinet;

(b)     the contract award decisions for the contracts designated as non?strategic be delegated to the appropriate Director as listed in the plan at Appendix 1 of the submitted report; and

(c)     the contract award decisions for the contracts designated as strategic, as listed in the plan at Appendix 1 of the submitted report, be delegated to the Procurement Board to approve and be reported back to Cabinet.

REASONS - (a)  In respect of strategic/non-strategic contracts, the recommendations are supported by the following reasons: -

                       (i)            the Contract Procedure Rules require Cabinet to approve the designation of contracts as strategic and non-strategic;

                      (ii)            contracts designated strategic are of high value and high significance in respect of the impact on residents, Health and Safety and public safety; and

                     (iii)            the contracts designated non-strategic are of a lower value and lower significance in respect of the impact on residents and public safety.

(b)  In respect of Procurement Board waiver decisions, the recommendations are supported by the following reasons: -

                       (i)            in order to comply with the Contract Procedure Rules;

                      (ii)            to provide Cabinet with information about the decisions made by the Procurement Board; and

                     (iii)            To supplement the reports that are taken to Cabinet about proposed spend over £100,000, that are set out in the Annual Procurement Plan and the in-year update to that report.

There were no declarations of interest reported at this meeting.