Agenda item

OSP call-in of an Individual Cabinet Member decision - Port and Harbour Projects - Variation to 2019/20 Capital Programme

Minutes:

Mr Coombes and Mr Murphy spoke under the Overview & Scrutiny Panel procedures for public speaking.

 

Councillor Stuart Piper and Councillor Bailey spoke under Council procedure 20.1 and made the following points:

 

  • There was little doubt that the decision was made hurriedly;
  • Expected the reasons for that approach would be explained when the report was made to Full Council;
  • Why did council need two pontoons when initially only one was required?
  • What was the business plan behind the purchase of the pontoons?
  • Did the pontoons still had long to serve before they were replaced?
  • No due diligence of the due process was done in purchasing these pontoons;
  • Did council have firm commitments from that there would be future business activity at the port as asserted in the officer report that accompanied the decision?

 

Giving the background to the decision Councillor Bayford, Leader of Council made the following comments:

 

  • The capital programme had a budget provision for the replacement of Berth 4/5;
  • A consultant was appointed who carried out the costings for fixed berths costs and they confirmed that those costs were higher than purchasing the two pontoons. The cost would have been well over £2million;
  • The council became aware that there were two pontoons available for sale as a package of two, by a construction company. A proposal for the purchase of the pontoons was considered by a cross party working party and agreed as a viable proposal;
  • The windfarm business would justify this purchase and this seemed like a prudent and smart decision.

 

Members responded to the submissions with comments and questions as follows:

 

  • It was useful to discuss the proposals in a cross party meeting;
  • Nobody objected to the proposals;
  • However this decision could have considered as a cabinet decision where other members could have had an opportunity to take part in debate before a decision was made;
  • Did the harbour pontoons require planning permission?
  • Was any part of the harbour infrastructure designated as being listed and if they were they would be a need to get planning permission;
  • Could Members of the Panel be given an opportunity to study the legal advice relating to the decision?
  • Was the purchase of the second pontoon part of the business plan?
  • Who inspected the pontoons to determine that they were still in good working condition and how much did it cost the council to hire such service?
  • How long would it take Council to get a return on its investment in the harbour?
  • What was the life expectancy of the two pontoons?
  • Will there be any dredging required to enable the pontoons to fit in properly and had that been costed?
  • Was there going to be any further decision to be made regarding the procurement of the pontoons?

 

In response to comments and questions from the Panel, Councillor Bayford, Mike Humber, Head of Maritime and Technical Services and Gavin Waite Director of Operational Services made the following points:

 

  • There was a recognition that purchasing the two pontoons was a good deal and the council had to take advantage of the opportunity;
  • The current berths being used for the windfarm vessels were now too small for the bigger vessels that were now being used. Having the two larger pontoons would accommodate the current vessels being used by the windfarm;
  • Legal advice had been sought which confirmed that this development was permitted development;
  • The eastern water space was not listed. However a gangway would have to be installed on the water space and that would require planning permission;
  • The purchase of two pontoons was something that officers had been considering;
  • The pontoons were technically assessed for suitability by a consultant. The information regarding the costs of the assessment could be made available after the meeting;
  • The budget had a provision of £1.5million which was set aside for the development of the berths;
  • Legal is regarding the procurement process of the pontoons is in writing and the Panel could be given access to the documents;
  • The return on investment would be in four years time;
  • Maintenance dredging and not large scale dredging would be carried out.

 

Councillor Everitt proposed, Councillor Albon seconded and Members agreed to request that the Leader of Council held in abeyance the implementation of the decision for ten days during which arrangements were made for the Panel to view the legal documents relating to the procurement process of the two pontoons.

Supporting documents: