Issue - meetings

Report of the Planning and Economic Development Director

Further to Minute No. 40 of the meeting held on 10 June 2010 and Minute No. 120 of the meeting of the Cabinet Member - Technical Services held on 15 December 2010, the Cabinet considered the report of the Planning and Economic Development Director which indicated that in October 2010, the Department for Transport (DfT) advised the Council that the Thornton Switch Island Link, that had previously been granted Programme Entry within the Department's Major Scheme Funding Programme, had further to the Comprehensive Spending Review, been prioritised in the Supported Pool of schemes; that the Supported Pool status meant that the DfT were prepared to find funding support for the scheme subject to agreeing a 'best and final funding bid'; and that the purpose of the report was to seek approval to the Council's 'best and final funding bid' prior to submission to the DfT by the deadline of 4 January 2011.

The report concluded that the funding package set out in the report and the required DfT form was considered deliverable within the current allocation in the Council's Capital Programme, with an allowance for additional units that were the scheme promoter's responsibility.

RESOLVED:            That

(1)       the report on the Thornton Switch Island Link be noted;

(2)       the funding proposals included in the report, including the Council's contribution for submission to the Department for Transport as the Council's 'best and final funding bid' for apportioning funding commitment for the scheme be approved; and

(3)       it be noted that the proposal was a Key Decision but, unfortunately, had not been included in the Council's Forward Plan of Key Decisions.  Consequently, the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Performance and Corporate Services) had been consulted under Rule 15 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules of the Constitution, to the decision being made by the Cabinet as a matter of urgency on the basis that it was impracticable to defer the decision until the commencement of the next Forward Plan because to do so would result in a failure to meet the required deadline for action.

Report of the Planning and Economic Development Director

The Cabinet Member considered the report of the Planning and Economic Development Director indicating that in October 2010 the Department for Transport (DfT) advised the Council that the Thornton Switch Island Link, that had previously been granted Programme Entry within the Department's Major Scheme Funding Programme, had further to the Comprehensive Spending Review, been prioritised in the Supported Pool of schemes; that the Supported Pool status meant that the DfT were prepared to find funding support for the scheme subject to agreeing a 'best and final funding bid'; and that the purpose of the report was to seek approval to the Council's 'best and final funding bid' prior to submission to the DfT by the deadline of 4 January 2011.

The report concluded that the funding package set out in the report and the required DfT form was considered deliverable within the current allocation in the Council's Capital Programme, with an allowance for additional units that were the scheme promoter's responsibility.

RESOLVED:          That

(1)      the report on the Thornton Switch Island Link be noted;

(2)      the Cabinet be recommended to approve the funding proposals included in the report, including the Council's contribution for submission to the Department for Transport as the Council's 'best and final funding bid' for apportioning funding commitment for the scheme; and

(3)      it be noted that the proposal was a Key Decision but, unfortunately, had not been included in the Council's Forward Plan of Key Decisions.  Consequently, the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Performance and Corporate Services) had been consulted under Rule 15 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules of the Constitution, to the decision being made by the Cabinet as a matter of urgency on the basis that it was impracticable to defer the decision until the commencement of the next Forward Plan because to do so would result in a failure to meet the required deadline for action.