20 QUESTIONS BY THE PUBLIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES PDF 53 KB
The Chairman of the Council to answer any questions by the public of which notice has been given no later than midday three clear working days before the day of the meeting in accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 12.
Minutes:
Question 1 - Mr Morelli to
Councillor M Holt, Cabinet Member for Economic Growth
“On the 5th July 2021, the Babergh Cabinet debated a report on Belle Vue Park in Sudbury – the recommendations from which the Council will consider today, at Agenda Item 11a of today’s meeting.
“Prior to that Cabinet debate, Councillor Lindsay asked a question regarding the contract the Council has agreed with Churchill Retirement Living.
“In his question, Councillor Lindsay pointed out that Babergh District Council will not be paid by Churchill until (and unless) Churchill is granted planning permission for the works it intends to carry out. In addition, Councillor Lindsay stated that – under the contract agreed with Churchill – Babergh does not have to start work on the retaining wall until that time. Councillor Lindsay therefore asked why money to pay for the retaining wall needed to be borrowed before Churchill receives planning permission (should that occur), and therefore before the contract with Churchill completes and the Council is paid.
“In response, Councillor Holt stated that borrowing money in advance of contract completion was necessary because – to use Councillor Holt’s own words – if Babergh does “not start this work prior to completion of the Churchill contract, [Babergh] will have insufficient time to meet the contract obligations to start on the site within three months”. I therefore understand that – in essence – Babergh has signed up to a contract that requires it to borrow money before Churchill has even received planning permission for its intended development (again, should that occur).
“Could I therefore ask Councillor Holt, in his position as Cabinet Member for Economic Growth: If I am correct in the understanding that I have described, why was a contract agreed that necessitated Babergh borrowing money prior to the said contract’s completion – from which funding is intended to be provided – especially given that there is no guarantee Churchill will receive planning permission for its development at all
Response:
The forward funding element proposed is predominantly to carry out design work, pre-build contract site studies and other work to enable construction to start on site within the timescales proposed in the contract with the purchaser.
Supplementary question from Mr Morelli to Councillor M Holt, Cabinet Member for Economic Growth
The risk impact was previously rated as 4 catastrophic and is now 3 bad. Email correspondence has not fully ascertained why the risk that was previously described as 4 catastrophic does not still exist and has been removed. So, can I therefore ask Councillor Holt if he can provide me with a full and complete explanation as to why the risk was downgraded from 4 catastrophic to 3 bad?
Response:
In the earlier draft report, it had an incorrect risk rating as this was an administrative error, so the risk was not downgraded.