Transcript

Transcript

[ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ] [ Silence ]

OK. Just so we're all aware that the live stream is not working. It's going to do with Facebook. YouTube. YouTube. But we are being recorded. So, this is the New York and show district council cabinet meeting on June the 4th, 2024. Apologies to all those people outside of this room who are tuning in, who are probably looking at the recorded edition. We have our technical difficulties which is not as loud as to live stream. And that is why we've had a short delay. So, apologies for that. Moving on to the agenda, notification to those present that the meeting will be recorded and obviously recorded actually and not streaming online unless there's something happens in the meantime. OK. Apologies for absence. I don't think we have any, no declarations of interest from members and officers. Thank you, Chair. Just on agenda item 6, I am on the Board of Trustees for New York and Sherwood CBS. [ Silence ] OK. Moving on to the minutes-- [ Inaudible Remark ] So, can I declare an interest as well as a 10-counselor? On some of the items that are coming up. [ Silence ] Me too. [ Noise ] And likewise, 10-counselors. [ Noise ] Thank you all for that. There won't be-- move on to the chairs update. All I say, there's not a big update, we've got a long agenda to get through. But I will say is confidential items on this agenda paper 15, 16 and 17 are exempt items, 16 and 17, but they're just supportive information for items 9 and 12. So, if we can take them as read, we don't need to go into the confidential later on in the meeting if that's OK. So, moving on to the agenda, agenda item 6, grant agreements. And I think Cara is going to comment on that. OK. Thank you, chair. Good evening all. The report before you this evening follows an in-depth review of the policy performance and improvement committee into those charities within the council has a relationship through an annual grant funding. PPIC requested a review into the funding we allocate to charities on a regular basis to establish the value of those and the outcomes being achieved to ensure that we continue to achieve value for money. And the report doesn't cover a single kind of one-off grants that we gave, so through the community grant scheme or business grants, it is those ongoing commitments that we have. The full report is attached to the appendix 1 and the key recommendations for-- from PPIC where to continue funding for five of those charities that we currently work with and that's Citizens Advise Sherwood and Newark, Home Start Newark and Sherwood, Newark and Sherwood CVS, Furniture Project and Live and Local. And to cease funding for two of the groups for the reasons set out within the report and those are Knott's and Lynx Credit Union which was an additional sum of money we were giving to them at a point in time to try and increase membership. And to Newark and Sherwood Community Hub based at Millgate in Newark and because they're withdrawing from some of the services that they deliver. They also recommended to increase the value of-- for four of those charities by 10% in year one and by a subsequent 3% in years two and three. The 10% has been agreed within the annual budget setting but cabinet tonight has asked to endorse the 3% in years two and year three and to move again to a three-year grant agreement to provide confidence and security to the third sector rather than a single one-year grant agreement. And so tonight, cabinet asked to endorse its recommendations and to move to the three-year grant agreement. [ Pause ] Cass Taylor. Thank you. I'm really excited about this paper. The amount of work that these organizations do for this authority is outstanding. And I would say it far outweighs the amount that we pay for it and has done for a long time. I welcome the 10% increase this year. It certainly will be an assistance to them and it's a recognition of the hard work that they do and how long they've gone without having increases. The other bit that I think is vitally important is that we're actually saying that we value you and giving them a three-year contract. I personally run third sector organizations and there's nothing worse than spending half your time looking to whether or not you're going to be funded for the next year. And the lack of ability to make positive decisions because you are only funded for one year is detrimental to the provision that can be provided. Now, we're going on to three-year funding. I think it will give added security to the staff that are employed that they know that they have employment on running. So, thank you, everyone. Anybody else want to say anything on this piece? Good. I'll just come in, I think, yeah, I like a lot Paul's just said, but I think also not just the financial contributions, the ongoing relationship with these organizations and actually quite a lot of the third sector organizations who do provide services right across the district for our residents. It's very important that they are supported. And so, I'm pleased with the paper and I'm pleased with the long-term arrangement funded. I'm also pleased that this has gone through PPIC and, yeah, this is a clear way of us delivering policy and delivering changes is through the full process. So, I'm pleased to recommend the recommendations, which are on page 10 of the paper. And thank PPIC for the work that they've undertaken on that. So, all those-- I'm sorry, all those in favor? Perfect. Moving on to Agenda Item 7, I think Matthew is going to take this one over. Thank you, Chairman. The report is set out, so I don't propose to go through any great detail. Many of you will be aware of Robert Kiddie and his links to the town. Many of you will also be aware of the Kiddie Stones that have been under tarpaulin for around 40 years in Newark Cemetery. Last year, Councillor Cousins made an approach to the town council's custodian for the stones to once again be put on public display, this time at Castle House in Newark owing to the fact that we own the land, so no additional permission will be required. We have the required space or an accessible reach of the town that's so synonymous with his work as well. The challenge since that time has firstly been to establish how practically we would do this, bearing in mind the stones weigh around eight tonnes and once displayed would reach more than two metres in height. And secondly, how much of course would this actually cost to do. So, as the report sets out, this work is now being done and the outcomes are contained in the report that is before you. Members are now being asked to approve the design and the location in principle before embarking on a period of public consultation to ask others for their views. Most notably, of course, or not least, of course, the town council and the civic trust. Subject to those being agreed tonight, we would then bring a final report back to cabinet in September for a decision to formally endorse or otherwise. I'll just take any questions, Chair. Councillor Holloway. Thank you, Chair. I know that many towns have an art trail and, in fact, I think one is being created at the moment in Newark with the open books. And I know that as part of towns fund two, there is one of the projects on there is to create an art trail. So, as a concept, I don't have any issues with that at all. But the report does say that it is an art, the start of an art trail but there's no details of the trail itself. How many pieces there would be, what the budget would be overall and what the data is to support the individual locations on there? And I do know that the Salons report does state that there are issues with getting the visitors across to the riverside, the castle side of the riverside, and to get them across the river itself, then across the railway tracks to Castle House I think is a really big ask. I'm not at all sure that Castle House is the correct place for them to be. And I would have sort of hoped that there would be a lot more work done on finding a better location. I understand the reasons why that's been allocated as it but I don't actually think it is the correct place for it to be. I think we should actually work out what the trail is, where it's going to be, have the data in place that shows where our visitors go, where we can expand it slightly, but where the majority of our visitors are actually already going so that we can put those particular pieces of art relevant to those particular places. The other issue that I do have obviously is the cost. It's a lot of money for one individual set of art here. And whilst I know you said that Robert Kiddey is very well known, I don't necessarily think that that extends beyond Newark. For me, I've got to go back to Bill's Thorpe and explain to people why I'm going to vote or not vote to spend 80 plus thousand pounds on some art at Castle House. I can't do that personally because for a lot of people that's an awful lot of money and it feels a little bit like we are gilding the lily here and I feel very uncomfortable with that. I think those particular stones, if they are a piece of important art for the town, should have a better location and I do think that they should actually be done with grant funding rather than using residents taxpayers' money from right across the district to create this particular thing. So whilst I'm not against the art trail, I think there's more work to be done on the actual agenda item itself to give us more detail and I can't support the cost. So I'm really sorry because I understand the reasoning behind it, but I can't support it, I'm sorry. Do you want me to come back in and show you some of that? I can maybe show a little bit of light on some of it. So in relation to the art trail, so we're looking at around 12 to 14 sites across the town. We've worked on those in conjunction with retailers. They've been assessed by a conservationist to ensure that they're suitable for displaying pieces and what we will display and how we would do it. And I think the plan is that we would formally announce that trail shortly. We're just not in a position to do so. But what I would suggest is that by the time this report comes back in September, that trail will have been publicly announced. So we will be able to give you the whole picture in terms of the trail, the sites, how Kidney fits into that. In relation to the cost, clearly it is a big number, but it does reflect, I think, the complexity of having to exhibit something, which obviously at one time was resurrected on the side of a building and sustained in brick. Now we're having to do it in a freestanding manner for stones, which weigh in excess of eight tonnes on a public platter. So that cost does reflect some of that complexity, but it does show you it can be done. I accept everything you say. I think if all of that information is in the paper so that we have a better understanding of what the overall aim is and the number and the type of art and the budget and all of that, that would have helped. I do think then that if that is all being discussed and organised now, can we not then postpone this particular agenda item so that we have a more fuller description of exactly what the process is going to be, exactly what's, you know, do we have to make that decision this evening is really where I'm coming from on that. Thanks, Matt. Thanks, Councillor Holloway. And they're good questions and they're exactly the sort of questions that you should be asking. And we have discussed having an information place on our website and giving people information. I would say that these sculptures have been discussed for 40 years. There's masses of files and working parties and all sorts of information. I think they're standalone pieces of art of real quality. Kiddie exhibited with Picasso. And we're talking about somebody who is the level of artist to somebody like Henry Wood or Barbara Hepworth. These are substantial sculptures and pieces of work. They come from a time when a building like they come off the Wilford Power Station, when Wilford Power Station was built, people saw it as a place of importance in the community and commissioned works of art to be made. Kiddie sculptures are on display at County Hall in Nottingham. They're also on display at Silverminster and there is also a frieze on Newark College. He was recognised as a very substantial artist and it ties in complete with our community project in our community plan, I beg your pardon, in terms of getting good quality art into the public domain. This is the sort of art that you would see in the National Gallery or you would see in the Yorkshire Sculpture Park. And citing them here at Castle House not only gives Castle House a real context and a real connection to Newark, these were the sort of things that would have been commissioned to go on council buildings like they were in Nottingham, but I think they'll attract a whole audience of people who maybe wouldn't find themselves at the Yorkshire Sculpture Park or at the National Gallery. I also think they'll become our own Angel of the North because they'll be visible from the road. This is a very important gateway into Newark at a time when we're talking about the heritage, the value of the High Street and the regeneration of our town. People are drawn to Newark because of the castle, because of the art, because of our wonderful square, because of the town hall, because of the Palace Theatre and because of all of the wonderful buildings that there are. These sculptures will be enjoyed by everybody and they'll be very, very visible from the road, but also from foot traffic coming here. I also think it's a very good place for them to be. I think they'll be secure here in a place where they wouldn't be perhaps somewhere else in the town. And I think they have an importance. They celebrate the workers and the workers that were involved in the power station. The quality of them is absolutely phenomenal. I mean, my week was made seeing the stones cleaned up. They've been transformed, having been under tarpaulin for 40 years. And they are very substantial. They weigh tons and they need to be in a place that is going to give them the gravitas and the dignity that they need. It's not community art. It's not art that's been made by people locally. It's been made by a real, you know, a sculptor of renown. As I say, he exhibited with Picasso. So we have these sculptures. I think they are going to bring visitors. They are going to bring visitors into our town. And I think it's a fantastic thing that we've been able to do. Thank you. Thank you. I can understand some of the questions you've put, Councillor Holloway. However, if we were to commission these pieces of art or pieces of art of this quality, you wouldn't be talking about the money that we're talking there. You'd be talking about an absolute fortune. That is the value of these pieces of artwork. And when you consider that the mayor is launching Visit East Midlands, and this is another element of why people will come into Newark as part of Visit East Midlands. So it links in in many ways. And I'll share with you going back a number of years. There was when I was a Lincoln City Councillor, there was a proposal for a piece of public art funded by a local business. Who at the same time was making redundancies. And I oppose that piece of art. It is now one of the best pieces of art in Lincoln City over the river, looking down from the High Street. And I oppose that at that time. And I was wrong then. And I'm hoping that in a year or two's time, when you see this Councillor Holloway, you'll say, I'm sorry, I was wrong as well. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of points, really. One is that my interest, as you know, is on climate change and the fact that we should be getting people to come in to Newark by train. And a lot of the people who will come in by train on this station will actually start this side of the river and near the railway. And our tourist guides ought at least to get them started by saying EY is the starting point before you go off to see the castle and so on. So I don't think I don't think getting people across the river and across the railways is actually a serious, significant issue. The second point, of course, is that we've talked earlier on about supporting voluntary organisations who are helping people. Some of them are located here, as well as official organisations located here. And there are going to be a lot of people visiting Castle House because they're going to be visiting Castle House. And I think we should make our artwork available to just ordinary folk coming on an everyday basis. It doesn't have to be tourists. Local people will benefit from this. That's all I have to say. Thanks, Chair. Just a few points from me. I think first impressions when stepping off a train to any town or city that you've never been to before a village is really important. And I think when people step off at Newark Castle here, with the amount of investment that's happened in this end of Newark, you know, we've now got new residents in where Carriages Cafe used to be with the Zizzi's building now occupied with the Castle Gate House project. I think these kiddie stones are like the icing on the cake. They're going to be lit up. They're going to be beautiful. They're going to be planted. There's seats there for people to go. I mean, what a wonderful experience for people to step off and to really make Newark a place of pride. So I actually think it's a really key place to put these. I think it's also going to be really inspiring for the students that, you know, we know now with this ASI building, we've got hundreds of students moving across to this end of Newark every single day. And what a great piece of art to inspire them in their work and what they're doing. As Councillor Melton said, this is free to all. And I think it will just add to a warmer entrance and experience to those coming to visit us and their experiences of Newark and Shore District Council. And just, you know, the 88K, it isn't for one piece of artwork. It's for four substantially sized pieces of artwork set in gorgeous stone. And actually, if you break it down per cost of artwork, it is actually quite reasonable when you when you look at them individually. And I think as Councillor Cousins has said, people have been talking about these for 40 years. I just want to say, well done, Councillor Cousins and all your team for finally finding them a home and getting them out of Tarpaulin. Well done. Thank you, Chairman, for allowing me to speak. I have a few concerns along the lines of Councillor Holloway. But first of all, Councillor Cousins and Councillor Taylor both seem to think it's a given. And I hope that when the public consultation comes back, that will be given due reverence. And it is not, you know, just going to be, well, we've done the consultation, we're going to go ahead with it anyway. So I just wanted to make that point that you're talking as though it is going to go ahead and really we need to listen to the consultation. But initially I read the paper and I switched my tablet off and I thought, I've read that wrongly. £80,000. And I put it back on and no, there it was. So I haven't. And in talking to people around the parish council that I attend, they sort of were questioning me on the price of living. You know, why are we doing this at the time of the crisis that everybody's in and the district council is spending £80,000 on this? So that's my contribution. Thank you. But I look forward to the consultation public wise. Thank you, Councillor Rainbow. Yeah, I think it's first worth saying it's been it's an absolute travesty that these pieces of art have been sat in Newark Cemetery under a tarpaulin for 40 years. And actually, I'm really pleased and proud that we're the administration that's actually bringing them out into the open so that people can actually enjoy them and see them. Interestingly, you've been talking to people at Newark Town Council and interesting that you were shocked at the cost of £80,000 because some of your colleague councillors are quoting figures much higher than that, of course. And also from Newark Town Council, I'm told that they set aside £5,000 towards doing something with the stairs. Now, you can see from this open paper that actually it would cost at least £6,000 to make the repairs necessary so that it can be presentable. So that's the £5,000. But if Newark Town Council, if you're listening out there, still got that £5,000 available, I'm more than happy for them to contribute that to the cost if it's still within their budgets. But that was kind of a ridiculous suggestion. My own view is that this building and this site is part of the town and I don't think it's always been viewed as part of the town. I think people do think you're not in town until you get over the river. And I think that's something we've got to change because this whole site is being redeveloped for different usages and that those different usages are going to be about people. So people are going to be coming by that and people hopefully will be inspired by the kind of artwork that's going to be on display. Councillor Holloway, I share your concern about going back to my community and talking about money being spent in Newark simply because for the last eight years I've had my ear bent about that. But it's OK because we can now talk about actually this council investing in places like Billsorp, investing in places like Olerton, investing in places like Clifston, investing in places like Blueworth, investing in places like Rainworth because we're actually doing it and they are actually benefiting from some of the projects that are coming forward. So I'll share your concern about that but I'm sure that you can also talk to your ward residents and explain to them that we are investing money, we are investing time and resources in those kind of areas. The recommendations are on page 24. I'm proposing the recommendation. I've got a seconder. Thank you, Susie. All those in favour? Those against? OK, perfect. Thank you. Moving on to item 8 and I think Nick's taking this. Is that right? So yeah, if you could speak to the report, that would be great. Thank you, Chair. Section 40 of the National Environment and Rural Communities of the Newark Act 2006 required that and to quote every public authority must in exercising its functions have regard as far as this is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions to the purpose of conserving biodiversity, more commonly known as the biodiversity duty. The Environment Act 2021 subsequently amended Section 40 to strengthen this biodiversity duty and this now places a legal obligation on public authorities to do three things. First, to consider what they can do to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Second, to agree policies and specific objectives based on their consideration and finally, to act to deliver their policies and achieve their objectives. Part of this process for public authorities to meet this duty is for them to complete a first consideration of what actions to take and then agree policies and objectives as soon as possible after making this first consideration. The report presented to Cabinet represents this first consideration as to how the council might meet its legal statutory biodiversity duty. In the current era, when there is so much discussion relating to mandatory biodiversity net gain, the report demonstrates how the matter of biodiversity encompasses much more than that involved with the BNG legislation and its implications for a wide range of the functions and services provided by the council. In making the recommendation for the presented report to be approved by Cabinet, it's important to highlight that publication of the first consideration report is a statutory requirement, but that doesn't place a commitment for delivery of the proposed actions within the report. The process is such that government expects actions to subsequently be finalised as soon as possible after publication of the report. In that respect, it's recommended within the submitted report that this should be within three months from publication or approval of the report. And that time scale represents the fact that the government expected local authorities to publish that first consideration by the 1st of January 2024, so obviously there has been a delay for various reasons as set out in the report. Thanks Chair. Thank you Nick. So yeah, just a few points for me really. Whilst this is a statutory requirement in us putting in this first consideration, I am really proud of this report. Nationally and globally, we have a target to protect 30% of nature by 2030, and I genuinely believe that every single authority has a role to play in this, including Newark Insure District Council, and this report clearly sets out our ambition and strategies to contribute to these national and international goals. When I first took this role on as portfolio holder, I was shocked. We had no biodiversity baseline across any of our sites. We didn't even have a biodiversity strategy. I'm not saying our teams didn't work hard in protecting our parks and green spaces, but I was very shocked that those were not in play. So ensuring this was embedded in our community plan was our first starting point in taking this seriously. Page 43 of this report sets out the positive actions we've already undertaken in the last year, including appointing and approving two biodiversity, two BNG policies, and declaring a motion for the ocean among many other actions. And going forward, if approved this evening, this report sets out bold ambitions to build on this momentum. Just a few examples I wanted to pull out that I think are especially exciting for this council will be reviewing our green infrastructure strategy for Newark Insure, which hasn't been upgraded for the last 14 years. That is well overdue. Bring it on. We will consider if we want to demand developers to provide more than the mandatory 10 percent BNG in the next review round of the amended course strategy development plan. We will take a real deep audit of our sites for biodiversity enhancement and making sure as well that we take our residents on the journey with us and try and secure as much access to nature for them, including two high profile events run by Newark Insure every year to try and help achieve this. But most importantly, finally developing and implementing a biodiversity strategy. We'll also have the opportunity to support the development of habitat banks across the district, ensuring that local people and wildlife feel the benefits of this new policy and that it is not lost elsewhere across the district. So I just wanted to thank Nick because he has done a really proactive job in putting a call out for sites, applying for us to be a conservation body. He's worked incredibly hard to put us in this really proactive situation around these policies and also to create a new permanent post to help us achieve all of the things that I've just listed. So I just want to thank Nick and all of the colleagues that are working across our wildlife sites and parks for helping us get this far. And I just think this is a really exciting time to be this portfolio holder. And this paper just makes me excited. I think it's going to catalyse the changes that our district needs. It's going to ensure we have better, bigger and more connected landscapes, which will bring a plethora of benefits for wildlife and people. So hopefully you'll all see this as the start of something really new and strategic that we've not had before. Thanks, Nick. Keith. Thank you, Cher. I would also like to add my thanks to Nick for bringing this forward. And really, it feels a good place to be. I've probably said before in this room, in the cabinet or in other circumstances, I've been advocating for improved environment for over 50 years. And in that time, I've seen a serious decline in the number of insects spattered on windscreens. I've seen a serious decline in sparrows in my garden. I've seen a serious decline in house martens coming to visit the house. So one thing I do want to do, which may be a slight surprise to Councillor Holloway, is actually to congratulate the government, because this environmental improvement plan 2023 has brought a significant requirement to us. And I feel that we are in the right place at the right time to be able to deliver on this, particularly by 2030. We need to halt the decline in species abundance and protect 30 percent of our land. And I think both of those objectives are in serious need of attention. And I'm sure that Councillor Oldham and myself will be pushing this as hard as we can. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Brazier. Thank you, Chair. I just want to say that I think this report shows that we as an authority are extremely lucky to have Nick working for us and with us, because very few reports that are only a few pages long contain so much in-depth detail as this one does. And it really shows Nick's expertise within this field and it shows the work that we've got to do and the work that's being done. And I just want to say, well done to Nick, to Emma and to the whole team, because this is absolutely brilliant. It's the start of something brilliant. And I really do just think it's brilliant that we've got Nick. If only we could have more Nicks. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Firstly, just to echo everything that's already been said and thank you, Nick. I think it is a fantastic thing that we are doing here as an authority and as a council. But just to perhaps ask an awkward question and bring a little bit of a rain cloud. How does this relate, if you can answer tonight, how does this relate to existing projects and existing plans that the council's already got in train, thinking about developments and allocations that we've already got, because clearly some of those have got implications and they have commitments already. Can you just take us through that? Yes, certainly. I mean, part of the process for doing this was I reviewed all existing policies, plans. And so that's highlighted. So, you know, the fact that the green infrastructure strategy hasn't been looked at for many years. And I think for any sort of existing plans, you know, they've got existing commitments. Obviously, they will stay in place. And I think if that doesn't sort of at the moment, if it doesn't correspond with the objectives for this, the time for that to be amended would be when those plans and policies come up for review as part of the plan making process. And also, as well, I think it's very important to sort of highlight in terms of the proposed actions, et cetera, it's important that they're proportionate and that they're deliverable and that they're manageable. And part of the consultation that came back was it's important that when it comes to monitoring those, that they're easily monitored sort of actions, which I fully agree. And that was a very useful sort of feedback that came in as part of the process of developing it. So obviously I can't answer each specific policy, but as a general thing, they've all been taken into consideration as part of the preparation of this. OK, I don't think anybody else will speak. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Nick. I think I can echo everything that's been said about this, but I think the main thing for me is, is this is a real learning process for certainly for members, but I think maybe for the wider organisation as well about these things, which these things which we should be doing, which in a way are being sort of we're having to take them on. But this clearly highlights the challenges that we've got that also gives us the thing I like about is the monitoring framework. We can actually, we're going to be monitoring every year progress that we make. And I think that's, you know, that's going to show when we start looking at new kind of developments and stuff like that, more so. But we are on this process of learning and understanding. And that will go also for those people outside of this organisation who who want to come and do things in our districts as well. I think that's that's that's really important as well. We're OK to go with the recommendations which Sean pays for. I'll move them. I've got a seconder. Thanks very much. All those in favour. Perfect. It's a little remiss of me and I'm sure Nigel is on his mind, but we need to go back to our agenda item four, which is minutes of the previous meeting because we didn't agree them. So which was completely my fault. I'm so out of Nigel's way, we'll sort it out now. So minutes of the previous meetings held on page, held on the 14th of May. Page four tonight. All those in favour of the military record. Thanks very much. Thank you. OK, moving on to agenda item nine and that's Sherwood Levelling Up Fund update two. I'll let them clip, then. Mr Lamb. There we go. Thank you, Chairman. So, yeah, this is an update on Lough three, Levelling Up Fund three. And you'll recall that this builds upon the original Levelling Up programme and the submission we made almost two years ago, I think, in summer 2022, when we originally did a piece of work with a number of communities in the Sherwood area and identified two place proposals that we wanted to progress. That was Ollerton and Clipston. You'll have to forgive us for the raft of recommendations. I won't go through them all, but there are four pages worth of recommendations that shows the pace of change, really, and the pace that we are working with to try and deliver these projects. It's probably important for me to say right to the start that this is framed. Currently, the recommendations on the basis that we haven't yet received the government grant. I am pleased to say we have had the validation sign off, which I think is civil service speak for it's on the way. But we still don't have it in the bank as we speak. So I'm therefore not proposing to change in a recommendations chair and we need to forward fund. But you can forward fund now in the comfort that we have had the nod from the civil service for that money to flow through, which is helpful. So I'm going to take each project in turn, if I may, and then allow you to ask any questions or raise any queries. So the first project is the Ollerton scheme. So what the report seeks to do is not only provide an update, but actually bring you right up to speed with where the various conversations and the negotiations are. So the first part of the report deals with the regeneration partners, the term that's referred to. So that is ourselves, who will shortly be proud owners of the bank on the high street. Ollerton and Boonton Town Council, who have two land holdings as part of this scheme, and the Forest Centre, which is a shopping arcade and privately owned. So they are the regen partners where we now have a series of agreements that we are ready to close down, subject to your approval this evening. So that would secure the land for this development to happen. What we've also set out for you is the ability to put into the capital programme this project and both projects, in fact, so that we can then be able to draw down the money and work at pace to have those delivered. There are certain caveats to that that is probably useful for you to be aware of. So in terms in Ollerton, that is subject to firstly signing the relevant land deals with the regeneration partners. Secondly, signing the land deal with our regeneration non-landholding partner, in other words, Tesco. So we're working with them to be able to secure the relevant car parking and the public transport penetration that would go into the scheme. But also subject to a number of additional contributions. So the first contribution you all have noticed is we've made a submission to the new mayoral fund for Brownfield Land Renewal. And that is just over a million pounds we are seeking towards the cost of this project and also a three million pound ask from the Nottinghamshire County Council. So again, you will have seen that it is subject to that. That does leave a residual gap. So a financial gap for the project. And we are recommending that that can be our contribution to the scheme as a district council, notwithstanding that won't stop us still trying to find additional sources of funding that would be appropriate to be able to either deliver more or to close a gap or preferably both as we move through that process. The other parts of the report for Ollerton deal with the various requirements to be delegated principally to portfolio holders. So then there is a wider decision for members to scrutinise, but for some of the detail to be for officers to work up to them to present to portfolio holders. So that's things like working up the planning application, subject to us still being in accordance with that funding envelope and the land deal themselves and also securing some future tenants. Sheila picked up that there is a live tender at the minute for the cinema operator that has just closed. And we do have interest and pleased to say from that, I can't say who yet because we're just running through that process. But again, what that would allow us to do is get that cinema operator on board now so that they form the design and are committed to taking a lease in due course rather than trying to do that later on. So that, if you like, is the raft of Ollerton updates for you to be aware of. Just turn into the Clipstone proposals. You will see again, we followed a similar process in terms of securing land and securing the work that's required for planning consent. The only difference with land that you will have picked up is there is, if you like, two transactions involved. So one is with Welbeck Estate that hold the residual lands around the Clips and Headstocks to be able to bring that into play. And the other is around Vicarwater Country Park, which we currently lease as an organisation and we're promoting that we buy out the freehold as part of this wider scheme. I won't refer to any figures because they're in the exempt appendices, so hopefully we won't need to, but they are in there for your information. And again, likewise, sadly, because we haven't got the funding in the bank, there is a requirement to forward fund as part of the Clipstone project that you will see. The only final thing to note on Clipstone is that in addition to the contribution from the levelling up three, we are promoting two other contributions to the scheme. So one is through what's already in the capital programme, which is the 3G Pitch funds. You may recall that we've previously approved through the playing pitch strategy that identified that there was five pitches required across Newark and Sherwood, two in Newark, one in Southwell and one of them going into Clipstone. So we'd be using effectively one fifth of that budget to be able to provide it. And then also a recommendation that some residual spend for Section 106 is diverted into the scheme. So subject to recommendations A through to T on pages 48 to 51 of the agenda chair is over to you. Thank you. I just wanted to thank my two fellow councillors, Councillor Peacock and Brazier, for showing me round Ollerton. So I got a real handle of what was going on, and I think this is a really, really exciting scheme. I think it's transformative. I got a real sense of a vision of how it's going to change that town centre. And I think it's absolutely brilliant. Matt, you've worked really hard and put together with your team a really good project here. And so thank you to my fellow councillors for giving me a sort of definite on the ground feel, because it's all very well looking at plans. But there's nothing like actually just walking on the streets and what a friendly, nice place Ollerton is actually and how welcoming people were. So I'm looking forward to seeing this in reality. Great stuff. Thank you. Firstly, apologies. Can I just declare an interest on this item as well? I completely forgot to. I'm a member of the Ollerton town council as well. Yeah. I mean, this is brilliant. I don't think I've ever seen so many recommendations in a single report. Well, no, it's absolutely brilliant. I've worked closely with Matt around this over the years. But I think the real thanks for this, for the Ollerton side of the scheme has to go to Stan Crawford, who was the visionary that saw Ollerton having this regeneration originally. He was the one that got the town council to secure the site, you know, ensuring that this scheme had the opportunity to go forward in the future. It's going to hugely change Ollerton for the better. I think it's really exciting. I know that people in Ollerton are excited to see this happen. They want to get it over and done with them. So by us allocating this and forward funding. Yeah, it's it's great. And I know that Clipsons really going to benefit from the funding as well in a different way to how Ollerton will benefit, but equally as important. So, yeah, thanks, Matt, and all of the team for everything that you have done. I know that councillors at Ollerton are desperate for this to get over the line as well. And thank you, Rowan, for coming and visiting the Centre of the Universe last week and having a real look around. Finally, we can say that Ollerton, being the centre of the universe, pulls in everything, including funding. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I don't normally blow my own trumpet, but on this one I'm going to, because I did spend a year as portfolio holder working on these two projects and was instrumental with pushing this forward to Notts County Council to get that approved along with RMP. I think it's really important. It is a transformational thing, but I don't wish to be airbrushed out of the proceedings because I did do a lot of work on it. So well done to everybody. And, you know, I'm looking forward to it being completed. Thank you. I'm sure you couldn't possibly be airbrushed out of that. I think when this has come to us previously, I think we have paid the right amount of credit to your efforts on this. And I think this has straddled both administrations, you know, so there's no getting away from that. We're incredibly lucky to have got this opportunity. And we do need to make the best of it. I will say that the only downside to this is the difficulties we seem to be having with Notts County Council and securing comfort that they will provide the £3 million, which is absolutely good value for money from their respect to have a library built and 30 years use of that library. Which is incredibly good value. I just hope that through their processes over at County, they will move quickly to get us that comfort that we need so that we can have comfort on the wider project that is able with fully funded recommendations on page 48, 49, 51 and 52. All those in favour. Perfect. Moving on to our agenda item 10, A46 new bypass. And this is Mr Lam again. It is I'll try and be a bit shorter this time. So this is just an update on the A46 project. We have had confirmation at the end of last month that the development consent order has been accepted by the planning inspector. So what that basically means is I think we're explaining the past and we're trying to capture in this report, a development consent order is the process for securing various different consents for very large schemes. So that would be your planning permission, your highways consent, your grid connection, whatever it is you need. It's an all in one consent, if you like, is the best way to think about it. The reason that we brought this to you now is firstly that that has now landed with the planning inspector, but also that now puts us on a path that we are committed to in terms of timetabling. So now that that has been accepted as a national infrastructure project and a development consent order, we now need to hit various milestones. Now on the regulatory side of life, so for the council as planning authority, that responsibility you will be aware sits with the planning committee. So there are a number of reports that will go throughout the process that will address where we are up to. And there's various delegations, both to chair and myself as part of that process. But that doesn't mean that we won't bring updates back to you as that develops. The second half of the report deals with our responsibilities as landowner. So you'll have picked up from the reports and from previous briefings that the A46 scheme clearly has an impact upon the existing Newark-Lowy Park and has an impact upon Great North Road that we can all see out the window if we were to look now. That impact is manifested in a number of ways. So the obvious one is that there is a land take for the scheme and that land take must be compensated for by national highways as part of any other landowner that would take place. That land take not only has a value in terms of its monetary value as land, but in its value as its impact upon the number of spaces it might impact upon in the Newark-Lowy Park. Because clearly there is an income implication for that, so therefore it's necessary for us to pick that up. We understand, and again, I've not seen the final version of the plans yet, given that the development consent order is with the planning inspector. But we understand that land take will also impact upon the existing CCTV mass, and therefore that also will need to be relocated at the expense of national highways as part of any discussion. And then the final part of compensatory discussion that any landowner is entitled to is what's called disturbance. So if you like, that is monitoring from the point at which the A46 starts to the point at which it finishes, what has the real impact been upon the operation of Newark-Lowy Park and the associated income as part of that. So that is the package, if you like, that this cabinet will need to pick up in due course. The recommendation currently being that that's through the portfolio holder and Sanjeev as the relevant director and 151 officer and deputy chief exec. But ultimately, all those decisions will need to come back to cabinet for review. That, if you like, is a monetary discussion. There is also a physical discussion, if I can call it that. So again, it is clear to us from the works that are proposed for the A46 bypass that the existing access to the Lowy Park will need to move further south, because otherwise it becomes too close to the new roundabout junction that will be created. So effectively, that access needs to move from where it is now to just the other side of the Air and Space Institute building. National Highways are aware of that and have agreed in principle to put that in. So that won't be an amount of payment that they give to us, that will be physical works that they do. And of course, thankfully, the way the Lowy Park is set up, we can keep the existing access as an operational one until the new one is in. So that just gives you a flavour of your responsibilities as cabinet on behalf of the council as landowner. But hopefully, Chair, that's a useful summary and that is subject to the recommendations on page 66 of the agenda. Okay, I have a client question, I suppose. Thank you, Chair. Just a very quick question, if I may. In terms of the compensation, will we be doing any other impact assessments in terms of the footfall in Newark, the traffic into Newark, whether there's a reduction in footfall into retail spaces in the town centre and also the environmental impact. Are there any other impact assessments that we can do and claim compensation for? Yes, I'll split them into two, Councillor, just for ease. So with our regulatory hats on, there will be all sorts of assessments through an environmental impact assessment. So that will be air quality, noise, archaeology, ecology. There's all sorts of things that will be required to be picked up as part of that process. So that will absolutely look at those impacts in terms of the wider impacts. There will, there is an ability because we have footfall counters in Newark to do some triangulation for want of a better expression so that we can say we know that there are activities happening in one place. does that impact upon another? The reason that's more tricky...

Transcript

care. It's when you're dealing with direct disturbance and you can prove that X drivers less come to the facility than they have done in the previous Z years. That's quite straightforward. It's more tricky in that there may be many things that could have been perhaps a footfall in EwIC, but it doesn't stop us doing the piece of work to try and triangulate it in the first place. Yeah, and I think also, Chad, it's worth saying that one of the big elements of that, of course, is how they manage the scheme. And from our understanding, there is an expectation that because of the roads being put alongside the existing road that actually it will be the junctions where the key impacts will be, because obviously that's where the key interventions are, but it's likely that they won't have to close sections of the road during the day. Many points, but, of course, that we're part of the discussion of the DCO, the package of how that's worked out and how that's managed will be discussed there. I've not yet seen any of the detail of that, but that's obviously a key consideration in terms of impact, which we will be taking a keen interest in, as you can imagine. Thank you, Chad. There are two, actually, probably three key concerns that rattle through my brain when we're looking at this project. One, and we have spoken about them, I just wanted to raise them again in this context. One is the impact on air quality of all the changes, not only during the work, but also the change in traffic patterns and so on. And I think there's something that we need to be doing now to check what the air quality is now and so on. We can pick that up later. I'm also concerned about the loss of a lot of trees. I mean, one of the things that I have seen, I've lived here long enough to see the original bypass being put into place and seeing the trees grow. There are a lot of trees there, and I suspect quite a lot of them are actually going to come down. So what is the impact of that? What is the compensatory factor of that? And the final point I just wanted to make was the length of time we are going to be faced with disturbance. I mean, we've had two occasions in the last month, maybe six weeks, where the bypass between the roundabout and the A1 has been closed for various reasons, and it does not make a difference in traffic here and clogs up Newark really quite badly. Have we got any information about the extent to which that's going to happen during the disturbance? Yeah, thank you for your chat. I'll pick each one in turn. So in terms of air quality, that will be part of the conversation. What we can look at is whether we want to do anything over and above what is statutorily required, because I think that might be the conversation with a Brackenhurst or a research establishment that might be able to look at something like that with us. So I think we can certainly pick that up. In terms of tree loss, yes, that's absolutely something that they need to quantify, both in terms of numerical value, if you like, but also in terms of BNG and ecology and wider impacts. We've not seen any of that detail yet. So that is actually in the development consent order. That's also true for what they call traffic management, which, in other words, how on earth do you build it without dealing with and mitigate disruption? That isn't that should be in the development consent order that we see when the planning is better at releasing. We haven't seen the detail yet. We understand two things, however. So firstly, as Matthews described, that the way that they would construct this would allow them to do much of it alongside the existing road. That still doesn't help that you then need to connect that to an existing road and junction and also that the Newark Southern Link road that you're aware of that connects the A1 to the A46. That should be complete and operational in advance of any works taking place on the A46, let me qualify that, any what's called online works taking place, which is works to the road. So there might well be offsite works, but no online works is part of that discussion. But that will all have to be in the development consent or the detail that as soon as we have access to it, the full team are going to have to pore over to make sure we are on it.

Thank you. Can I just ask, noting that it is a national infrastructure project and you've listed lots of things that we're having or you're having to do, and there's lots of things that are compensated. Are we as an authority compensated for all the work that you're having to do? Because so often, I'm just thinking of flooding, we're expected to do all sorts of work and get no compensation for it. Thank you, Kent. Yes. And it's an important point. I'm going to say in principle, probably to be controversial. So I'll try and explain what I mean by that. So the compensatory bits for us as landowner, absolutely, yes, that's fine. There's a process to deal with that. And equally, what's called a planning performance agreement. So we sign an agreement with National Highways and that would mean that they are then liable to pay and cover our costs. As always, the devil is in the detail of what that agreement says. So that is where, again, we would need a very careful eye to make sure that that covers all of the expenditure we are required to absorb in responding to what is a nationally significant project. And I wouldn't underplay that. This is one of five national infrastructure projects we're going to have in this district. That's quite unusual and disproportionate. And therefore, we need our costs covered. So Matthew and the team are in ongoing conversations and dialogue with National Highways. I will believe when I see it in terms of all of that details, but it's important that we don't forget that as part of it. So, yeah, that's a really long way of saying we should be compensated, but we need to make sure we tie the legal framework down to make sure we are. Okay, thank you, Matt, for that update. I'm sure there'll be other updates coming forward on progress, if we can call it that. Recommendations are on page 66, 67. I'll propose a sector, please. Thank you, Councillor Spadafore, all those in favour. Perfect. Thank you very much. Agenda item 11, Statement of Community Involvement, and I believe that's you, Mr Norton. It is indeed, Chair, thank you. Yes, so at the last meeting, we discussed the fact that public speaking is going to be facilitated at Planning Committee. So we needed to change the Statement of Community Involvement. So we proposed a draft and we currently consulted on that during the next few months between April and May. We received eight responses to that and I did check and we got 12 last time we did this, so it's a much lesser extent than we did previously, so there we go. So the responses that we received are included in Appendix 8, one of this report, and you'll see that most of them were kind of not really comments, so just no comments. We can't help you all. Yes, that's fine. We received some positive feedback from South West Civic Society, you'll note there, and we received a number of comments and suggestions. At 1.3 there, you'll see it sets out concerns by a local resident who didn't have access to technology to consult. I think that's something we should always remember when we're doing these consultations. Everybody we think is e-enabled, but of course they aren't. This person wrote into us, we have in the past provided written documents to people who can't get to the library but are interested and want to comment. We do facilitate that and we try and help everybody to take part as much as we possibly can, so we feel that the SCI already addresses that fact. At 1.4 you'll see there's some criticism from a local planning agent about the way we've not updated elements of the document. As I pointed out to you previously, I think it's unnecessary to make those changes now, particularly as we're at the end of a review of our existing plan and the terminology we use is consistent throughout it. And indeed, moving forward, the SCI will be replaced by other approaches under the new planning rules. The regulations will come out from the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act. The local planning agent also pointed out there was an error in terms of consultation or complexity. We've amended the SCI to reflect that, we put some additional text in. At 1.6 you'll see there are a small number of changes that we've made following the consultation, that we spotted errors and also this was considered by the Planning Policy Board and they pointed out it probably ought to consult the Mayor of the East Midlands when we're doing planning consultations, which is a very good point. And is actually a requirement under the Act, so that's picked up there. There was discussion at previous cabinet about removal of wording at paragraph 3.23. Spoke to the Chair and Vice-Chair of Planning Committee about that, did a consultation in response to that and we decided to not delete that wording and that wording remains in there. So we're asking for you to approve an amended version from the consultation at Appendix 2, which will be the new statement of community involvement. We're asking on page 71, recommendation to formally adopt that. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, yeah, it's a really detailed report again and I was pleased to see and thank you for telling me that you took on board the comment, that was really good. I really only just have one question, if I may. In Appendix 4, the consultation bodies, I was looking through that and I did wonder where district councillors fitted in with the specific consultees, because I know parish and town councils are. And I wondered if district councillors were also going to be a statutory consultee on that. Thank you. We obviously, the intention when producing these documents is to carry out internal consultation, obviously through the Planning Policy Board. But as you know, we try and involve local members in terms of changes that affect their wards. We also will, when we start the process of plan making again, have to do lots more cross membership working on that to get a framework in place. Obviously, district councils are part of the council. We do accept comments from them. You're all consulted on those documents as well. And there are very many ways to feed in. So the council obviously is made up of the council. So we don't actually need to put that in there. Thank you chair. It's a general point, but it's specific to this paper. Just looking at 3.17 in the. The paper, the document itself, just in terms of the provision for residents with disability, I'm always concerned that there's a requirement specifically for comments and and other issues to be submitted in writing. There are instances where residents cannot do that. And so I'm just a bit concerned that we have it specifically in there as a requirement. One of the things that we do on a regular basis as part of consultation is we have meetings with residents who. Whatever reason aren't able to write write into us for whatever reason, and we will effectively write what they want to say basically. So that is something that we do on a on a fairly regular basis. Something we take into account very seriously as part of our wider role in terms of helping people. Thank you, I mean, I think that's a, that's a great thing to do. I know that doesn't happen in all authorities. It's really just is, is it something that we can change because it is specifically there in wording and how far is that communicated to the general public? Thank you. Yeah, I think it's something we can certainly make clear when we do consultations, but I think the the legal point is that they have to be written submissions. I think that's the kind of that's the start of the end point of it. Really. The inspector is expecting written submissions. So there is an ability for us to help people do that. And we do do that. And we will publicize that as far consultations, but it's not something they have to be written. That's that's effectively how it's done. Unfortunately. What we could do for you chair is there is an ability to submit comments via an online portal. We have in the past assisted people in submitted comments through that online portal. So it's still written comments, but they're assisted if that makes sense. So we can perhaps put reference to that to make sure it's a practice that's normally followed obviously when requested and they are few and far between. But it does happen so we can reference it. Thank you appreciate that. And I think I would wonder if it's something we in the forms of time might just add to our lobbying of central government to change that if that is legislation. Thank you. Okay, any further comments? Recommendations are on page 71. Okay, so we're going to pass it over to Caroline and then she's going to pass over to me and then that might pass back over to Caroline. So, thank you. Thank you. And this report addresses three properties that we have. They are two, three beds and one two bed Victorian mid terrace houses that were converted from agricultural bonds. So these are not purpose built, which is probably added to the problems we've had over the years. And what we've identified has been continued problems of damp. We've done some quite costly repairs in one of the properties. I think we've had to renew the kitchen three times because of them coming through and damaging the kitchen. And we have established that it has started to come through the floor everywhere. So we did bring in a civil engineer, PSP consulting, and they came up with a number of factors that were affecting the property. There's a culvert adjacent to the properties that has no ownership and often gets blocked as part of a much wider network across the district. So we would not want to take that on and floods the gardens regularly. We also have a problem of road elevation and lack of drainage. The road is higher than the properties. So when it rains heavy and the drains can't take it, it rolls down into the properties. Then we have an issue of thin foundations because these weren't purpose built. So I've got very thin foundations. We've also got a high water table as well in the area. All of that resulting, it's quite easy for water to penetrate up through the property. So to put this right, bring the properties back up to an EPC standard that we expect them to be and meet decent homes, we would have to do extensive rebuild of the roof because that is not being fit for purpose and is collapsing. We'd have to take the foundations, but there's no guarantee that will prevent all the damp. We need to thermally insulate the properties. We can do that to the back, but not the front because it's listed. And we'd have to do internal replacements of kitchen, bathroom and other decoration, plastering, et cetera. The doors and windows need to be done. In addition, what we can't take responsibility for, but need to happen as well is additional drainage and gullies put in on the main road, which is the county council's responsibility. However, and it costs thousands. However, their priorities lie elsewhere and they wouldn't give any any commitment here. Also, we need to clear and clean the gullies. We don't want to take responsibility for that. As I say, it's a very big network that goes on for miles. And that's something certainly the HRA would not like to take into account. So looking at all that basically got three options. But before I go into that, if you want to carry on. Thank you, Caroline. Yeah. So you'll see that in the report on on page one, one to the recommendations that we've we've got that I I've been through this with Caroline and with Suzanne and my preferred option is option three from the report, which is the disposal of these units. We have two other options that could be considered and cabinet maybe minded to go with one of one of those two options against the recommendations within. Option one would be to complete the required works, costing an estimated three hundred and thirty seven thousand four hundred and fifty pounds, as detailed in the open report. This would take around eight to nine months in total and would not show value for money for the HRA may also not guarantee the works be complete for the long term. And as as a as a council, as a housing provider, we have a responsibility to all of our tenants within the HRA to show value for money when we are doing these kind of projects. There is also option two, which would be to completely demolish and rebuild. However, again, this wouldn't show value to the HRA and would be an estimated four hundred and seventy thousand pounds. So, again, I repeat, we have to show value to to all of our tenants within the HRA and you'll see at paragraph two point three point one on page one one five that the properties are deemed to be underperforming assets. So by going with option three, we will receive a capital receipt, which we can then put into investment of new properties that can be brought to the good home standard and sorry, the decent standard and will show value for money for the HRA in the long term. Because this isn't just our current administration. This is all administrations going forward that will have to be responsible for our HRA. And as a responsible authority, it's right that we show that we're putting the value of money for all of our tenants as a priority and put in their safety as a priority. So I don't know if Caroline's got anything further to add. Just to add one other item, all three properties now are vacant and the to the residents that were in the property, we identified all these factors have moved to permanent places. However, those two would be available for homeless payment should we sell the properties and that's factored into the figures. Just one question, if I may, and it may be explained in the financial implications paragraph, but I just haven't sort of works worked it through yet. Has the option been considered to renovate the properties and or the cost of renovation or rebuild, but then to sell the properties on at that point in terms of what would we have a better capital receipt after doing it? Well, I guess I guess not. But question that is within the exam paper. So if you look through the exam report, the exam appendix is within that. Just to say that we did look at that option and did get a valuation if we carried out all the works and would be two thirds out of pocket in terms of the cost. Thanks, just to say, I also support option three. I think it shows again that we are really serious about, you know, having the highest standards as a landlord. I mean, looking at those pictures, the damage from the damp is just obvious. And I think it's the responsible thing to do. And personally renovating and selling on sits uncomfortably with me, knowing that there are all of those external factors that we can't control. I wouldn't like to pass the book, whereas to put them as a true form, we've been very open and transparent about that situation. I think there's too many things just out of our control to try and make the best of a bad situation. So I fully support council raises recommendation with option three and hope that the capital receipt can help secure houses, but hopefully in that area that we've lost them so that they're not offset elsewhere across the district. Thanks, Chair. Thank you. Can I just ask, I support option three, but when we dispose of them, is there any way we can protect people in the future by whatever the disposal is, writing some clause that they can't be used for private rental. So we just end up with a private landlord offering substandard accommodation. As far as I'm aware, you wouldn't be able to write that into the sale of a property what we have had some discussion around this, and obviously we would need to use our usual methodology in terms of managing landlords in private accommodation. Three, the environmental health or planning. Yeah, thank you. I think it's a really thorough report. I'm also convinced by option three. And the fact is now if we were looking for properties, we wouldn't touch these. And they're not properties that were built as houses. They haven't got all the necessary for us. So although it's sad to lose housing stock, I think this is the best solution. And I think it's money that could be used much more usefully. So I would also support option three. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Jeff. I think it has been proposed and seconded. All those in favor. Moving on to item 13, homes for Ukraine and local housing fund update. I think that's Maria. Thank you for your patience, Maria. So this is a open update report on the local housing authority and local authority housing fund project. And the report has the majority of details. And so I'm not going to go into the finances and the specifics of it, but the brief overview from previous updates that we've provided, obviously this funding was available from December 22 when the government made a commitment to support the home for Ukraine project that had started when it decided that there will be longer term housing needs associated that local authorities were going to be facing difficulties with. We were awarded some grant monies, which was released to us in phases, and the phases were only released if you met your targets, which we successfully did. And the new consumer teams involved in this project were tirelessly to achieve the targets. And in doing so, obviously, like I say, that's meant that the money is released in a timely manner to us and that we've been able to achieve the purchase of all 14 properties, which was the requirement of our part of the project. The project's been a very successful collaboration between housing services, corporate property and legal colleagues, and demonstrates what can be achieved when we're maximizing grant funding. The project came in on time and on budget and report from section 3.1 onwards shows the budgetary commitments of the scheme going forward. Thank you. Yes. I'd like to say congratulations on this. It's it's excellent. And I think you've proven just how much hard work has had to go into this to actually achieve all of the deadlines and, you know, getting the 14 homes and everything that you do in terms of this, I think is really well done. And I just wanted to say congratulations on that. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, for me, it's again, I echo what Councillor Hallway said. I also want to thank the previous administration for for taking this funding forward and for completing this. We've got really good value out of this, I think, across the district that the houses are scattered and we've got 14 properties that going forward can be used in various ways should we need them to be. I think it's been really, really well demonstrated how successful this has been. And I know that that it's shown what what we can achieve when we're giving the right grant funding and how we can best use money. So, yeah, really great stuff. It's something that I know Maria's worked really hard on with the with the rest of the team. And as Maria said, it's been across different different departments within the council, which has showed a really, really strong working relationship across the council. Because, you know, people looking from the outside and just see us as a council, they don't see that the sheer number of people that work on these kind of projects across different directorates, across different departments, across different buildings. So it really does just show how important our collaborative working is and how important it is to make real difference to people's lives. So thank you. Yeah, I'd just like to add as well, again, great work again, but we expect it from you. So don't get into it. But yeah, I've been able to say it's slightly different away from this, but I've been able to say to Alexander Lodge, which has been the first opportunity I've had over there. And, you know, just just on that, looking at projects, looking at this report, looking at all the things that I'm hearing all the time, we're blessed with the fantastic housing team and people like Sal. So this is a success. Least right, that's straddles across two administrations as well. We do need to know that. So yeah, well done. The recommendations are for noting and it's on page 160. Moving on to agenda item. Thank you, Maria. Moving on to agenda item 14. Swimming pool support from Capital Grant Award and I'm assuming Cara who's rushed to the table to get this in is with you. This is a short report and this one in March, we reported to the council's shareholder committee that we have been successful in securing some additional funding support from the Sport England Swimming Pool Support Fund for some energy and efficiency works at New York Sport and Fitness Centre. So the report before you seeks approval for these funds to be added to the capital programme and drawn down from the grant retrospectively, and that an additional 10k is made available from the repairs and renewals budget to cover any costs above the 61,356 that we've secured as grant following the procurement of these items. So it's a little bit additional in case those costs come in above that. Thank you. Good news story. Thank you very much. Recommendations are on page 166. I'm happy to move. I've got a seconder. All those in favour. Perfect. Have a lovely rest of the evening.