Decision details

To seek approval for the works for the A228 Stoke Crossing project. 

This report sought approval to the award of a contract for the construction of a bridge at Stoke Crossing on the A228.

The Cabinet considered that the decisions set out below were urgent and should therefore not be subject to call-in. In line with rule 16.11 of Chapter 4, Part 5 of the Constitution, call-in could be waived where any delay likely to be caused by the call-in process would seriously prejudice the Council’s or the Public’s interests. It was noted that delays in obtaining the approvals would delay the start and that certain works, such as moving water voles to safe areas, were seasonal and could not be delayed. Members also noted that work needed to be planned and approved by the Environment Agency and delays to the start would put at risk the likelihood of committing all the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) funding in the current financial year in accordance with the funding agreement. In addition, it was essential that methods of working near services and over the railway were clarified as soon as possible, so that there could be certainty prior to the steel being ordered; the costs of which were expected to rise.

It was noted that the Chairman of the Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee had agreed to call-in being waived on this issue.

Members were informed at the meeting that a funding agreement was in place to deliver this project that was signed by Government, as was the case with all projects. The money was awarded in March 2010 and the Council and Government had signed that agreement. It was also noted that all agreements state that funding was subject to funds being released by Parliament. Members were advised that, as of 8 June 2010, the council had not been made aware that the contract was not being honoured nor that Parliament had removed the funding for this project via the Homes and Communities Agency. Officers had contacted the Homes and Communities Agency on 8 June 2010, who had clarified that the situation had not changed since March 2010, as far as they are aware. On that basis this was within the Council's budgetary framework and prior to any award of the contract officers would ensure that funding remained in place.

A revised risk register was tabled at the meeting and an exempt appendix identified the tenderers for the contracts and provided details of the procurement and evaluation processes.

Reasons:

The decision to appoint the contractor who submitted the most economically advantageous tender will ensure that the project can proceed efficiently and avoid any risk that it may not be delivered within the required timescale.