Decision details

Cabinet was asked to endorse the proposed Town Fund Business Case and Business Case Assurance for the redevelopment of the Sharley Park Leisure Centre. Members were reminded that the Council was the accountable body for the Clay Cross Towns Fund. It was responsible for ensuring that a robust governance and assurance framework was put in place in order to protect the interests of the public in how the Fund was used.

Cabinet discussed the proposed Town Fund Business Case and Business Case Assurance and agreed to support them. Members reflected on the progress which had been made towards re-developing the Sharley Park Leisure Centre. They welcomed the benefits this would have for the community of Clay Cross and the District as a whole.

RESOLVED

Cabinet agreed (as accountable body for Clay Cross Town Fund) that:

(1)             The Town Fund Business Case and Business Case Assurance presented in the report provided assurance that the Sharley Park Development provides good value for money for the public.

(2)             The Section 151 Officer be authorised to finalise the necessary documents to a ‘Ready to Proceed’ position.

(3)             The project is recommended to the Clay Cross Town Deal Board for consideration and approval.

(4)             The Director of Transformation, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Leisure, Communities and Communications, be authorised to pursue options 5, 6, 7 or 8, as outlined in the report and Business Case Assurance, given that all four options represent high value for money, as demonstrated in Paragraph 3.3 of the report.

(5)              

REASONS FOR DECISION - The investment in Sharley Park leisure facility would provide high value for money for the public, contribute to addressing local health and social issues in and around Clay Cross and reduce significantly the annual cost to the Council of operating Sharley Park Leisure Centre.

OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED - The option of not yet proceeding to the next stage for the project was considered but rejected for the reasons explained in the report.

                                                                                                              Paragraph 3