Agenda and minutes

Consider Call-in of the decision of the Executive Committee of 15 August 2017 on the Union Chain Bridge.

Papers attached:

(a)        the Call-in Notice;

(b)        Extract from the Minute of the Executive Committee of 15 August 2017;

(c)        Report on the Union Chain Bridge considered by the Executive Committee on 15 August 2017; and

            Background Information

(d)        Report on the Union Chain Bridge considered by the Executive Committee on 7 March 2017; and

(e)        Presentation to the Friends of the Union Chain Bridge by Professor Roland Paxton on 25 June 2014 (background information on the history of the Bridge).

1.         DECISION CALLED IN: UNION CHAIN BRIDGE

1.1       With reference to paragraph 3 of the Executive Minute of 15 August 2017, there had been circulated copies of a Call-In of a decision taken by the Executive Committee, relating to a request to increase the financial contribution to the Union Chain Bridge project.  The decision of the Executive Committee was:

AGREED:-

(a)        to increase the financial commitment to the Union Chain Bridge Project by £450k, in line with the current agreement with Northumberland County Council; and

(b)       to approve the virements of £190k in 2019/20 and £260k in 2020/21 from Roads and Bridges capital block to the Union Chain Bridge.

1.2       Also circulated was an extract from the Minute of the Executive Committee of 15 August 2017; the report on the Union Chain Bridge considered by the Executive Committee on 15 August 2017; the report on the Union Chain Bridge considered by the Executive Committee on 7 March 2017; and a presentation to the Friends of the Union Chain Bridge by Professor Roland Paxton on 25 June 2014 (background information on the history of the bridge). 

1.3       The call-in had been made by Councillor Paterson, supported by Councillors: A  Anderson, H Anderson, S Bell, H Scott and E Thornton-Nicol, and was as follows:

(a)        The report and the discussion at the meeting did not make it clear if the expenditure was on the Bridge in order to maintain it as a strategic road asset or as a historic asset.  Was this a vital bridge for the Borders public, or was it for tourists?

(b)        The report wasn’t clear on the costs and the benefits of alternative courses of action.  It was not clear if the approved increased expenditure was the best Value for Money at this time.

(c)        The extra £450k was identified as coming out of the future block funding for roads and bridges.  There were no answers in the report or the discussion to the question of the priority for funding for this Bridge in comparison to other commitments.  The Borders public needed to know why we spend money on this Bridge and not fix pot holes or upgrade some roads that are little more than a cattle track. 

1.4       The Chairman, Councillor Bell, welcomed officers and Members to the meeting, described the procedure to be used during the meeting and invited Councillor Paterson to give his reasons for the call-in.  Councillor Paterson explained that it had been brought to his attention that not many people used the bridge and it was a concern that money was being allocated to the project which could have a wider benefit if allocated elsewhere; there could have been more questioning of officers at the Executive Committee; and a proper explanation of the project was required.  In response to questions from Scrutiny Members, Councillor Paterson advised that he had not been satisfied with the level of questioning of the project by Members and the officers’ responses; the Executive Members had been unanimous  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.