a) ESAC
b) Town Centre Diversification
c) Durham Dales Gateway
d) South Church Enterprise Park
e) Heritage Walking and Cycling
f) Tindale Triangle
Minutes:
G Wood advised that initial progrtamme guidance reflected the Stronger Town Board as operational for three years under the current membership
The Board had overseen preparation and submission of Town Investment Plan, project prioritisation and Business case development, through to submission.
DLUCH supplementary guidance issued in November 2022 highlighted the changing role for overseeing implementation and any change requests. The usual principles would keep the terms of reference and review the governance structure.
There had been various changes over the previous three years and overlap. The Bishop Auckland Strategic Advisory Panel had some key input however there were some duplicate discussion.
The options to consider were to continue as they were but strengthen links with the Strategic Advisory panel for a wider reach, initiate a governance review by Democratic Services or commission an external party to initiate a governance review.
A report would be brought to the Board to consider in September.
R Yorke suggested that key players were already around the table with the exception of retail, however Councillor Zair had a dual role as he was also a local business owner. His preference was option one and he also supported the work from the SAP which assisted with filtering information to the wider public.
Councillor Scott had some concerns regarding some of questions raised about overspends and the responsibility of reallocating funds. The Chair advised that it had taken more than two years to allocate the £33m and having gone through the rigorous process, he would not expect any significant changes, however if there were any deviations to the projects, the Board would have to approve them.
Councillor Scott added that there was no representation from developers and so she would be in favour of revising the Membership and terms of reference.
D Madden agreed that a light touch review was necessary and also recommended engagement with developers who were the key absent constituent and this could be facilitated by an advisory group.
The Chair appreciated the concerns raised regarding rising costs however he did not consider there to be any significant risks associated the projects aside from some potential minor modifications.
G wood advised that the responsibility for outcomes lay with project sponsors, cost overruns, good governance and review of terms of reference were the Boards responsibility. With regards to Councillor Zair’s representation, he was attending on behalf of the Town Council in a position which changed annually, therefore the Board needed to consider consistent retail representation and ways to engage with developers.
Though public meetings had been challenging, they had broken down barriers and dealt with initial issues but there was a question over how to continue with SAP and reach full potential. Alongside SAP there were other advisory forums, which could be embraced and utilised review ways of engagement with sectors operators and partners.
The Chair added that the content of discussions would change over the next phase of the scheme. There was already a good dynamic across the Board which could improve with some tweaks to the membership. He considered SAP to be a good mechanism, however S Harris pointed out that it had changed significantly since its inception and should be reviewed to ensure it was working to its full potential. Despite talking about a business forum, there were issues with how this could be administered due to the number of businesses.
J Gilroy confirmed that DLUCH would investigate governance, check processes, terms of reference and board member profiles and also ensure that publishing timescales were being met.
R Yorke suggested that there could be benefit to adding a representative for information on the Future High Street Fund.
Chris felt that there should be some clarity about where brighter bishop sat as there was some duplication.
D land – needs to be reviewed – something might happen over next two years – need to keep interactive to ensure money attracts private investment
Anyone with particular interest – let me know
E scott – D land – BATC – TAP – chris on behalf of paul butler – will be acting bishop but lives in jarrow – she may not be able to take up the seat
AOB – none
S Harris – quick winds –
D Land – bring to next meeting –
Signage all bases have been installed – 13 places power and data connectiosn, displays will go on simultaneous with ESAC
Judith – digital suites at college – recruitment through roof – prior had 9
Now 40 and 50 next year
Made such a difference – recruitment to college is depending on facilities, investing to ensure have got what should have
Quick wins given £250k – signage original plan 5 so used money to create 13 bases and commitment that LA would facilitate with right singage – college took £100k for training and computer room, incereaas students
Bishop marras statue at canny hill – G wood – statue has planning consent in place until October 24 and all of the structural assessments complete – price of steel escalated so funding gap – continue to fundrasise in background – explorihng other contributions section 106 and AAP
Need to procure to see costs,
D land - £30k
S Zair – will DCC maintain costs of statue – G wood – they did agree –
CPAL and bridges and structures
Enterprise agency – were looking to get shop opposite mcintyres
Rob yorke – discussed options ongoing – know 110 food producers in County Durham wanted to bring into central hub to assist with sales in the town
E scott – discovering durham – are they interested
R yorke - costs escalated – small budget – section 106 funding to match it to trying to get more in
S zair –
Ry looking at options atm