Agenda item

The Director of Property and Construction – Dragonfly Development Ltd. was not available to present the report, but the Business Growth Manager agreed to answer any questions if able.

The Chair noted the Roseland Crematorium was listed, but as mentioned earlier in the meeting this had already progressed through Planning Committee with an increased number of windows and additional design features present (some external cladding had been replaced as the original proved unworkable).

A Member noted the Shareholder Board monitored Dragonfly Development Ltd..  At the previous Committee meeting, there had been no evidence of performance review monitoring in the Shareholder Board minutes provided.  There was also no minutes or report supplied to this Committee meeting; was there no Shareholder Board meeting between the date of the last Committee meeting and this one.  The Monitoring Officer explained there had been no Shareholder Board meeting in that time, but it would have proven ideal if the meeting had taken place before the Committee’s; the next Shareholder board meeting would be taking place later that week.  An update from the Shareholder Board would be supplied to the next Committee meeting in September 2024.  A Member asked if this could be inserted into the Committee’s Work Programme, and the Chair confirmed it could be in the following agenda item.

A Member asked about the current budget of the Roseland Crematorium.  The Business Growth Manager explained the £7.4 million related to the construction cost, not the total project cost, and that value engineering was taking place; it was still predicted there would be profit in year 1 and the burden on the taxpayer would be covered by the revenue from cremations, commemorations, and other income generation schemes of the project.

The Member asked, with regards the review of the business case, could this information be shared with the Council to monitor progress and the viability of the site.  The Business Growth Manager explained it would be included in a report and tabled to the Executive once all information was available.

The Chair noted, after the Executive meeting, that report could be available for the next Committee to provide Members reassurance the project was on target and progressing as expected.  The Business Growth Manager stated certain report submission deadlines meant this may prove difficult to achieve, but the Team would still be pursuing to provide this information to the Committee.  The Monitoring Officer added this would be a Key Decision of the Forward Plan; Members would have the opportunity to scrutinise as individual Councillors or as a Committee.

A Member felt it remained inappropriate to leave it to either a full Council meeting or to call for an extraordinary meeting of the Committee when the mechanism to monitor Dragonfly Development Ltd. was the Shareholder Board; the Member felt the membership of the Shareholder Board should reflect the Council and not be made up of the Executive.  It was asked this be noted in the minutes.

The Chair stated there was one Scrutiny Committee Member now on the Shareholder Board.  The Member added this was someone also on the Executive.

A Member sought clarity on the Pipe Line Projects listed on page 79 of the document; “£2” was the figure presented.  The Business Growth Manager stated there should have been an “m” for million after each of these figures.

Moved by Councillor Tom Munro and seconded by Councillor Will Fletcher

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

The Business Growth Manager left the meeting at 11:02 hours.