Information

Delegated Executive Decisions
Thursday, 20 December 2018 10.30 a.m.

Venue: Not Applicable

Contact: Una Bell 

Items
No. Item

DEX/4

Coastal Revival Funding: Accountable Body pdf icon PDF 156 KB

To give consideration to South Lakeland District Council acting as accountable body for the Coastal Revival Funding.

Minutes:

(Director People and Places)

 

Summary

 

The Morecambe Bay Partnership (MBP) had been successful in its bid to the Coastal Revival Fund (CRF) for funding of £50k. The funding was to progress a socio-economic and feasibility study for a cantilever structure along the Kent Estuary Viaduct on the Furness Line, to link both sides on Morecambe Bay for cyclists and pedestrians with an iconic structure for Morecambe Bay. South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) had agreed in principle, subject to the appropriate decision making process and grant agreement, to act as the accountable body for the funding.

 

Decision

 

RESOLVED – That

 

(1)        Approval be given for SLDC to act as accountable body for the Coastal Revival Funding; and

 

(2)        Authority be given to the Solicitor to the Council to agree the terms of a grant agreement between SLDC and Morecambe Bay Partnership, in line with the grant application.

 

Reasons for Decision

 

To assist in the delivery of the following Council Priorities:-

 

Economy: We will exploit opportunities to boost the economic performance of the Morecambe Bay area. We will identify, consider and develop initiatives and activity where joint working and shared resources offer a means by which additional benefits can be effectively delivered.

 

Environment: We will support local partners with their strategies for active travel, such as developing safer cycle and walking routes to work and school and promoting cycling tourism.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

SLDC could have acted as the accountable body for this funding as well as the delivery partner which would have involved procurement, contract and project management. This would have had procurement and resource implications and was not the preferred option by either SLDC or MBP.

 

Another option would have been for SLDC not to act as the accountable body for the funding which would have potentially put the funding and delivery of the study at risk.