Decisions

Reason for Decision

A major fire on Sunday 15 November 2020 at a Dorset Council waste depot resulted in 21 Refuse Collection Vehicles (RCVs) being destroyed. This has created an urgent need to source and procure pre-used RCVs as replacements to swiftly remove the dependency of hiring replacements, in order to maintain vital waste services, as this is not economically viable for the Council. This does not give Dorset Council sufficient time to comply with standard open procedure timescales for this procurement. The Council considers this to be a state of urgency which it has duly substantiated. Accordingly, the Council is using the accelerated time limits permitted under the Public Contract Regulations 2015 (regulation 27.5 for the open procedure) in respect of this procurement.

This delegated decision is being taken in accordance with Scheme of Delegation item 32 (Chief Officer decisions in cases of urgency). There is an urgent and pressing financial need to take the decision and commence procurement which cannot wait until the next available meeting of Cabinet.

Alternative options considered and rejected

Long and short term vehicle hire; and

Procurement of new vehicles.

Decision

To procure pre-used Waste Collection vehicles via an open accelerated procedure in accordance with Reg 27.5 where a state of an urgency (emergency) can be substantiated by the contracting authority. This will allow tender return to be only 15 days following publish of OJEU Contract Notice. Budget implications £1,242,193 to be met from Dorset Council Insurance fund.

Cllr. Spencer Flower, Cllr. Ray Bryan and Cllr Jill Haynes have been consulted.

Reason for Decision

The Licence if a renewal

Alternative options considered and rejected

The Delegated powers clearly gives the authority the delegated powers the obvious way forward.

Decision

A Licence for I year, UC ISO QinetiQ, The Peninsular, The Esplanade, Weymouth.

Reason for the Decision

·         The  Minerals Strategy 2014, with Policies Map, was adopted by Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Councils in 2014. 

·         It has recently been noted for the first time that an error occurred when the Policies Map was being prepared, and land in the vicinity of West Moors that should have been shown as being safeguarded for minerals was not shown in this way.

·         This error has come to light as a result of enforcement action being taken at a site in this area.

·         The error needs to be corrected, in order that documents submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in support of this enforcement action are factually correct, and also to ensure that the Policies Map is accurate in spatially representing the policies of the Plan.

No-one has been disadvantaged by the error, or its correction.  No change is to be made to any of the adopted policies of the  Minerals Strategy 2014.  Case law (see below) has demonstrated that planning authorities are allowed to make factual corrections to address errors in a Policies Map, following adoption of a Plan.

Alternative Options considered and rejected

The only alternative is to do nothing, which could have future implications for misleading land owners, developers or the public, and could lead to parties being disadvantaged. 

It could also have an impact on current enforcement action, and the Council could be criticised for not taking action having discovered this error.

Budget Implications

No implications from making the correction.

Legal Implications

No implications from making the correction.

Reference Documents

The case law referred to earlier is: 

R(on the application of Douglas Bond) v Vale of White Horse District Council [2019] EWHC 3080 (Admin) in which ‘The Court held that whilst a Proposals Map may be a local development document, it is not a development plan document for the purpose of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and therefore is not subject to the procedures in the Act that require the draft to be submitted for independent examination. 

The role of the Proposals Map is to illustrate the policies in the development plan document with which it is associated.  Where the Proposals Map has been drawn up incorrectly, so that it does not illustrate the adopted policies, a correction of the map is not an alteration of the development plan document since no alteration of the development plan itself is required.

The powers in Sections 23(1), 23(5) and 26(1) of the Act were sufficiently wide to allow a correction to a Proposals Map in such circumstances’.

Decision

To note that a recently  identified factual error in the Policies Map of the  Minerals Strategy 2014 has been corrected.

Reason for the Decision

The rails have been put permanently out of use by Network Rail.  This network change has been agreed by government.  The now redundant rails are an ongoing safety hazard and maintenance burden to Dorset Council.  Should the scheme not go ahead within the planned window, there is the risk that Dorset Council will have to return the grant.

Alternative Options considered and rejected

Dorset Council has been working with Network Rail to identify a satisfactory, long term solution to the problem. 

Options considered include surfacing over and infilling.  An infilling trial was undertaken in 2012.  Four different options were tested, but none proved durable.  In addition, infilling only addresses on aspect of the risk (cycle wheels being caught in the void between the tracks) The slip hazard remains, and there has been no reduction in the accident rate. 

An option for partial removal has been considered and discounted because although it may remove the risk to cyclists at key locations, the risk remains elsewhere, and the long-term maintenance issue would remain unresolved including the presence of wooden sleepers under the carriage. 

Surfacing options have been discounted because they only provide a temporary solution and leave the long-term maintenance liability in place. 

Do nothing was ruled out as untenable due to the ongoing risk to safety, the long-term maintenance issues and the positioning of the rails precludes the development of an on-road cycle route to be developed separately as part of the town wide network.

Consultees

External: Network Rail, Weymouth Town Council,

Internal: Local Member, Conservation Officer and Archaeologist.  Engagement with local members

Budget Implications

£200,000 from the Local Transport Plan budget.  £1.137M from the Department for Transport.  £200,000 from Network Rail. (update: Network Rail given an extra £41,319 – total of £241,319) Notice amended on 21/12/2020

Legal Implications

The transfer of ownership of  the rails is underway and will be completed on receipt of documentation from Network Rail, who are joint funders of the scheme. We have assurances from Network Rail that they have instructed their legal representatives to effect the transfer and finance has been authorised.

Reference Documents

For full information about the rationale behind the scheme, see our funding bid. 

https://www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/roads-highways-maintenance/maintenance/road-maintenance/pdfs/dft-highways-maintenance-challenge-fund-tranche-2b-application-form-dorset-council.pdf

Decision

To proceed with the removal in accordance with the terms of the £1.137M Department for Transport grant – while being sensitive to the historic context.

Reasons for Decision

a)    There are three outstanding objections to the Order; and

b)    The applicant has agreed to abandon the Order

Alternative options considered and rejected

Submission to PINS

Decision

a)    The Dorset Council (part of Bridleway 12, Verwood at Potterne Park) Public Path Diversion Order 2020 be formally abandoned; and

b)    There will be no refund to the applicant of any costs paid to Dorset Council associated with the Order.