Issue - meetings
Lancaster Caton Road (Phase 3) Flood Risk Management Scheme
Meeting: 03/09/2019 - Cabinet (Item 20)
20 Lancaster Caton Road (Phase 3) Flood Risk Management Scheme 
PDF 141 KB
(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)
Report of Director for Economic Growth and Regeneration
Additional documents:
- EXEMPT APPENDIX , View reasons restricted (20/2)
Minutes:
(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)
Cabinet received a report from the Director for Economic Growth and Regeneration to update members on the progression of the River Lune flood defence scheme. The report reviewed the scheme as it entered the preliminary site preparation and construction phase and provided commentary on the current estimated forecast outturn construction cost and project risks. Options and recommendations on the need for additional council funding to offset specific scheme scope and specification risks were also considered.
The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:
|
|
Option 1: Continue to progress the current affordable scheme.
|
Option 2: Council agrees an additional contribution to ensure delivery of all the High/Medium/Low priority implementation and scope risks.
|
Option 3: Council agrees a contribution to cover only the High and Medium priority implementation and scope risks. (Preferred Option) |
|
Advantages |
No further immediate funding required.
Scheme proceeds with the potential to provide majority of benefits provided by the “preferred scheme” scope.
High incentive for “in scheme” cost mitigation and the securing of additional public/private funding. |
Allows all priorities to be addressed to a sound risk profile which should allow all identified implementation and scope matters to be addressed.
Low risk of unplanned expenditure at a future date.
|
Potential to deliver against most critical implementation risks.
Retains a high incentive for “in scheme” cost mitigation and the securing of additional public/private funding to secure all scheme benefits.
Lower risk of unplanned expenditure. |
|
Disadvantages |
High likelihood the current risk allowance is too low to cover all identified implementation risks.
Discrete areas remain at the current level of flood protection.
No guarantee further cost mitigation or funding sources will materialise “in scheme”.
|
Additional cost to the General Fund revenue budget.
Low incentive for “in scheme” cost mitigation and the securing of additional public/private funding.
|
Additional cost to the General Fund depending on priorities chosen (though lower than Option 2).
Residual implementation / scope risks, and potentially reputational risks.
No guarantee further cost mitigation or funding sources will materialise “in scheme”.
|
|
Risks |
Reputational risks of being unable to cover scope risks.
Construction cost increases due to identified risks materialising leading to unplanned expenditure.
|
Implementation and scope risks are minimised. |
Potential for certain implementation/reputational risks to remain depending on outturn of scheme.
Construction risks minimised through fully supported (in term of funding) risk register
|
As officers have identified a risk of future unplanned expenditure Option 1 is not preferred. If Members wish to proceed the critical question is the affordability and scale of the council’s contribution. The preferred option is Option 3: Members agree a contribution to cover High/Medium priority implementation and scope risks.
Option 3 will result in an additional cost of £17K per annum to the council’s budgetprofile but allows officers to bring more certainty in deliverability and ensures further cost mitigation and saving measures can be explored with confidence.
As previously reported, a financial “return” against the council’s total ... view the full minutes text for item 20