WEXHAM COURT PARISH COUNCIL
Councillors Munawar Hussain and Shabanz Zeib.
A Special Meeting had been convened to approve various items of expenditure, largely relating to improvements and renovations at the Parish Hall. As the Finance Clerk was unable to attend, it was noted that all items approved would be subject to confirmation that there was an adequate budgetary provision.
20. APPROVAL OF APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
RESOLVED: That apologies for absence offered in respect of this meeting be approved.
21. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Malik declared an interest in relation to her role as a Borough Councillor.
22. CONSIDERATION OF DISPENSATION APPLICATIONS RELATING TO THE CODE OF CONDUCT
No applications were submitted.
23. APPROVAL OF COSTS FOR REPLACEMENT PAVILION HALL LIGHTING, PLUS CHECKING OF MAIN HALL LIGHTING AND ANY REMEDIAL WORK
A quote had been obtained including various options for the types of lighting and ceiling tiles required. It was agreed that LED lights should be used in the Pavilion Hall as these provided a better quality light. Some of the spot lights and tube light fittings in the Main Hall would also need replacing.
RESOLVED: That a maximum sum of £3,950 be approved for the abovementioned work, the final total being dependant upon the number of new fittings required.
24. APPROVAL OF COSTS FOR DECORATION OF BOTH HALLS AND REPLACEMENT PAVILION HALL CEILING TILES
A quote had been obtained to include the fitting of plasterboard over the Main Hall stage mural; the use of hardwearing masonry paint on the Pavilion Hall walls; and various Pavilion Hall ceiling tile options. Paint colours could be decided later, but a neutral Magnolia was suggested. The price quoted included scaffolding towers for the Main Hall work.
RESOLVED: That the sum of £4,610 be approved for the abovementioned work.
25. APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL COSTS RELATING TO LIFT INSTALLATION PROJECT, PLUS IMPROVEMENTS TO FRONT OF BUILDING
Meetings had taken place with the architect and builders and Council was advised that for the lift installation to take place the structure would need supporting with girders. All external/internal doors would also need to be altered, together with other alterations/improvements to the front of the building. The required additional work would cost £56,706+VAT.
It had been agreed with the contractors that an initial deposit of 25% could be paid, with the final payment being made after the next Precept payment is received in September. SBC would be approached for assistance and a loan may be necessary to meet expenses. The Finance Clerk had verbally confirmed that these expenses could be met. The need for borrowing would be considered at the next Council meeting.
RESOLVED: That the sum of £56,706 be approved for the abovementioned work.
26. APPROVAL OF COSTS FOR PURCHASE OF STRIMMER/BRUSH CUTTER
A sturdy petrol strimmer/brush cutter was required for maintenance of the grounds and allotment site.
RESOLVED: That a maximum sum of £500 be approved for the abovementioned item.
27. APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL BUILDING COSTS RELATING TO TOILET RENOVATION PROJECT
A further quote had been obtained from the builder for additional work relating to the toilet renovations.
RESOLVED: That an additional sum of £2,886 be approved for the abovementioned work.
28. APPROVAL OF COSTS TO PURCHASE PAYG MOBILE PHONES FOR CARETAKERS
It was noted that communication with and by the caretakers was sometimes difficult due to them using various telephones or running out of credit. It was therefore proposed that mobile phones should be purchased so that they could be reached as necessary.
RESOLVED: That the sum of £60 be approved for the purchase of two mobile phones, plus a maximum £10 per month each for credit top-ups.
The Meeting closed at 9.05 p.m.
Clerk's note: Approval of Item 25 should have been deferred to the next Meeting of Full Council due to the substantial capital cost involved, but it was not. Further, as this expenditure was part of the Lift Project (which now totalled in excess of £70,000) this work should have gone out to tender in accordance with Regulations and the Council's own Standing Orders, but it did not. Therefore, this expenditure was approved without due consideration and was a breach of statutory procedure.
Click here to return to home page