It seems you are using Internet Explorer 6 (or maybe you just have css disabled). We no longer guarantee that our site will display as intended in this browser.

Agenda item

Single Site Programme

To consider report no: DCE55/22 of the Deputy Chief Executive and Interim Director of Resources, which seeks to provide an update on the construction programme for Voreda House and to identify funding for its completion.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that Council:

 

1.    Notes progress on the delivery of the key project objectives.

 

2.    Approves the variation in the capital programme to enable the completion   of the project as detailed in section 8.3 of the report.

 

3. Approves the amendment in funding as set out in 8.5 of the report.

Minutes:

Members considered Report No: DCE55/22 of the Deputy Chief Executive and the Interim Director of Resources which sought to provide an update on the construction programme for Voreda House and to identify funding for its completion.

 

Proposed by Councillor Greenwood

Seconded by Councillor Robinson

 

Members raised a number of queries and comments:

 

A Member noted that partial funding would come from an increase in capital receipts. They asked if this could be expanded upon.

 

The Interim Director of Resources stated that they were anticipating additional funding through the sale of land.

 

A Member referred to 5.3 of the report and that Council approved the procurement process in October 2021. He had looked for this and a report labelled CE12/21 was considered by Cabinet on the 7 of October 2021. The recommendation involved an invitation to Council to authorise the procurement programme. They noted that they cannot find a public record of these decisions and that this does not seem to have happened. The Member asked if Cabinet’s recommendations were approved, who approved it and when?

 

The Resources Portfolio Holder responded that a written response would be provided.

 

A Member queried why was the procurement process wasn’t competitive. He noted that 5 contractors withdrew. They queried why the Council’s procurement rules were evaded.

 

The Deputy Chief Executive responded that the tendering process was competitive, It went out to tender and there were 5 expressions, 4 ended up withdrawing, this was within the competitive process.

 

A Member queried why the financial information given by the Resources Portfolio Holder tonight not included in the report. As the information in section 8 of the report is rather difficult to follow.

 

The Resources Portfolio Holder commented that the Member was a member of both the Finance Scrutiny Committee and of the Single Site Group. She stated that there were opportunities for the Member to attend these meetings and these matters were brought up and discussed in depth at these meetings.

 

The Interim Director of Resources stated that in reference to the earlier query on who approved Cabinet’s recommendations that this was included in the Quarter 2 Revised Budget 2021/22 and Medium Term Financial Plan, this was approved at Council on the 25 November 2021.

 

A Member asked why these new issues with the building were not picked up on the structural survey.

 

The Deputy Chief Executive responded that they undertook a number of structural surveys, the asbestos in the building could not have been picked up on these surveys as it was hidden within the structure and could not have been identified until the building was pulled apart. He commented that he was satisfied that the surveys carried out prior to purchase was correct and in line with best practice and the additional asbestos that has been identified subsequently could not have been identified through that approach.

 

A Member commented that given that it was a 60s building that there should have been an assumption that there was asbestos in more places than one.

 

A Member commented that in the last 18 months the single site group had either been cancelled, or had only been given 3 or 4 days’ notice of a meeting. They queried the £862,000 zero carbon grant and if statutory surveys were required of Voreda house In order to gain that grant.

 

The Deputy Chief Executive responded that there was no surveys required as part of that government grant funding. Surveys were carried out for pre-purchase requirements and pre-construction requirements, none of these surveys were required by the salix funding process as a part of the grant allocation.

 

The Communities Portfolio Holder stated that she cannot comment on Finance Scrutiny Committee, however the Single Site Working Group met two weeks ago, apologies were not given, and they always had fair notice of the meeting going ahead.

 

A Member commented that with this project there had been limited open debate in Council about it, it has been on the agenda at three budget meetings but only two/ three papers. It is also disappointing that there has been no involvement of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The Member commented that they had been told that the Members Working Group was a proxy for scrutiny, however this cannot be the case as members of the Cabinet were members of this group and Members of the Cabinet cannot be involved in scrutiny.

 

A Member commented that the date of the 31 March 2023 is extremely ambitious considering the current state of the building. There is not much more than the basic structure. If it is completed, commission and occupied by staff on the 31 of March 2023 they would pledge £250 to the Chairman’s Charity. 

 

A Member commented that this has not been a perfect process, communication could have been better. They commented that they are generally in favour of the project. The objectives under section 3 and 4 have been fulfilled. The Member added they are were not sure if it the most cost effective way of doing it. Once completed the building will be fit for purpose, it will be in itself cost effective due to the energy crisis. They hoped there would be no further additional costs. They added that it was important that there is a hub that is fit for purpose for Officers and services for residents.

 

The Interim Director of Resources responded that as it is a capital project and because there is a change in budget it sits within the terms of reference of the Budget Scrutiny Committee and not Overview and Scrutiny Committee. A report is also going to the next Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

 

RESOLVED that Council:

 

1.     Noted progress on the delivery of the key project objectives

2.     Approves the variation in the capital programme to enable the completion of the project as detailed in section 8.3

3.     Approves the amendment in funding as set out in 8.5.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: