Agenda and draft minutes

Please note that this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method. Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting. Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on. By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

 The Chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Cabinet Member referred to the filming at meetings notice and this information was noted.

There were no apologies for absence.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of Urgent Business. (Late items of Urgent Business will be considered under the agenda item where they appear).

There was no urgent business.

There were no declarations of interest.

There were none.

In line with Contract Standing Order CSO 10.02.1 (b) and 16.02, the report sought approval to extend the Northolt Strip-Out Contract by the sum of £794,655.00. The contract extension was required following the decanting of the adjacent Stapleford North Block, and the works required to make the block ready for demolition. The demolition of Stapleford North would be included in the demolition of Northolt.

The extension of contract was also required for additional works not included within the original scope of works and therefore not allowed for within the contractor’s tender sum. These works included the removal of asbestos and for the disconnection and removal of mechanical plant throughout the block.

There was not likely to be any recourse for the consultant that had misadvised on the level of asbestos. However, it may affect future working engagements with the consultant.

There was £150,000 contingency on the project. The new homes project was around £140 million. The risk and contingency for this was 2.5% - £3.5 million. There was a reasonable risk and contingency with in the homes programme. 

The Cabinet Member’s title in the report would read as Cabinet Member for Placemaking and the Local Economy. 

The table in paragraph 6.12 of the report needed to be clarified. The figures provided should be clear that both figures were supposed to indicate ‘thousands’. 

The Cabinet Member RESOLVED 

1. Pursuant to CSO 10.02.1 (b) and 16.02 approves the extension of the contract in the sum of £794,655.00. The original contract was awarded for the sum of £725,345.00. Subject to the approval of the contract extension, the total approved sum will be £1.52m.

2. Approval of this extension to the contract will result in a variation in the value and an extension to the programme.

3. Agrees the total costs contained within the exempt report.

Reasons for decision 

The extension to the contract would enable the strip-out works to continue to make the blocks ready for demolition by a specialist contractor.

The main demolition was programmed to commence from October - December 2025 and would include for the demolition of the Northolt and Stapleford North blocks.

It was essential that the strip-out works to both blocks were completed prior to the start of the main demolition programme, otherwise this could delay the works to demolish the blocks to make the site ready for the construction of 68 new homes.

Alternative options considered

Do nothing and programme the additional works as a standalone contract. This was considered but quickly discounted. The reason for this was because there was an incumbent contractor on-site, and procuring a separate contractor would not only delay the works, but render the current project incomplete and result in higher costs due to the procurement timeframe if another contractor was appointed to carry out the works.

The option to include the additional works as part of the main demolition programme was considered. Discussions with the design team directed the decision to include these works as part of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To request approval to award a services contract for the Civic Centre Redevelopment Project for multi-disciplinary technical advisor services for RIBA Stages 5 and 6.

To request approval to issue a letter of intent representing 10% of the contract sum.

Under the design as build contract, a technical advisor was imperative to protect the Council’s interest. One of the primary roles would be to ensure that contractor would be developing the works on site in accordance with the employer’s requirements. The advisor would be present until the works were completed. The fee would be based on the overall construction value. The fee could vary if the construction cost increased, but work was being done to limit this. There was little scope for unforeseen changes.

The Cabinet Member RESOLVED 

1. To approve, pursuant to contract standing order CSO 2.01 ( c) and CSO 0.08 an award of contract to provide multi-disciplinary technical advisor services for RIBA Stages 5 and 6 for the Civic Centre Redevelopment Project based on a tender contract sum of £717,100.00.

2. To approve a client contingency as set out in Part B of this report which will be strictly managed under change control governance arrangements.

3. To approve the issuance of a Letter of Intent up to a value of £100,000.00, pursuant to CSO16.04. This is detailed in Part B.

Reasons for decision 

The latest version of the Council’s office accommodation business case was presented to and approved by Cabinet in November 2024. The updated and final business case demonstrates that the best option to meet the Council’s core office accommodation needs was to restore and refurbish the Civic Centre and extend it with the addition of a new annex building.

Hawkins Brown Design Ltd were originally appointed by the Council to complete the Civic Centre design up to the main contractor tender stage. Following this, Hawkins Brown Design Ltd were appointed by the main contractor for design continuity purposes, which meant the Council needed to appoint a separate technical advisor resource to help to deliver the project.

Since then, the Council has awarded a contract to John Sisk & Sons Ltd to deliver the construction works on site. The Council has a technical advisory resource in place, but the commission expires at the end of RIBA Stage 4, so a new commission is required for RIBA Stages 5 and 6.

Working with the Strategic Procurement team, a competitive tender has been completed via the Council Dynamic Purchasing System under the professional services lot for multi-disciplinary design services.

The preferred bidder met the quality requirements set by the Council, had responded to the technical requirements of the tender and offered a contract price that represents value for money. The award of the contract would ensure that the Council has the critical technical advisory service for RIBA Stages 5 and 6.

Alternative options considered

Do nothing – This would represent a significant risk to the Council. A construction contract is now in place with John Sisk & Sons Ltd and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Items 9 and 10 are likely to be subject to a motion to exclude the press and public be from the meeting as they contain exempt information as defined in Section 100a of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended by Section 12A of the Local Government Act 1985); paragraph 3, namely information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) and information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

Items 9 and 10 were subject to a motion to exclude the press and public be from the meeting as it contained exempt information as defined in Section 100a of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended by Section 12A of the Local Government Act 1985); paragraph 3, namely information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) and information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

The Cabinet Member considered the exempt information.

The Cabinet Member considered the exempt information.