Agenda item

To receive the report of the Regeneration Director, Alexandra Palace, updating on the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) “Reclaiming the People’s Palace” project.

RECEIVED the report of the Interim Regeneration Director, Alexandra Park and Palace, Tot Brill, entitled Reclaiming the People’s Palace – Significant Dates, Aims, Procurement and Governance.

a.         Procurement (Paragraph 9)

REPORTED that the Council had entered into a North London-wide Framework Contract for construction work procurement.  Board Members were asked to consider using this Framework for the regeneration works contract procurement.  The Framework, advertised through the OJEU (Official Journal of the European Union) pathway - the same procurement process which would have been used for the HLF project, would present enough contractors with relevant heritage experience and would speed up the process of procurement.

NOTED that

i.          the North London Framework was effective from May 2015-2019.  Structured into three categories of contractors, it was a cost and time effective way of procuring from a good selection of contractors.  It was likely that the same as contractors in the Framework would tender through any independent HLF procurement process;

ii.         concerns were raised about the abilities of the contractors on the Council’s Framework to deliver the regeneration project.  In response, the Board was assured that the Trust would consider the group of contractors with experience of working on projects with a value of more than £5m and with a record of delivering heritage projects;

iii.        the Board raised further concerns about risks through the use of sub contractors.  It was highlighted that all contractors would be required to employ sub contractors (whether through the Council’s Framework or an independent framework) due to the specialist work required within the project.  Once appointed the successful contractor would be responsible for their sub contractors, health and safety aspects and any risks;

iv.        the project contract would remain the same; in two phases and the Trust would maintain control of the budget, with the two stage contract providing greater cost certainty in the second and more significant stage;

v.         Board Members were assured that the project would be closely monitored to ensure targets and project design were followed, and, that the HLF Chief Executive had agreed the use of the Framework in principle (formal approval was expected to be given at a meeting with HLF the following day);

vi.        The Board would have an opportunity to scrutinise the award of contract at its meeting in November.

b.         Project Aims (Paragraph 10)

NOTED the concerns expressed by a Board Member that “delivering in budget and on time” (paragraph 10.4) was not included in the six main aims describing the primary objectives for the project.  Ms Brill agreed that delivery of the project on time and within budget were priorities of the project but the purpose of the six primary objectives was to provide the reasons for undertaking the project (and to be used as final goals at the end of the project) and would not be used as a benchmark for monitoring the progress of the project.  The Project Execution Plan set out in detail how progress would be measured and was a technical document to support project management.

AGREED that wording in Primary Aims bullet 1 should be amended as officers saw fit to sound more positive.

Action: Tot Brill

In relation to Primary Aims bullet 6 it was explained that the contract would include commitment to employ some local people and include some apprenticeships.

c.         Governance

REPORTED that the Board was the decision maker for the regeneration project and it was proposed that two Board Members (in addition to the Chair) join the Programme Board to act as a link between the project operators and the Board. 

The Board welcomed the opportunity to be involved in this way but concerns were expressed about the availability of the two Programme Board members for monthly meetings. It was AGREED that two Board Members would sit on the Programme Board and that 2 members would act as alternate members should the 2 main members not be available to attend the monthly meetings.  An alternate member would also be available if the Chair was unable to attend a meeting. The Council’s Calendar of Meetings would be consulted when scheduling Programme Board meetings to avoid clashes.

NOTED that the word ‘red’ in paragraph 8.2 should read ‘green’.

Clerk’s note:  Nigel Willmott left the meeting during consideration of the above (20:50 hrs)

RESOLVED that

a.         Alexandra Park and Palace Charitable Trust utilise the North London Procurement Framework and contract form as set out in paragraph 9.5 of the report;

b.         the project goals, as set out in paragraph 10.1 of the report, be confirmed, subject to the wording being amended in Primary Aim 1 as discussed above;

c.         the project governance arrangements, as set out in paragraphs 11.3 – 11.7 of the report, be confirmed, and;

d.         that Board Members contact the Chair by email expressing their interest in being one of two Programme Board Members or one of two Alternate Programme Board Members to stand in should a Member not be available to attend the monthly Programme Board meetings.  The Chair would also arrange an alternate Member for when she was not able to attend meetings.

ACTION: BOARD MEMBERS