Agenda item

To receive and note the update.  

Cllr R Kershaw – Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Growth introduced the report and informed Members that a new Project Manager was in place, three new businesses had opened in the market place, and the physical works had progressed despite delays caused by weather and a recently discovered sinkhole. He added that the sinkhole had been filled within 24 hours and contractors had since exceeded the laying rate of paving. Elsewhere work on Church Lane had begun, the wall around Black Swan Loke had been demolished with small buildings removed and works commenced on the Vicarage Road car park.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The Chairman referred to the requested breakdown of the £400k funding uplift and asked if further clarification could be given on how this would be spent. Cllr R Kershaw replied that issues with costing the breakdown were a result of the works being above the procurement threshold, which meant that the Council had gone out to tender but were yet to receive a response, but the information could be shared once available. It was confirmed, following a question from the Chairman that Cllr Kershaw was aware of the full costs, subject to tenders being received. The Chairman noted that in order to justify the approval of this funding, it was important to understand how the figure had arisen, but it was not clear from the information supplied. Cllr R Kershaw replied that until the tenders were received, the speculative figures could not be provided as they would be unconfirmed and commercially sensitive. The EGM stated that the £228k designated for the market place came as a result of an overspend, therefore whilst this could not be broken down in constituent parts, the results could be drawn from an anticipated quantity surveyors report. He reiterated that to provide any more detail on the Loke works at this stage could prejudice the tender process. The Chairman suggested that the information could be provided as exempt if necessary, to which the EGM replied that the full figures were expected within two weeks and could be provided to the Committee once available. The Chairman suggested that it would be helpful to receive the full information in whichever format necessary as soon as possible. He added that difficulties in gathering tenders had not previously been made clear, but it remained important to understand how the funding request had been established, to which Cllr Kershaw confirmed that the figure requested was based on estimates.

      ii.          Cllr C Cushing reiterated that it had been extremely difficult to gain information on the project, and it appeared that the reality was often different to what was reported. He added that he was pleased to see that the report had been split into constituent parts, though it would be helpful to include objectives, project timeframes, key milestones and progress for each. Cllr Cushing referred to the risk register and stated that there was very little information provided on the potential impact of risks and the mitigation actions taken. He added that it was also unnecessary to include two RAG statuses for each element of the project and therefore proposed that the risk register be reviewed by GRAC to consider potential recommendations for improvement. The EGM replied that the risk register contained two RAG statuses to show the risk pre and post-mitigation.

     iii.          Cllr V Holliday seconded the proposal to refer the risk register to GRAC for review, given that some risks had fallen significantly following mitigation and she would like some reassurance that these calculations were correct. She added that the Cedars demand risk remained relatively high, and given that an adequate level of demand was the basis for funding the renovations, the level of risk should be given careful consideration. Cllr R Kershaw stated that he would be comfortable with the project and risk register being considered by GRAC. The DSGOS noted that a previous Committee recommendation had requested that the project’s governance be reviewed by GRAC, and if approved, reviewing the risk register could form part of this work due for consideration in March.

    iv.          Cllr N Pearce noted his concerns that information requested by the Committee had not been provided within the expected timeframes. The DFPCC replied that the issue was a matter of timing, and until the tenders had been received, it was difficult to provide an accurate response beyond the estimates already given. He added that as soon as the information was available, it would be provided at the earliest opportunity. The DFR added that estimates provided within the report were not well presented and this could be improved to help Members better understand how the funding would be spent.

      v.          The Chairman referred to measured term contracts outlined in the report and sought clarification from officers. The DFC replied that this referred to contractors with previously approved rates that the Council could utilise when required without the need for further procurement.

    vi.          The Chairman noted that a recommendation to refer the project’s risk register to GRAC had been proposed by Cllr C Cushing and seconded by Cllr V Holliday.

RESOLVED

1.     To receive and note the update.

2.     To recommend that GRAC consider the project’s risk register as part of its review of NWHSHAZ project governance.

ACTIONS

1.     Officers to provide detailed breakdown of costs included in £400k additional funding request once Tenders are confirmed, or if delayed then estimates provided in advance of March meeting.