Agenda item

Report of the Head of Economic Regeneration

The Chief Executive addressed the committee providing an overview of the project progress to date and highlighting the correspondence from Leicestershire County Council detailed in the additional papers, which referred to the termination of the current joint arrangements.

The Strategic Director of Place gave a presentation to Members, which detailed a review on the work already carried out on the project, the current position and an outline of the proposed way forward.

The Leader of the Council addressed the Committee.  He expressed the importance of continuing with the project and creating a first class scheme for Coalville.  As the land at Marlborough Square was owned by Leicestershire County Council it was a sensible choice at the time to create the arrangement with them for the contracting of the work required.  The Leader of the Council stated that the agreement was entered into in good faith, and in hindsight, he would not have done things any differently.  However, he understood that the whole process was a learning curve and it was now essential to move forward.

The Chairman reminded Members that as the meeting and the report were open to the public, any discussions regarding the confidential additional papers of the tender price would require a motion to exclude the press and public during the item.

In response to a number of questions from Councillor S Sheahan, the following was stated:

·           The Head of Economic Regeneration was the NWLDC representative on the Leicestershire County Council Project Board.

·           The Leader of the Council did not believe that it was a mistake to form the agreement with Leicestershire County Council, as it was a logical decision.  Unfortunately, the fit was not right and as soon as the problems occurred, the project was stopped immediately.

·           The Leader of the Council did not believe the project was carried out ‘on the hoof’.  There was a series of conversations held between all parties prior to work being undertaken, which was good practice.  Unfortunately, this led to a mismatch of information along the communication lines. 

·           The Leader of the Council did not think that the changes requested from NWLDC during the process were to blame for the breakdown of the agreement.  Due to the required standard of the scheme, it was important to have many discussions on the options available to ensure the aesthetic quality was right. 

In response to a number of questions from Councillor T Eynon, the following was stated:

·           The Head of Economic Regeneration stated that officers were aware that the granite paving  would take the costs over budget and that the July 2018 completion date would be missed in approximately April 2018. 

·           The Head of Economic Regeneration reported that there were three different project managers involved during the contract but he did not feel that this had an impact, as they were from the same company and there was always a smooth handover.

·           The Head of Economic Regeneration stated that there was acknowledgement that contractors would set up on site before final costs were known  but there was contingencies in place to cover most circumstances with money in the budget to cover risks and authority delegated to the Strategic Director to make changes to the scheme.

·           The Head of Economic Regeneration stated that it had been hoped that the work could be done in time to enable trees to be planted in the square by the end of the planting season, which was November to March.

·            

·           The Leader of the Council stated that officers would now progress with the tender process and would be able to talk directly to contractors rather than going through Leicestershire County Council.  He assured Members that work would not go ahead until there was a fixed price in place.

Councillor T Eynon stated that it was difficult to have confidence in the Council to run big projects when it cannot manage smaller projects such as this one.  The Leader of the Council stated that Council officers were very competent and he had no concerns.  He added that the whole process had been a learning curve but he believed that Coalville would get a good scheme for an affordable price.  The Chief Executive felt that all officers on both sides had worked very hard on the project and the methodology behind it had been right.  She added that after seeing all of the information available, she still had every confidence in her officers.

Councillor V Richichi asked if going forward there would be a ceiling on the cost of the development and if penalty clauses would be included in contracts.  The Strategic Director of Place reported that going forward the scheme would go through a competitive tender process using work already undertaken and a set price would be sought.  The contracts would have contingencies built in to cover any changes including timescales and costs but penalties were not being considered at this time, however legal advice would be sought and this matter incorporated into any future contract.

Councillor R Ashman stated that there was an indication that nothing had been done but that was obviously not the case.  He was pleased that officers were being open and honest about everything.  He asked if Leicestershire County Council had made it clear that there were cost issues prior to the start of work.  The Head of Economic Regeneration confirmed that they had not.  The Leader of the Council reported that contractors were not aware if there were any problems that were underground until work had started but we had allowed the closing of the square in good faith.  He felt it was a tough decision to stop the project and make the issues public.

In response to a question from Councillor N Smith, the Leader of the Council confirmed that the Princes Trust were still involved in discussions.  The focus for Coalville was still the four squares and therefore the Princes Foundation was at the heart of all that we do.

In response to a further question from Councillor N Smith, the Head of Economic Regeneration stated that work totalling approximately £8,000 was not budgeted for when Cabinet approved the initial budget for the project.

Councillor J Geary stated that he had always been supportive of the suggested schemes for Coalville but he had found it very embarrassing when receiving questions and comments from residents about Marlborough Square.  He was disappointed with the report as it did not really state what went wrong with the project and why.  However, he was pleased to receive the additional papers which gave an indication as to where the blame lied, although it was one sided.  He was disappointed that there was not a representative from Leicestershire County Council in attendance.  Councillor J Geary questioned if the Council were liable for any costs post October 2018 as Leicestershire County Council acknowledge their awareness of problems from that date within the additional papers.  The Leader of the Council felt that there was limited purpose in arguing a case on this when the two parties have different perspectives on the same issues  The reality was that there was a miscommunication between two councils and an  external framework contractor.

Councillor S Sheahan asked if he was able to refer to the  County Council’s letter in the public meeting as Councillor J Geary had done due to the confidential nature of the information.  Members were advised that they could as long as any financial information was omitted.

In response to a number of questions from Councillor S Sheahan, the following was stated:

·            The Leader of the Council explained that he had not agreed a specific role on the project with officers, as he would not usually get involved if it was going smoothly.  As the Leader of the Council, it was essential to get involved when required to.

·            The Strategic Director of Place explained that protocols were followed and in his opinion, it was the same scope as it was a year ago.  He also felt that the process undertaken was how a project should be run

·            Regarding the comments from Leicestershire County Council in relation to NWLDC breaking communication protocol, the  Strategic Director of Place reminded Members that this was the County Council’s perception and he did not believe that was the case.  He was confident that officers acted correctly, as the problems raised were issues that needed to be rectified to make the scheme right for Coalville.  The frustration was that there was very few drawings available to allow details to be dealt with.

·            Regarding the claims from Leicestershire County Council that the increase in costs were entirely due to intervention from NWLDC colleagues, the Chief Executive reported that the costs of any additional elements were very small and the County Council admitted that they had underestimated costs.

At this point, the Chairman stopped debate as the report had been discussed at some length.  He felt that officers had learnt lessons from the process and as the committee were being asked to note the current position he moved the recommendation.  It was seconded by Councillor G Hoult.

Councillor S Sheahan did not agree that the debate should be curtailed as he still had questions that he wanted answering.  He requested the ability to submit a minority report to Cabinet when considering the report on 15 January.  The Chairman stated that legal advice on the process for submitting minority reports would be provided to Councillor S Sheehan outside of the meeting.

RESOLVED THAT:

The report be noted.