Issue - meetings

The Director of Service Delivery introduced the report submitted to the Committee.  He referred to the conclusions and recommendations of the audit by SLR Consulting Limited and mentioned three: that the D1 calculation submitted with the tender submissions was not considered in the scoring of the submissions and was not material in the eventual commissioning of the contractor; the apparent slowness of the complaints procedure that was attributed by the Council to the effects of the pandemic; and a requirement for an audit procedure and documented audit trail, with contractors required to have a quality assurance system certified to a recognised standard.  The Director of Service Delivery acknowledged delays in the complaints procedure prior to the pandemic and welcomed the advice for contractors to have a quality assurance system certified to ISO 9001. 

The Chair welcomed a member of the public, Mr Mark Westcott, who had registered to speak on the item and reminded Committee members that they had already received a copy of Mr Westcott’s statement the previous evening.

Mr Westcott addressed the meeting, questioning the accuracy of the information provided to the Committee and the Council’s response to his requests for information about the calculation of the crematorium stack height.  He began by thanking the Director of Service Delivery for acknowledging that delays had occurred prior to the pandemic in responding to requests for information.  Next, Mr Westcott detailed the timeline for his requests for information since 2017, the responses received, the eventual resolution of the stack height issue in 2020, and the lack of criticism of the Council within the reports submitted to the Committee.

The Chair thanked Mr Westcott.  In addition, the Vice-Chair of the Committee and the Chair both remarked on the email from a Council officer that Mr Westcott had provided to the Committee and offered their apologies.  A member of the Committee assured Mr Westcott of efforts by Councillors to promote openness and transparency within the Council and ensure mistakes were admitted and learnt from. 

The Director of Service Delivery expressed his gratitude to Mr Westcott and another member of the public, Mr Harvey, for their continued efforts to highlight an error with the stack height that required correction. 

In reply to a question from a Committee member about the redaction of company names within the report submitted to the Committee, the Lead Specialist – Legal and Council’s Monitoring Officer indicated that the Council did not have the consent of the companies to name them.

RESOLVED:  (I) That the SLR audit at Appendix 1 of the report submitted to the Committee be noted.

(II) That the recommendations within section 3 of the SLR audit at Appendix 1 of the report submitted to the Committee be endorsed.

Decision:

(1)         That the rebuilding of Guildford Crematorium be approved on the basis of Option 1 ‘Courtyards’ (as detailed in the Haverstock Feasibility Study) referred to in the report submitted to the Executive for taking forward to the next RIBA stages (stage 2 onwards) and through to delivery.

(2)         That the sum referred to in the report submitted to the Executive be transferred from the provisional capital programme to the approved capital programme.

(3)     That the Director of Environment be authorised, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Infrastructure and Governance and the Lead Councillor for Finance, to take such decisions as may be required:

(a)     for the delivery of RIBA stages 2-7 in relation to this project, including decisions in respect of design, project programme, procurement and appointment of contractors, construction, commissioning and handover and bringing the building in to use; and

(b)     in relation to the capital cost of the project (within the overall budget referred to in the report submitted to the Executive) and the business case.

Recommendation to Council (6 December 2016):

That a supplementary capital estimate referred to in the report submitted to the Executive be approved.

Reasons for Decision/Recommendation:

To allow for the process of developing a detailed design, tendering for a construction contractor and cremator supplier to commence, and to agree the preferred option for rebuilding of the Guildford Crematorium, meeting the objectives of the Bereavement Services Fundamental Service Review and the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy.

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Executive:

Option 2:  Alternate Courtyards using existing Chapel during project

Option 3:  New Build with full closure

Option 4:  Maintain/refurbish existing facility

Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:

None

The Executive considered a report setting out details of the feasibility work undertaken to inform the decision as to whether the Council should rebuild or refurbish Guildford Crematorium.  The Executive was requested to consider the revised capital cost and business case to enable the project to proceed.

The Council’s appointed architect and design team (Haverstock LLP) and Project Managers and Quantity Surveyors (Press and Starkey) had delivered the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) stages 0 and 1 by completing the feasibility work required for a scheme at Guildford Crematorium. This had included developing designs, analysing how the scheme would need to be phased to keep the crematorium operational and evaluating the capital cost.  This work had enabled officers to review and develop the business case, as detailed in the report.  This work had been guided by an internal project board and an Executive workshop to inform the recommendations contained in the report.

Five options were detailed in the report, including three new build schemes, one refurbishment and a proposal to ‘do nothing’ with a recommendation to rebuild the facility (option 1) and utilise temporary facilities to ensure that services could continue at the site whilst the works took place.  The Executive noted that it was essential that an option was chosen now in order to develop the project through the remaining RIBA stages to delivery with the aim of commencing construction in early 2018.

The report had also sought approval from full Council of a supplementary capital estimate in the sum referred to in the report. The Executive was asked to agree to the transfer monies from the provisional to the approved capital programme, to enable the feasibility work to be undertaken, accounting for the site constraints, phasing of the project, construction market conditions, assessment of previous crematorium construction costs with an element of inflation for when the scheme was tendered and delivered. 

It was anticipated that there would be further detailed decisions to agree in relation to design, phasing, capital cost (within the overall budget) and business case as the project developed.

Having considered the report, the Executive

RESOLVED:

(1)         That the rebuilding of Guildford Crematorium be approved on the basis of Option 1 ‘Courtyards’ (as detailed in the Haverstock Feasibility Study) referred to in the report submitted to the Executive for taking forward to the next RIBA stages (stage 2 onwards) and through to delivery.

(2)         That the sum referred to in the report submitted to the Executive be transferred from the provisional capital programme to the approved capital programme.

(3)     That the Director of Environment be authorised, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Infrastructure and Governance and the Lead Councillor for Finance, to take such decisions as may be required:

(a)   for the delivery of RIBA stages 2-7 in relation to this project, including decisions in respect of design, project programme, procurement and appointment of contractors, construction, commissioning and handover and bringing the building in to use; and

(b)   in relation to the capital cost  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54