Agenda item

The Lead Councillor for Environment introduced the report submitted to the Committee.  He advised the meeting that the Guildford Crematorium redevelopment project had addressed shortcomings with the previous crematorium building and had been underpinned by a sound business case which had been delivered.  He suggested the report provided a balanced account of successes and learning points from the project.

The Parks and Landscape Manager confirmed that the quantity surveyor on the project, the architect, the main contractor, and the cremator supplier were at the meeting to support the Committee’s review.  He summarised the background and results of the project and gave a presentation on the redevelopment of the site and facilities.  The Committee was advised of issues that arose, including an error in calculating the stack discharge height. 

The Parks and Landscape Manager informed the meeting that the stack discharge height error was identified by a member of the public and had now been remedied.  The Parks and Landscape Manager indicated that an internal investigation into the error had been completed and that an external audit of the issue was being undertaken.  The meeting was informed that the investigation of the stack height error would be considered by the Committee at a later date.  In addition, the Parks and Landscape Manager summarised the learning from the post project review.

Next, the meeting heard from Mr Peter Coleman from Guildford Society.  Mr Coleman referred to the Guildford Crematorium winning the Society’s design awards in two categories and praised the qualities of the design and architecture and the achievements of the project. 

In response to a question, the Planning Development Manager confirmed that an air quality impact assessment was not a requirement at the time of the planning application in 2017 and was not requested as the new crematorium would be replacing an existing one on the same land.

With reference to the value of an air quality impact assessment, a member of the Committee suggested the Council should not necessarily be content with legal minimum standards.  In his reply, the Parks and Landscape Manager referred to the cost implications of such an assessment.

A member of the Committee suggested that the scope of all Council projects should be specified clearly to avoid adding changes and costs later.  The meeting heard that a well-defined scope would enable a more accurate projection of project costs and assessment of project viability.

In reply to a question, the Parks and Landscape Manager indicated that a final breakdown of the cost overruns for the project was not yet available.  The Lead Specialist (Finance) summarised the discounted cash flow analysis within section 3.5.5 of the report submitted to the Committee and indicated she could provide further details if requested.  A member of the Committee suggested the value of clearer financial explanations within reports.

The Parks and Landscape Manager advised the Committee of the merit in a project manager and project support dedicated to project delivery, rather than combining responsibility for a major project with another full-time role.

A member of the Committee suggested the Stack Discharge Height Error Internal Investigation (attached as a not for publication appendix to the report submitted to the Committee) could have been published with redactions. 

RESOLVED:  That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the consideration of information contained within the Appendix to the report on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act; namely, information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

With the public excluded, the meeting discussed the emissions stack error, the timescale in which members of the public advised of the stack error and the Council’s response, the performance of contractors, the possible publication of the external audit of the internal investigation of the emissions stack error, and the inclusion of NO_x abatement plant as a variation in the contract.

Following the Committee’s consideration of the exempt information the public was readmitted to the meeting. 

The Managing Director thanked the Parks and Landscape Manager for project managing the redevelopment of Guildford Crematorium.

RESOLVED:  (I)  That the account of the project as presented in the report submitted to the Committee be noted.

(II)  That the Executive be requested to ensure

(i)               Council projects are accurately scoped and well-defined at the outset and any extension of scope is assessed carefully. 

(ii)              Council projects go beyond legal minimum standards and aspire to be the best possible.

(iii)            Senior officers be held accountable for ensuring that resources in place for projects are adequate.