Agenda item

Corporate Municipal Building Works

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)

 

Report of the Head of Resources

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Resources to inform Cabinet of the extent of backlog works outstanding to buildings following the completion of a 5 year Condition Survey (November 2012) on the Council’s Corporate and Municipal building stock and requested Cabinet to take forward the additional investment needed as part of its budget proposals for 2013/14 onwards.  This was to ensure buildings were fit for purpose and legally compliant and allowed sufficient flexibility to respond to changing needs, such as any arising from the forthcoming property review.

 

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

 

 

Do nothing (presented for information to highlight the Council’s position and obligations).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Option 2: For Cabinet to take forward the increased investment needs as part of its budget proposals, as a 5 year planned maintenance programme.

 

Option 3: Consider taking forward an alternative programme of works that is a compromise between options one and two based on affordability and the availability of funding.

 

 

 

Advantages

There are no advantages to this option. The Council has acknowledged that the “do nothing” option has been followed in the past and as a result, the backlog of building work has increased to the levels outlined in this report.

 

This option would be in line with the current Corporate Property Strategy and would ensure that all buildings meet basic health and safety standards.

 

This option would halt the deterioration of the Council’s corporate non-housing building stock preventing building closures and putting in place the foundations for a planned maintenance programme providing improved financial certainty moving forward.

 

This option would need to allow all urgent and poor condition works (Year 1& 2, D & C failure) to be completed, thus warding off serious building failure.

Disadvantages

The Council has a duty of care to building users, its employees and members of the public and would be in breach of regulations should health and safety be contravened as a result of building failure.

 

This is a long term initiative and it would be a few years before the real financial benefits became apparent.

The majority of element failure falls within year 1 & year 2.

Risks

Doing nothing will eventually result

in major failures of either the building structures or services. This will in turn result in the council being unable to undertake many of its core activities, and closure of buildings and the possibility of legal (including criminal) proceedings.

 

For these reasons this option, whilst outlined for information, is not

considered viable.

As this work is carried out alongside the joint property review with Lancashire County Council there is a chance of investing in a building that is then identified for closure although this would be closely monitored as both projects progress.  However, it is worthy of note that any work undertaken to a building identified for closure may increase sale prospects and is likely to increase sale proceeds in many situations.

 

This would leave the Council open to criticism or action should there be failure of any of the items where works have been identified.

 

In addition those works not undertaken are likely to increase in cost over the period of time until funding is made available

 

The preferred option was option 2.  This would ensure that the Council fulfilled all of its obligations in respect of maintenance and other works to buildings so that they met the relevant health and safety standards and that the items that were falling into the greatest state of disrepair could be addressed.  This option would prevent the Council being in a similar position to other councils, where failure to maintain its assets adequately was met with tragic circumstances and subsequent legal actions and costs.  

 

Good property maintenance through active condition recording would preserve the Council’s property portfolio by conducting regular condition surveys. It was recommended that 20% of the Council’s corporate non-housing property portfolio was surveyed each year to ensure that any one condition survey was never more than 5 years old.  The survey served a number of purposes:

 

·         As a basic check that the premises met statutory requirements in terms of condition and to identify obvious hazards that deterioration of the fabric might create.

·         As a means of identifying the condition of elements of the premises and the works required in terms of priority and cost.

·         Provided a means of prioritising scarce resources to the most essential repairs or the highest priority premises.

·         Allowed property professionals to advise the Council on backlog maintenance and to influence budget allocations for maintenance.

·         Helped create a strategic picture of high maintenance premises that the Council might wish to dispose of.

·         For the manager occupying the premises, it demonstrated where scarce resources should be targeted.

 

 

The condition survey 2012 had identified a significant amount of backlog maintenance still outstanding within the Council’s corporate non-housing buildings. The report unequivocally led to the conclusion that if repair works in buildings were not planned, funded and managed adequately i.e. through a planned maintenance approach rather than a reactive approach, then repairs would consistently deteriorate or fail. These would inevitably lead to increased maintenance costs and building failure. The Council’s substantial property portfolio was now in need of capital investment and regular planned maintenance management. Buildings were suffering from a backlog of maintenance work due to low capital funding over a number of years. This under-investment had made it difficult to target limited budgets and had driven a growing culture of reactive repair rather than a planned approach to maintenance.  This report presented an opportunity to tackle this culture, establish a 5 year planned maintenance programme and ensure buildings were fit for purpose and legally compliant.

 

Councillor Hamilton-Cox proposed, seconded by Councillor Barry:-

 

“(1)      That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.”

 

By way of an amendment which was accepted as a friendly amendment by the mover and seconder of the original proposition, it was moved by Councillor Hanson and seconded by Councillor Blamire:-

 

“That officers be requested to investigate the possibility of applying to Heritage Lottery for funding to assist with the renovations of the Council’s listed buildings.”

 

By way of further amendment, which was accepted as a friendly amendment by the mover and seconder of the original proposition, it was moved by Councillor Sands and seconded by Councillor Blamire:

 

“That the maintenance, repairs and occasional replacement of tourism signage including heritage plaques on historic buildings was important and needed to be attended to on a continuous basis and therefore be included in the maintenance programme.”

 

Members then voted on the proposition, as amended.

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

 

(1)               That the existing draft Revenue Budget and Capital Programme provisions for maintenance and other works in the Council’s non-housing related property portfolio be retained, but that work be undertaken to allocate the revenue budget provisions between service contracts, any planned revenue maintenance and reactive maintenance provisions.

 

(2)               That the indicative £7.236M additional capital investment needs from 2014/15 onwards, together with any contingency requirement, be considered as part of the current budgetary process.

 

(3)               That following Budget Council, a further report be brought back to Cabinet to:

 

-          approve the detail of the programme of capital works to be undertaken next year, and

-          provide an update on the Council’s Corporate Property Strategy, including arrangements for monitoring progress (including the establishment of rolling building condition surveys and the forthcoming property review).

 

(4)        That officers be requested to investigate the possibility of applying to Heritage Lottery for funding to assist with the renovations of the Council’s listed buildings.

 

(5)        That the maintenance, repairs and occasional replacement of tourism signage including heritage plaques on historic buildings was important and needed to be attended to on a continuous basis and therefore be included in the maintenance programme.

 

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Head of Resources

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

The decision sought to ensure that the Council’s property portfolio was fit for purpose in terms of supporting the Council’s Corporate Plan and policy framework generally, recognising the financial pressures.  The pursuance of an effective and robust maintenance programme was necessary to avoid the potential exposure to criminal proceedings in the event of the Council failing to comply with its statutory obligations under the Health & Safety Act and the proposed building works would address any related statutory responsibilities.   Signs and plaques were included since a neglected, corroded tourism sign negated the original purpose of those signs and plaques which was to enhance the visitor experience and give a good impression of the district.

 

 

Supporting documents: