(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)
Cabinet received a report from the Head of Property Services to consider a variety of accommodation issues that have arisen since the undertaking of the major building works in 2011.
The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:
The report provided Cabinet with options for:
· the refurbishment of Morecambe Town Hall Council Chamber;
· increasing the room booking appeal for multiple uses of Council Chamber and the 1st floor committee rooms by the installation of additional toilet facilities,
· the allocation of rooms with Morecambe & Lancaster Town Halls
· security upgrades to both Morecambe and Lancaster Town Halls
Improving Security to Morecambe Town Hall/ Lancaster Town Hall/ White Lund Depot
Morecambe Town Hall
Following the office remodelling to Morecambe Town Hall there was a need to upgrade and improve the security throughout the building. At this stage there were two options to consider at Morecambe Town Hall:
Option A upgrade existing door entry key pad system linked to the fire panel to allow door to fail open and upgrade CCTV to the inside and outside of the building. This would improve the security to the main staircase and first floor corridor and to all the exterior of the building.
Option B was a computer controlled management security system. This would be based on a Key Fob/ID card system that would be placed against a “reader” which authorises access into the building. The “reader” is connected to computer software which records the presence of an individual in the building.
Burglar Alarm System: At present Morecambe Town Hall has only a limited burglar Alarm to the Ground floor Customer Services area. The report sought approval to install a wireless system throughout the building giving full intruder protection.
|
Option |
Cost |
|
OPTION A Upgrade Door Key Pad System |
£3000.00
|
|
OPTION B Full key fob security system |
£12,800.00 |
|
13 no CCTV inside & out |
£13,000.00 |
|
Burglar Alarm (wireless) |
£5,000.00 |
Preferred option: It was recommended that finance was approved to upgrade the Door Keypad System and to install additional CCTV cameras, together with the installation of a wireless burglar alarm system throughout the building at a combined cost of £21,000.00.
Lancaster Town Hall
There was a need to increase the security system to Lancaster Town Hall (LTH). At LTH the CSC record visitors to the building and issue passes but as many offices or function rooms within the building have little or no door security; visitors can accidentally access these offices or function rooms. At this stage there were two options to consider:
Option A - Keypad & Additional CCTV:This option looked at introducing new key pads to office/corridor doors with no security and upgrading the office/corridor doors with key entry pads and linking the whole system to the fire panel to allow doors to fail open.
Option B - Full key fob security system: Due to the position of Male and Female lavatories to the ground and first floors, visitors require access to many parts of the building. Option B is a computer controlled management security system. This would be based on a Key Fob/ID card system that would be placed against a “reader” at each door which authorises access into the building/corridor/room etc.
Burglar Alarm System: As with Morecambe Town Hall there was a limited burglar Alarm to the Ground floor Customer Services area. The report sought approval to install a wireless system throughout the building giving full intruder protection.
|
Option |
Cost |
|
OPTION A Upgrade Key pad system 4 no Basement 14 no Ground floor 4 no First Floor |
£17,600.00
|
|
OPTION B Full key fob security system |
£35,000.00 |
|
6 no CCTV inside & out |
£6,000.00 |
|
Burglar Alarm (wireless) |
£7,000.00 |
Preferred option: It was recommended that finance was approved to upgrade the Door Keypad System and to install additional CCTV cameras and to install a wireless burglar alarm system throughout the building at a combined cost of £30,600.00.
Lancaster Town Hall Front Doors
For some time there has been concern that the front doors at LTH remain open even though there is no reception facility there. It has previously been indicated by members that they prefer the main doors to remain open with the inner doors locked. Cabinet is asked to consider whether this arrangement should continue.
White Lund Depot
There was a need to increase security at White Lund Depot (WLD). At WLD the security guard monitors visitors to the site but the offices and out buildings have little or no door security; visitors can accidentally access these buildings.
Option A - Full key fob security system in office building: Option A was a computer controlled management security system. This would be based on a Key Fob/ID card system that would be placed against a “reader” at each of the doors which authorises access into the building/corridor/room etc.
Option B- Vehicle Security - allowing automatic barrier access to White Lund Depot:This is similar to the security system above but attached to vehicles and would ensure that only Council vehicles could enter and leave the depot. Other vehicles would have to be permitted manual access and egress via the security officer.
Option C-Main Entrance Doors - intercom system, allowing controlled access to the main office building – this would allow staff within the depot to control, access via the main doors. It still would not prevent accidental access via other doors.
|
Option |
Cost |
|
Option A - Full key fob security system in office building |
£6,000
|
|
Option B- Vehicle Security - allowing automatic barrier access to White Lund Depot |
£10,000 |
|
Option C-Main Entrance Doors - intercom system, allowing controlled access to the main office building |
£600 |
Preferred option: For the safety of staff option A would be priority.However, it is recommended that finance is approved for Options A and B. This would cost £16,000.
Renew carpets in Morecambe Council Chamber
The existing carpets were threadbare and held together with tape and provided a safety risk to users of the room. The options to deal with this were as follows:
|
CATEGORY |
ITEM |
COST |
|
CARPETS |
Teviot carpet tiles Basic appearance. |
£3,800 |
|
|
80% wool contract Axminster
Normally used in prestige rooms |
£10,500 (Ulster mix range) £9,400 (Eden range) £9,700 ( Gowan range) £10,100 (Lever range)
|
This is a straightforward choice between a more prestige look within the chamber or a more functional office appearance.
First floor committee rooms
The refurbished committee rooms were becoming popular for meetings within the council. However, in order to maximise the letting opportunities of these rooms, it was necessary to consider the existing furniture and the provision of toilet facilities.
Whilst fire regulations limited the maximum number of people that could use the committee rooms the rooms were suitable for a variety of events from weddings to meetings. The existing furniture was serviceable but could be improved by either refurbishing the existing items or buying new furniture. Refurbishment costs were likely to be in the order of £10-12,000. New furniture would be £25-30,000.
One specific element that did need to be considered was the provision of additional toilet facilities. If the rooms were to be let to outside organisations, or even for meetings attended by non-council personnel, additional facilities were required. It would be possible to accommodate new male and female toilets in room F8 – the room currently used as an IT training room/hot desking room/business continuity room. Prior to the Council releasing finance to complete the toilet works to F8 a full cost benefit analysis would be commissioned to establish the true demand for the committee rooms and potential income that will be generated. At this stage an estimate has been submitted as a guide to the Council design and construct costs were likely to be in the order of £57,200.
Room allocation at Morecambe & Lancaster Town Halls
If new toilet facilities were to be provided, it would be necessary to consider the current use of rooms. The consequence of converting room F8 to toilets was the loss of space for the small IT training facility/hot desking space/emergency control centre.
Room F7 was currently occupied by Morecambe Town council who had indicated that they wished to remain in MTH but move to room G5 on the ground floor which was currently vacant. With the CSC running short of interview space G28 was the most suitable alternative for conversion in due course. .MTH currently had no members’ room and there was a demand for such space and Room F7 would be a suitable location. This would leave room G5 which would be suitable for use as a hot desking area, a small IT training area and for allocation as the emergency control centre. If these room allocations were agreed, there would be no appropriate space for Morecambe Town Council and due notice would need to be served on them. It should be noted that the Town council were looking for advice on their future accommodation situation as soon as possible due to the need to determine future budget allocations. If G28 was not required as interview space, Morecambe Town Council could be allocated room G5.
Morecambe Council Chamber
As part of the Municipal Building works to Morecambe Town Hall the Council Chamber has been decorated but there are still some snagging works outstanding which are being resolved with the contractor.
Following meetings with Group Leaders last autumn, it was identified that the main reasons for considering a Council Chamber refurbishment were as follows:
a) The existing chamber did not fully meet all the needs of its users.
b) Furniture was old and did not provide the necessary comfort for all users.
c) The existing furniture did not provide accessibility for all users.
d) The Chamber’s Visual and Audio facilities for presentations were inadequate.
e) The existing carpet was threadbare and in many places was held together by tape to prevent trip hazards.
f) Operational usage was limited to Council Meetings and general meetings.
The art deco grade ornate Council Chamber with long dais at one end of the room and opposite facing public gallery was listed, any restoration works would require the necessary consents from English Heritage.
The following furniture options were also identified:
Option 1 – Restoration of existing furniture
(a) The furniture in the Council Chamber was original and could be restored. Beneath the black varnish is an oak finish which could be polished to a good finish and the tables, chairs and public benches could be stripped back and re-polished.
(b) Reupholster the existing damaged green chairs.
(c) Create new bespoke tables to complete the outer circle of tables which will cater for all council members at full council and remove the need for the folding tables currently used.
(d) The restoration option provided a solution that ensured that the furniture and seating within the Council Chamber would fulfil the Council’s obligations in this respect appearance and under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 & 2005.
The following estimates have been obtained from local companies:
|
CATEGORY |
ITEM |
COST |
|
FURNITURE |
Reupholster existing damaged green chairs |
£1,700 |
|
|
Strip and re-polish existing black furniture including all chairs and public benches |
£9,500 |
|
|
New bespoke tables to complete the outer circle to replace folding tables currently used |
£15,600 |
|
|
|
£26,800 |
The benefit of this option was that existing original furniture was utilised and would remain in keeping with the Listed Building status. However, the existing furniture was not very flexible and alternative uses of the Chamber were very limited.
Option 2 – Renew furniture
(a) Provide new furniture which would need to be in keeping with the Council Chamber decoration.
(b) New furniture should be of a high quality finish and can have some personalisation i.e. banding and inlay.
(c) The new furniture solution must be re-useable in the event that the Council wishes to hold its meetings elsewhere in the future.
(d) The new furniture should provide a flexible seating space that will not only accommodate full Council but also training sessions, hot desking, general meetings when required and the development of future chamber use.
(e) New seating and benches need to be stacked and stored into a minimal space.
|
CATEGORY |
ITEM |
COST |
|
RENEW FUNITURE |
New furniture for Council Chamber |
£9,700 Banding & inlay to all table tops £1,800 |
|
|
New chairs (based on 100 chairs) including members and public gallery |
Range from £18,100 to £33,800 based on examples of chairs supplied on quote. |
This option does have the benefit of flexibility although issues relating to the buildings listing would need to be addressed.
Provide an audio visual system
The following specifications have been identified:
(a) An audio facility would help to boost the sound of delegates’ voices and facilitate all users of the Council Chamber to hear comfortably. This was a particular issue raised by the group leaders.
(b) The audio solution should include a new induction loop to replace the existing facility.
(c) The audio solution should be re-locatable to other sites to allow meetings to take place wherever required.
(d) The visual solution should allow any users of the Council Chamber to see clearly any presentation from any viewing angle.
(e) The visual solution should allow the presentation of any document from whatever source. e.g. paper documents, laptops or PC’s.
(f) The solution should allow for the audio & visual recording of meetings.
(g) The solution should ensure that the Council would meet its obligations with regard to the provision and use of audio visual aids under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 & 2005.
(h) An ability to automatically zoom in on speakers would be preferable.
(i) Ability to web cast any meeting to the Internet.
(j) Power and network facilities should be available to each delegate to enable laptop or other devices to be used.
This was a highly technical area and it appeared that there were three options available, the first two providing good audio visual and option three providing basic voice amplification only.
|
ITEM |
COST |
|
OPTION ACableless radio conference system incl: |
|
|
Hand Held Voting System |
|
|
Sound reinforcement / public address to relay audio to public seating area |
|
|
Radio / lapel microphones for public and hands free presentations |
|
|
Infrared hard of hearing system |
|
|
Digital recording and transcription |
|
|
Projectors and Multimedia |
|
|
Radio touch screen master control |
|
|
Autotrack video cameras |
|
|
Equipment Rack to house all the AV control equipment |
|
|
Engineering to programme system and training |
|
|
Engineering for additional training and to attend first meeting |
|
|
Project Management, Staff training, help desk and first years maintenance |
|
|
TOTAL OPTION A |
£105,000 |
|
|
|
|
OPTION BCableless radio conference system with voting incl: |
|
|
Hand Held Voting System |
|
|
Sound reinforcement / public address to relay audio to public seating area |
|
|
Radio / lapel microphones for public and hands free presentations |
|
|
Infrared hard of hearing system |
|
|
Digital recording and transcription |
|
|
Projectors and Multimedia |
|
|
Radio touch screen master control |
|
|
Autotrack video cameras |
|
|
Equipment Rack to house all the AV control equipment |
|
|
Engineering to programme system and training |
|
|
Engineering for additional training and to attend first meeting |
|
|
Project Management, Staff training, help desk and first years maintenance |
|
|
TOTAL OPTION B |
£119,500 |
|
|
|
|
OPTION C -9 fixed gooseneck microphones for bench + 16 radio microphones to give coverage around the chamber, with all associated speakers, control gear etc |
|
|
TOTAL OPTION C |
£27,700 |
The choice of system, if any system was required, was for Cabinet to determine in terms of the facilities that they would wish to see utilised within the Council Chamber for the benefit of members and the public who attend meetings.
Councillor Barry proposed, seconded by Councillor Hanson:-
“(1) That in view of the health and safety aspects and the need to improve audio facilities and accessibility in Morecambe Council Chamber approval be given to restore existing furniture, including de-laquer of the tables, renew the carpet with a suitable quality replacement and to acquire the lowest cost audio system (Option C), with the estimated costs being funded from the Renewals Reserve.
(2) That approval be given in principle to improve security at the Town Halls and White Lund Depot with the one-off costs being funded from the renewals reserve and the indicative ongoing costs being included in Cabinet's growth proposals, but that this be subject to a further more detailed report to Cabinet once the options have been fully appraised, including the potential to link up security and time management systems.”
Councillors then voted:-
Resolved:
(6 Members (Councillors Barry, Blamire, Hanson, Leytham, Sands and Smith) voted in favour, and 2 Members (Councillors Bryning and Hamilton-Cox) abstained.)
(1) That in view of the health and safety aspects and the need to improve audio facilities and accessibility in Morecambe Council Chamber approval be given to restore existing furniture, including de-laquer of the tables, renew the carpet with a suitable quality replacement and to acquire the lowest cost audio system (Option C), with the estimated costs being funded from the Renewals Reserve.
(2) That approval be given in principle to improve security at the Town Halls and White Lund Depot with the one-off costs being funded from the renewals reserve and the indicative ongoing costs being included in Cabinet's growth proposals, but that this be subject to a further more detailed report to Cabinet once the options have been fully appraised, including the potential to link up security and time management systems.
Councillor Hamilton-Cox proposed, seconded by Councillor Barry:
“That in future both the front doors and the inner doors of Lancaster Town Hall be kept closed.”
Councillors then voted:-
(2 Members (Councillors Barry and Hamilton-Cox) voted in favour, and 6 Members (Councillors Blamire, Bryning, Hanson, Leytham, Sands and Smith) voted against whereupon the Chairman declared the proposition to be lost.
Councillor Hanson having previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest as a member of Morecambe Town Council left the meeting at this point and did not vote on the following proposal.
Councillor Leytham proposed, seconded by Councillor Smith:
“That Room G5 be allocated to Morecambe Town Council and that reassurance be given that the town council will be allocated a room until the next town council elections.”
Resolved unanimously:
(3) That Room G5 be allocated to Morecambe Town Council and that reassurance be given that the town council will be allocated a room until the next town council elections.
Officers responsible for effecting the decision:
Head of Property Services
Head of Financial Services
Reasons for making the decision:
The decision enables some immediate health and safety aspects to be addressed through the Renewals Reserve and enables officers to fully appraise and report back on the costings for security improvements. The confirmation of room allocation to Morecambe Town Council provides reassurance to, and will assist the town council in determining their budget allocations.
Councillor Hanson returned to the meeting at this point