Issue - meetings

To receive and consider the report of the Director of Commercial.

Please note there are two confidential appendices.

1.         To approve the progression of design option 3 outlined in this report.

2.         To note that £200k of the allocated £10 million budget will be drawn upon to deliver the next stage of the design (RIBA Stage 2 and 3) and contractor procurement process.

3.         To note the current estimated project cost to deliver the 72 unit scheme is £14.260 million.

4.         To acknowledge that the further design works set out in paragraph 4 are required to verify the projected project cost of £14,260 million, and that further updates on the costs will be brought back when the next stage of design work has been progressed.

5.         That the Chief Executive write to Lancashire County Council requesting the following information:

a)        If they are able to deliver the project in South Ribble and

b)        If not, how much are they willing to contribute towards the project to deliver the extra care.

The Cabinet Member (Finance, Property and Assets),Councillor Matthew Tomlinson presented a report of the Director of Commercial presenting three options for the proposed extra care scheme at West Paddock supported by financial models and to seek approval of a preferred delivery option to enable the scheme design to be developed and a more detailed project budget prepared.

Some members suggested that it may be possible for Lancashire County Council (LCC) to deliver this project rather then South Ribble Borough Council and expressed concerns that the project carried a lot of financial risk.

Other members were of the view that LCC may facilitate some of the extra care but not the building of the facility.

Report of the Director of Commercial enclosed.

Decision made

1.      To approve the progression of design option 3 outlined in this report.

2.     To note that £200k of the allocated £10 million budget will be drawn upon to deliver the next stage of the design (RIBA Stage 2 and 3) and contractor procurement process.

3.     To note the current estimated project cost to deliver the 72 unit scheme is £14.260 million.

4.     To acknowledge that the further design works set out in paragraph 4 are required to verify the projected project cost of £14,260 million, and that further updates on the costs will be brought back when the next stage of design work has been progressed.

The Cabinet Member (Finance, Property and Assets) presented a report of the Director of Commercial which presented 3 options for the proposed extra care scheme at West Paddock supported by financial models. The report sought approval of a preferred delivery option to enable the scheme design to be developed and a more detailed project budget prepared.

Decision made

1.      To approve the progression of design option 3 outlined in the report.

2.     To note that £200k of the allocated £10 million budget will be drawn upon to deliver the next stage of the design (RIBA Stage 2 and 3) and contractor procurement process.

3.     To note the current estimated project cost to deliver the 72 unit scheme is £14.260 million.

4.     To acknowledge that the further design works set out in paragraph 4 are required to verify the projected project cost of £14,260 million, and that further updates on the costs will be brought back when the next stage of design work has been progressed.

Reasons for decision

The decision will enable the progression of the Council’s Corporate Strategy objective to deliver affordable housing within the borough with, the delivery of a 72-bed development. The development of the design work will enable a more detailed project budget to be prepared and progression of the project will support the progression of a funding bid with Homes England through their affordable homes programme.

Alternative options considered and rejected

The alternative option would be to deliver a smaller scheme of 50 units.  The estimated construction costs of this scheme would align with the currently allocated capital budget of £10 million. This option was rejected as it will be beneficial to maximise the development site and deliver as many units as possible (while maintaining adequate public open space for the community). This will address the demand for extra care and reduce the need for alternative sites in the future. By progressing a larger development there will be efficiency savings for the construction and the future operation of a single extra care facility.

Delivery of a smaller scheme would not provide maximum opportunity to meet the policy objective for increasing affordable rents.