RESOLVED: That

1.  The proposed refurbishment works to Granada House up to the Total Scheme Cost as outlined in Table 1 withing the Exempt Appendix 1 – Financial Summary to the report be carried out;

2.  Contract be entered into, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Lead Member for Housing and Health, with the preferred contractor to carry out the refurbishment works to Granada House;

3.  a)  Officers explore fully with Pelling’s (the appointed Employers Agent) and the appointed contractor the merits of providing solar PV to the property as a way of off-setting electrical use;

b) This option and additional expenditure (as outlined in Table 2 within Exempt Appendix 1 – Financial Summary) is only pursued after consultation, post contract award with the Lead Member for Housing and Health;

4.  The Director of Finance, Resources and Business Improvement is granted delegated authority to enter into any related appointments, legal actions, deeds, contracts and agreements which may be required to facilitate the refurbishment works required; and

5.  The Head of Mid Kent Legal Services is authorised to appoint the Solicitors required to negotiate and complete the necessary contract documentation, deeds and agreements associated with the refurbishment works on the terms as agreed by the Director of Finance, Resources and Business Improvement.

See Record of Decision

The Lead Member for Housing and Health introduced the report and explained that the Council purchased Granada House in 2016 as the town centre was due to be extended. The building was in poor condition. The Council had let the building on a long-term basis to Maidstone Property Holdings, however significant planned maintenance works were required, as there had been very little work undertaken since its construction in the 1930s.

The decommissioned Policy and Resources Committee had previously agreed the building’s refurbishment. A tender exercise had taken place, but the Executive were dissatisfied with the value for money aspect of the bid received, and so  a second procurement exercise is currently being undertaken. The projected cost as contained within Exempt Appendix 1 to the report had been set by the Executive.

If approved, the refurbishment works would provide benefits such as increased rental levels, increased demand for the apartments and a reduction in the cost of undertaking reactive repair works. The proposed works would take six months, likely commencing from March or April 2023. There would be an option to install solar panels at further expenditure, although this would be considered at a later date once a contractor had been appointed.

RESOLVED: That the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business because of the likely disclosure of exempt information for the reason specified, having applied the Public Interest Test:

Head of Schedule 12A and Brief Description

Exempt Appendix 1 to Item 16  –   3 – Financial/Business

Granada House Refurbishment     Affairs.

The Committee entered into closed session between 7.16 p.m. to 7.28 p.m. The questions raised focused on the specification’s contents and the works projected costs, as contained within Exempt Appendix 1 to the report.

In response to questions, the Director of Regeneration and Place stated that the relevant Council team and Pellings as the building surveyors would ensure that the specification achieved value for money, and the Council’s Section 151 Officer, the Director of Finance, Resources and Business Improvement would have to sign-off the procurement process and finalised contract sum once agreed in accordance with the Council’s financial procedure rules, which would include ensuring its value for money.

Several Members of the Committee felt that further clarification on the specifications contents was required, with particular reference made to ensuring that the building would be refurbished to a high standard within the projected cost envelope contained within Exempt Appendix 1 to the report and achieve value for money.

In response, the Director of Regeneration and Place reiterated that the previous tender exercise undertaken had resulted in the receipt of a bid at a significantly higher cost than the desired (by the Executive) cost envelope within Exempt Appendix 1 to the report. The bid was rejected by the Executive, with a second procurement exercise ongoing against a lower target scheme cost, with a value engineering exercise to be undertaken to achieve the best possible specification for the works. The director stated that priority would be given  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94