To advise the Committee of the current progress in bringing forward the proposed joint office accommodation strategy for the Council and NHS Herefordshire.

(Councillor PJ Edwards declared a personal interest.)

The Committee considered an update on progress with the proposed joint office accommodation strategy for the Council and NHS Herefordshire.

The Head of Asset Management and Property Services (HAMPS) presented the report.  He highlighted that the work of EC Harris, consultants, had confirmed that consolidation of office accommodation onto a single site at Plough Lane remained viable and that the space requirement was less than that originally envisaged.  The Joint Corporate Property Strategy provided for a “hub and spoke” model of service delivery for office accommodation in the County based on the new headquarters at Plough Lane.

He outlined the main elements of the accommodation programme and the wider organisational benefits in addition to the benefits of property rationalisation.  He noted that a change in organisational culture would be required to support the more flexible working arrangements required by the accommodation strategy.

In discussion the following principal points were made:

·         The replacement of Garrick House, Hereford with a facility to provide accommodation for the Council, NHS Herefordshire, West Mercia Constabulary and HM Revenues and Customs was discussed.  The HAMPS commented that Garrick House would be subsumed within the Edgar Street Grid retail quarter development.  The Council was looking to use an existing building within the City Centre instead.  The preferred option was not in the Council’s ownership but an alternative site was.  A Member questioned whether it was a sound option to rent a site rather than using Council owned accommodation.  The HAMPS said the options were still under consideration.

·         That all Members of the Council needed to be kept more informed of the proposals within the accommodation project, including the proposals for locality working, to ensure that there was a clear, shared understanding of what was being delivered.  In support of this comment Members noted that it was intended that Brockington would be disposed of and proposed improvements to the Shirehall included provision of a “demountable” Council Chamber to allow flexible use of space. 

Observations on the development of a future Council Chamber included support for a public space that carried a sense of civic pride; and a view that the essential requirement was that the Council’s buildings were a vehicle for service delivery and it was important to maintain focus on ensuring the Council’s property holding was fit for that purpose. Officers were being required to change their working practices and Members might similarly need to consider how they worked.

The efficiency of the Shirehall as a building was questioned.  It was also emphasised that it was important that nothing was done that jeopardised the use of the building by the Crown Court which brought economic benefit.

The HAMPS commented that proposals for both the Town Hall and Shirehall were at an early stage.

·         It was asked why the Council had engaged a second firm of consultants in connection with the accommodation project.  The Director of Resources replied that the scale of the project and the in-house capacity meant that external expertise was required to deliver the project. The firm EC Harris had carried out a peer review of the work of the first consultants.  This had confirmed the original work had been thorough, however, circumstances had changed.  The finding that only one additional block would be required at the Plough Lane site rather than two was significant.  He confirmed that the proposed provision of car parking on the site was also to be reduced and that public use at weekends would be considered as part of the Council’s car parking strategy.  Members requested a briefing note on the costs incurred in employing the two consultants.

·         It was asked whether there was scope for increasing provision at Plough Lane in future in response to changing circumstances.  The HAMPS said that EC Harris had considered whether there would be advantage in providing more space than was currently required.  However, they had concluded that providing spare capacity would not be financially beneficial.  The building it was proposed to provide would have sufficient flexibility for current needs and the fact that it was now proposed to build one additional building rather than two meant that there was further capacity on the site.

·         Clarification was sought on the financing of the accommodation programme.  It was noted that costs could not be defined at this stage.  The Director of Resources commented that provision of £17.3m had been made in the Capital Programme, £4.3 m of which had been spent on Plough Lane.  There would be revenue savings associated with the move to that building.  The generation of capital receipts by disposing of surplus Council owned buildings would be an important part of the financial package.  However, it was important to note that receipts would be generated over time to ensure appropriate value was obtained, mindful that demand for such property was limited.  It was not known what percentage of the cost of the programme might be met by disposal, but it was estimated at between 30-40%.

·         The HAMPS acknowledged that the accommodation project was dependent on ICT infrastructure being in place supported by appropriate HR policies.  The Deputy Chief Executive reported that the Joint Director of ICT was on the Accommodation Board and that the Joint Management Team, in discussing future ICT strategy, had emphasised the need to be more proactive to take advantage of the benefits to working practices that IT was already delivering in the private sector.

·         The plans for the replacement of the Thorn Data Centre were discussed.  The HAMPS commented that the Data Centre was leased until 2017 and the pace of technological change was so fast, that it was unclear at this stage what the future requirement for data storage might be.  The proposed replacement for the archive facility could contain provision for data storage if it were to be required.  The Joint Director of ICT was involved in discussions about the requirements.

RESOLVED:

That (a)     the issues raised by the Committee be taken into account by the Accommodation Board;

         (b)    consideration be given to communication with all Members about the accommodation programme and the localities project to ensure that Members were appropriately briefed;

         (c)     the critical role of ICT provision to the success of the accommodation programme be highlighted and full account taken of this in developing the accommodation proposals; and

         (d)    a briefing note be circulated on the costs of consultants employed on the accommodation programme.