Decision details

The Cabinet Member, in consultation with the Leader of the Council,

1.    Authorised the Council to enter into an Agreement for Lease and Lease on the agreed Heads of Terms with Cambridgeshire & Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (CPFT).

2.   Authorised the Council to enter into a Pre-Construction Services Agreement (PCSA) to the value of £116,203.19 and an Early Works Agreement (EWA) to the value of £154,471.08 with RG Carter (Cambridge) Ltdto respectively undertake design and enabling works in advance of the main construction works.

3.   Authorised the Council to enter into any other legal documentation on behalf of the council in relation to this matter, including a  design and build contract for the main construction works subject to a full value for money report and Cabinet Member Decision Notice.

There is an exempt annex which is NOT FOR PUBLICATION in accordance with paragraph (s) 3 of Schedule 12A of Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1972 in that it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of the Council namely the details of the tender prices submitted by the unsuccessful contractors. The public interest test has been applied to the information contained within the exempt annex and it is considered that the need to retain the information as exempt outweighs the public interest in disclosing it as to do so would compromise the Council’s position when procuring similar works. 

Agreeing the recommendations will enable formal contractual arrangements to be confirmed to commence the development of the design and early works and, ultimately,  the main refurbishment work. This in turn will enable the Council to fulfil its intention to let the space at the Town Hall within the timeframes described. 

This will secure additional revenue for the council in support of its medium term financial plans and support its move the new council offices at Sand Martin House.

Three alternative options have been considered:

1. Do nothing and mothball the building: this was rejected because it would leave the Council having to cover a high revenue expenditure on an empty space.

2. Try to let the building as it is: this was rejected because the building would require the same level of capital expenditure to get it to a state that would be attractive to the market; securing a new tenant would result in a delay with additional revenue costs to the Council and the rental income is likely to be lower than secured under option 3.

3.  Refurbish the building and let it to the CPFT: this was the preferred option as it has the least ongoing revenue impact on the Council finances and it secures a long term income for the Council.

None.

Cabinet Member Decision Notice Council Office Consolidation: MAR16/CAB/16