Agenda item

Report of the Executive Director of Children’s Services.

The committee received a report of the Executive Director of Community and Children’s Services.

The committee expressed disappointment that a series of outstanding questions and comments from the Asset Maintenance Working Party had not been answered nor referred to in the report as presented. The questions and comments were tabled by the Chair, to which officers agreed to provide written responses following the meeting:

Process and management approach

1.     Greater detail is required on the City’s proposed approach to managing this programme of potential works, including:

2.     Who will be responsible for delivery? Is the intention to recruit a programme director? And if not, why not?

3.     What is the proposed governance structure? We presume there would be a programme board, including key stakeholders and resident representatives.

4.     What is the intended programme and project reporting cycle and approach?

5.     Who is the programme sponsor?

6.     What project and programme management methodology will be applied? E.g. Prince2, MSP.

7.     What is the proposed approach to ensuring lessons are captured, learn, and applied through the programme and through phases from one block to the next?

8.     What other specialist project and programme resource requirements have been identified?

9.     Has a gap analysis been carried out to identify what capabilities are present within the City’s current resources and what additional resources will need to be brought in?

10. What is the proposed project gate approach? We note reference to the City’s gateway process but understand this is primarily financial, rather than a project governance methodology.

11. We note the City’s gateway process is currently under review. When is this review expected to complete and when will updated processes be shared?

12. Can details of the current process that applies in the meantime be shared?

13. Has engagement has been carried out with the Arts Centre to understand any lessons from their renewal works?

14. Section 13 notes recruitment challenges. How does the City propose to address these and ensure that the right resources are in place to manage this programme effectively?

15. Please provide a diagram showing proposed governance and team structures.

Finance

1.     At all points it should be made clear what year figures were calculated as well as whether or not inflation adjustment has been applied.

2.     Section 5 includes £4.3m for lifts. Does this include allowance for standardisation of components and reuse of work already carried out on the Tower Lifts? If not, why not?

3.     The figures include no allowance for professional fees and project costs. Can the City update the figures to provide an estimate for this?

4.     What is the proposed approach to managing financial risk, particularly in light of rising construction costs?

5.     Section 9 states that there are areas where the City has high confidence in the costs presented and other areas where confidence is lower. While examples are given, we would like a full list of areas of scope, categorised or RAG’d (red / amber / green) by confidence.

6.     Section 11 notes the estate’s listed status is expected to impact on estimates. Has this been accounted for in the figures presented? If not, why not?

Scope

1.     The report makes repeated reference to like for like replacement, e.g. section 10 which states that modernisation isn’t accounted for in costs. This seems unlikely to apply universally, I.e. it is hard to believe that Savills costed like for like replacement of 50 year old electrical equipment rather than modern equivalents. What will the approach be to modernisation in the following scenarios and has this been accounted for:

a.     Situations (potentially electrics) where modernisation is legally required.

b.     Situations where modernisation is cheaper due to the age of items in scope for replacement and the extent to which industry and best practice have moved on.

c.     Situations where modernisation is desirable to address the climate crisis, e.g. single vs double glazing.

2.     Underfloor heating is excluded (section 17). While we agree the current system is largely maintainable there are isolated instances where this is not the case. As with the windows, the City needs to have an adequate strategy for addressing such edge cases which can scale if more widespread renewal becomes necessary. (I.e. not repeating the approach that has been used to manage the windows issues.)

Other

1.     Section 3 notes that there has been consultation with the AMWP. While there is some truth to this and we have been discussing and giving feedback on the outline plan for years 1-5, the report was presented to the working party but feedback given was not incorporated which is extremely disappointing. Consultation should be meaningful and reports should be shared with the working party far enough in advance of finalisation to ensure feedback is can properly be addressed.

2.     What are the proposed next steps? The Barbican Residential Estate Consultation Committee is merely asked to note the report.

A motion was moved by the Chair, Sandra Jenner, and seconded by Graham Wallace, requesting that further information be provided regarding the governance, finance, and scope of the programme of works. This was put to the committee and agreed.

It was agreed that the committee would provide nominees to the programme stakeholder board following the meeting.

In response to a question, officers confirmed that the City Surveyor’s Department was investigating whether reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete had been used in the construction of the Barbican Estate and that a report on the matter would be brought to the next meeting of the committee.

RESOLVED:

The Barbican Residential Estate Consultation Committee is concerned that there are many outstanding comments and questions still to be answered about the Major Works Five-Year Asset Management Programme before work should begin. These are to be included in the minutes of the Barbican Residential Estate Consultation Committee meeting of 4th September 2023.
 
The immediate concern is the appropriate governance of such a high cost, complex and inherently risky programme which requires resource with the capability and capacity to deliver the programme successfully.
 
The Barbican Residential Estate Consultation Committee is therefore calling for preliminary work to be undertaken, involving resident nominees, to establish a formal Programme Board of stakeholders; terms of reference; authority framework, programme/project management methodology etc, taking expert advice as necessary, before any other work on the programme begins.