Meeting documents

1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Strategy Committee determined in December 1998 that the solution to the Council's long term office need would be satisfied through a single office location with additional satellite community access facilities. The following objectives/criteria were set out at that time.

· Community access.

· Economic Development /Environmental issues.

· Efficiency of staff and members.

· The Council's identity.

· Exit strategy.

1.1 Previous reports have recognised the range of benefits which would flow from a single office solution, improving efficiency, flexibility and reducing overall operating costs.

1.2 In October 2003 the Executive reaffirmed the decision to proceed on the basis of single new office premises as a matter of urgency and approved commitment to a more detailed project to provide review information and option appraisal in support of that decision. The Executive also included assessment of possible locations for the new office within the project.

1.3 1.4 Although this work has not yet fully concluded, it is already clear that:

(1) Fundamental change to the Council's office accommodation is essential if the anticipated organisational change and performance objectives are to be attained

(2) Assessment of the options demonstrates that the single new office building solution identified in the original decision by the Strategy Committee provides the best outcome in terms of organisational change, efficiency gains and, enhancing service delivery for customers.

1.5 Locational issues. A full review of possible sites has been carried out with various options considered in greater detail. In 2001 Strategy Committee decided that Avon Street car park (Bath Quays) should be the preferred site ,with Western Riverside as an alternative option At that time it was considered that timescales for the Western Riverside development were not favourable. Since then, progress has been made on bringing forward the Western Riverside development area. The initial indications of the project report strongly support the view that:

(1) The Council's new office is based within the Western Riverside development area, thus promoting the economic development of the area by kick-starting the development process.

(2) The best alternative site for the offices is considered to be Bath Quays South (also known as Bath Riverside Business Park)

1.6 The assessment criteria, option appraisal, financial appraisal and rationale will be contained within the report which when finished will be available for members, and more detailed information to support this argument will be given in that report, and highlighted in para 5.6 of this report.

1.7 Should any factors arise which challenge these early conclusions, these will be reported to the Executive at that time.

2 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 To agree that the preferred location of the new office building will be within the Western Riverside Redevelopment Area.

2.2 Work to continue on Bath Quays South as a fallback position.

2.3 The Head of Property and Legal Services to be given authority in consultation with the Resources Director and the Executive Member for Property to begin discussions with all interested parties in order to progress the preferred solution as quickly as possible.

2.4 The urgency of progress is maintained by authorising stage IV of the project which will provide a further progress report to the July Executive This report will consider the initial results of the consultations carried out by the Head of Property and Legal Services, together with a full feasibility study. In addition, guidelines as to the shape, size and appearance of the new offices will be included.

2.5 To invite further input from the Executive on the report and process.

3 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

3.1 Overall financial implications of LTOA have been previously recognised, and more detailed analysis will be contained in the next report once initial discussions on the preferred option have taken place. The financial analysis is complex as this will need to take account both of the costs and benefits of the building, and of the potential changes to base running costs of services provided within a new environment.

3.2 Rationalisation work on existing offices has by and large been within budget estimates, but the work itself is disruptive and time consuming and has led to overspending on the accommodation budget in 2003/04

3.3 The project will require a budget for external fees to complete up to stage IV. Fee rates for ARW were established by market testing. Actual fees charged will be based on the rates established in the partnering contract, subject to a cap linked to the budget level. These costs and the internal fees identified below will be resourced from the existing long term office accommodation budget. The available budget for 2004/05 is currently estimated to be around £130,000.

3.4 Internal staff time will also be charged to the project at a cost of around £ 65,000 per annum.

4 RATIONALE

4.1 Previous reports have demonstrated the disadvantages imposed on the Council by the current corporate office portfolio of 16 buildings located in 3 main areas. Not only are the buildings located in different areas but the buildings differ from one to another in terms of their quality and suitability to provide functional flexible fully accessible modern office space. The existing stock has been assessed in functional and quality terms and this strongly reinforces the previously identified limitations.

4.2 The office stock also imposes a number of fundamental disadvantages to the efficient operation of the Council and provision of service to its customers. These include - fragmentation of staff reducing general levels of communication, the cost of staff travel between buildings; dilution of the identity of the Council and confusion for customers; inflexible and unsuitable office areas; reduced ability to meet current and changing requirements for provision of IT services; duplication of support services.

4.3 The Council is facing a range of new issues, such as increased customer expectations, E Government, Customer access, Asset management, The current inflexible office stock impose barriers on organisation change. A new single office building will be instrumental in facilitating organisational change within the Council.

5 OTHER OPTIONS

5.1 Five options for change from the existing office accommodation were considered. Analysis showed that differences between some of these were marginal and three options were therefore considered in greater detail:

(1) Rationalise to six existing modern buildings. (Lewis, Trimbridge, Plymouth, Northgate, the Hollies & Riverside) supplemented with additional modern accommodation in Bath to provide the required total office accommodation.

(2) Main new building in Bath coupled with four existing buildings. (Lewis, Trimbridge, Plymouth, Northgate).

(3) Single New office building.

5.2 In all of the options considered, it is assumed that the satellite offices will be common, which allow for 3 further buildings in Bath (including the Guildhall) and one each in Keynsham and Midsomer Norton.

5.3 The qualitative analysis of these options and the financial assessment will be provided in the project report, but confirms option 3 as the solution which best meets the Council's aims.

5.4 Numerous locational options have also been considered. This assessment has assisted in identifying more clearly the critical issues involved. These will also be set out in the project report, but in summary, this concludes that only two of the currently identified sites meet all needs, these being the Western Riverside development site, and the Bath Quays South site.

5.5 At its meeting in April 2001 The Strategy Committee adopted the Bath Quays site as its preferred site. At that time Proposals for the Western Riverside Development area were in their infancy and it was considered that timescales for development within this area was not favourable. Since then, much progress has been made on bringing forward the Western Riverside development area and although further progress needs to be made, the planning risks for the 2 alternative sites are now more evenly balanced. It is considered that preference should be given to developing the new building within Western Riverside, so long as this can be done within a swift timescale, as;

5.6 The analysis shows that the Western Riverside site provides the prospect of a site with superior flexibility for site design and layout, potentially thus enabling the best flexibility.

5.7 There is potential for construction cost to be lower than in the more tightly constrained Bath Quays area.

5.8 This would not only provide the Council with an appropriate site for its new office building, but would assist with kick starting the redevelopment process on the Western Riverside re-development area.

5.9 It is also proposed that the Bath Quays site should be progressed as an alternative option, in order that development is not delayed should the preferred location prove untenable, as it must be recognised that the development risks affecting the Western Riverside site are at this stage higher than those for Bath Quays.

6 CONSULTATION

6.1 This complex matter is being progressed with urgency. Informal consultation has been carried out with service departments throughout the Council. There has also been a project workshop for service heads or their representatives. Once the project report is completed, further consultation will be carried out.

Document3

This version was printed 26-Jan-04 10:35 AM

Appendix 2

Project Timescales

The indicative project timescale commences from the date that an irrevocable decision is made to proceed with a site. Actual timescales might be shorter or longer depending on the method of procuring the offices.