At its meeting held on 24 June 2010, the Cabinet (minute 45 refers) referred the Office Accommodation report of the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management, together with the EC Harris Consultancy report to this Committee. Consideration of the matter was deferred on 8 July 2010 (minute 28 refers).

Further to minute 28 (8 July 2010), the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management presented his report in relation to Office Accommodation, which had been referred by the Cabinet (minute 45 (24 June 2010) refers) to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration. The report presented the business case produced by EC Harris for the rationalisation of the Council’s office accommodation. It identified related issues that required further consideration and sought guidance from Members on the preferred way forward.

The Head of Asset Management outlined the key issues contained within the consultancy report, which took a long term view in relation to both cost efficiency and the qualitative benefits that would be delivered. The report presented six options for consideration and he commented that beyond the ‘do minimum’ option, which was not recommended, any of the other 5 options would deliver savings and operational efficiencies. Option 3 (to retain Wallasey Town Hall, Cheshire Lines, Acre Lane, make better use of Solar Campus, refurbish Westminster House and provide the balance of the required accommodation in new build) was recommended as being the most economically advantageous solution. It would deliver discounted average revenue savings to the Council (compared with `do minimum’) in excess of £800,000 per annum over the model period of 25 years, plus further as yet unquantified savings. Those savings were dependent upon stated assumptions in the report, including a 10% reduction in staff numbers over the 25 year period under consideration. However, Members commented that the report recognised crucially, that the change programme, of which the SAR was a component, had not yet determined the future staff numbers or the organisation of functions within a rationalised portfolio.

Members referred to the significant investment that was required in option 3 before any savings would be achieved and commented upon the revenue implications of such investment. In response to further questions, the Deputy Director of Finance provided guidance for Members with regard to Prudential Borrowing to meet capital projects. However, the Head of Asset Management indicated that the model had been based upon all of the measures within option 3 being implemented. Following direction from the Cabinet, officers were investigating an alternative approach which did not involve new build and would deliver savings without the need for high levels of initial investment.

EC Harris had recommended that, because three of the modelled options were so closely ranked, further work should be done to confirm option 3 as the agreed way forward. Once a preferred option had been confirmed further detailed work would be undertaken to develop a final business case as the project moved forward. Separate detailed work was also required to address the related and building-specific issues outlined in the report so that the maximum advantage could be taken of opportunities arising from the rationalisation project.

Members had undertaken a site inspection of a sample of buildings affected by option 3 and considered various issues in relation to the proposals including the scope for savings in reduced facilities management  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32

At its meeting held on 24 June 2010, the Cabinet referred the Office Accommodation report of the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management, together with the EC Harris Consultancy report to this Committee for consideration.

At its meeting held on 24 June 2010, the Cabinet (minute 45 refers) referred the Office Accommodation report of the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management, together with the EC Harris Consultancy report to this Committee for consideration.

Resolved – That consideration of the report of the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management in relation to Office Accommodation be deferred to a Special Meeting of the Committee to be held on 24 August 2010.

The Director of Law, HR and Asset Management submitted a report which presented the business case produced by EC Harris for the rationalisation of the Council’s office accommodation. It identified related issues that required further consideration and sought guidance from Members on the preferred way forward.

Any of the 5 options beyond the `do minimum’ option would deliver savings and operational efficiencies. Option 3 was recommended as being the most economically advantageous solution. This option would deliver discounted average revenue savings to the Council (compared with `do minimum’) in excess of £800,000 per annum over the model period of 25 years, plus further as yet unquantified savings. These savings were dependent upon stated assumptions in the report, including a 10% reduction in staff numbers.

EC Harris recommended that, because three of the modelled options were so closely ranked, further work should be done to confirm Option 3 as the agreed way forward. Once a preferred option was confirmed further detailed work would be undertaken to develop a final business case as the project moved forward. Separate detailed work was also required to address the related and building-specific issues outlined in the report so that the maximum advantage was taken of opportunities arising from the rationalisation project.

Having circulated an amended recommendation to the Cabinet, it was then moved by Councillor Holbrook, seconded by Councillor Green and –

Resolved – That,

(1) Cabinet welcomes the report and supports the need to deliver greater efficiency and value from its use of office space and so deliver better services to the public, and provide a positive working environment for staff;

(2) Cabinet agrees to provide in principle support to option 3 as set out in the report, but recognises that there is still further work to be done to refine the alternatives within this option. Cabinet therefore instructs officers to:

  (i)  As a matter of priority, bring forward a fully costed action plan to implement those aspects of option 3 that are not dependent on new build. The action plan to be presented to Cabinet for approval at the earliest opportunity.

  (ii)  Further investigate those aspects of option 3 that require new build along with Acre Lane, and to produce an options report for Cabinet to consider.

 (iii)  Refer the EC Harris report to the Council Excellence Overview and Scrutiny Committee for their consideration.