Decision details

The Portfolio Holder for Asset Management & Economic Development introduced a report concerning support for the Council’s Property Development Programme.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that the Council had ambitious development plans for Langston Road, St John’s Road and other key operational sites. The management of these developments was currently fulfilled by the Assistant Director (Asset Management and Economic Development), who had resigned from the Council with effect from 13 February 2015.

The Portfolio Holder stated that recruiting to fill this role would take some time and any new incumbent would inevitably need to familiarise themselves with the Council’s development proposals for the sites. Consequently there was a significant risk of slippage in the programme which could potentially materially impact on the Council’s future rental income as well as the costs of development. The Council did not have alternative in-house resource with the experience to progress the development programme. In order to maintain momentum and avoid costly delays the most appropriate external alternatives would be to recruit an interim manager with suitable experience or engage a property services company. Both of these alternatives were expensive and would inevitably involve a steep learning curve with no handover period because of the timescales involved.

The Portfolio Holder advised the Cabinet that to mitigate these risks the current Assistant Director (Asset Management and Economic Development) had been asked if he would be willing to continue to drive the Council’s development programme forward on a part-time contractual basis for a period of 13 months. This would ensure that the Council did not lose momentum whilst alternative arrangements were made, and allow for a professional handover as it was planned to appoint a replacement Assistant Director at least six months before the end of the proposed contract. The current incumbent had indicated his willingness to do this.

The Chief Executive commented that key staff could resign at any time, and there could be no guarantee that key staff would not resign at any time. The risk from the loss of key staff had been added to the Corporate Risk Register. There was no other member of staff that had the current Assistant Director’s expertise and knowledge, and the timing of the resignation was also sensitive in relation to the ongoing development projects, hence the proposals before the Cabinet. The Management Board would investigate a Succession Plan for all departments across the Council.

The Chief Executive added that the costs involved in hiring a short-term contractor, or hiring an Agency to provide a suitable replacement in the short-term was approximately the same as the proposals before the Cabinet. The recommendations had the advantage of retaining the services of the Assistant Director and his knowledge of the ongoing projects.

The Leader of the Council reported that the Assistant Director did not engineer this situation as he wanted to spend more time on his other projects. The Leader did not like the situation that the Council was in, and the Council must ensure that it never happened again, but the Assistant Director had extensive knowledge of the Council’s current development projects. The Portfolio Holder added that a permanent replacement for the Assistant Director would be appointed at least six months before the end of the proposed contract to allow for an appropriate handover period.

Decision:

(1)        That the expertise and knowledge of the Assistant Director (Asset Management and Economic Development) be retained on a part-time contract basis for a period of 13 months to ensure the development of Langston Road and other sites critical to the Council’s future revenue streams proceeded without delay;

(2)        That the use of Contract Standing Order C10 (Negotiated Tendering) be approved to procure the contract;

(3)        That authority be delegated to the Chief Executive and the Portfolio Holder for Asset Management and Economic Development to negotiate and finalise the contract terms;

(4)        That the cost be funded in 2014/15 from existing District Development Fund (DDF) development budgets;

(5)        That a District Development Fund growth bid be made in the sum of £90,000 to cover the cost in 2015/16;

(6)        That, given the high monthly cost of delaying key projects, the contract be executed expeditiously;

(7)        That replacement resource be procured by the Director of Neighbourhoods with an appropriate handover programme six months before the end of the contract period; and

(8)        That, pursuant to Overview and Scrutiny Rule 21 (Special Urgency), the Chairman of the Council be requested to waive the call-in arrangements for this decision due its urgency, as any delay would prejudice the Council’s interests due to the risk of delayed rental income and/or increased development costs, which would have a significant impact on the Council’s ability to balance budgets without reducing services.

Reasons for Decision:

To minimise the risk of delayed rental incomes and/or increased development costs, both of which could have a significant, detrimental impact on the Council’s budget in the future.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To contract external resource, or recruit a full-time replacement. However, this could lead to delays in the development schedule and have an adverse impact on the Council’s future financial position.