Agenda item

Programme Update

Tris Burdett, Programmes Manager – Programme Management Team

The Board received a programme update on the Clay Cross Town Deal projects, as well as an evaluation of the associated risks moving forward. This included an update on Clay Cross Active, the Town Centre Regeneration project, and the Low Carbon Challenge Fund (LCCF).

The Board heard that a replacement contractor, Universal Civils and Building, had been appointed as the principal contractor for Clay Cross Active. Members heard that the site clearance and cut/fill works in Baileys Square had been completed and the drainage and ground works were commencing. The partial demolition of Block B had also been completed. The Board were reminded that, following the extraordinary meeting on 27 November 2024, the LCCF had been closed. It was shared that officers were finalising the details of the total spend and an update would be brought to the Board’s next meeting.

The top programme risk was identified as rising costs causing budgetary issues. Regular cost reviews and value engineering would be utilised to ensure projects stayed within budget. The delivery of the outputs associated with skills and learning outcomes was identified as a specific risk to the town centre regeneration project. In this context, it was recommended that the Board request an update from the learning providers be brought to the meeting in March 2025. Overall, it was felt that despite the setbacks the programme was progressing well.

The Board discussed the programme update. The Chair requested further insight into the contract position with Inside Ltd. Some Members expressed concerns over the length of time Inside Ltd. had spent as the preferred contractor. Some Members queried whether the ceiling of the letter of intent had been reached yet. It was clarified that the ceiling had not yet been reached but costs would soon rise as major parts of the project got underway. In this context, the Board were reassured that the contract was being finalised and it was intended that it should be signed before the end of the year, subject to agreement of the key components and any unexpected issues. Members were made aware that the final contract would not be fully shared as it contained commercially confidential numbers.

The Board discussed concerns surrounding the budget and levels of contingency available. Officers detailed the amount of contingency that was included in the budget and clarified the final destination of the excess money from the closure of the LCCF. It was shared that value engineering would be utilised in order to ensure the programme represented a cost-efficient approach whilst still delivering against its targets. In this context, the Chair sought clarification as to whether changing building materials would lead to planning regulations slowing the process. Members were reassured that the risk of this was considered low as they were working closely with the planning officer.

Some Members expressed concerns over the level of detail being brought to the Board and frequency of meetings and reports. Officers detailed the information that the Board can expect to receive. In this context, the role of the Board was discussed, and it was felt that the Board was confident in the officers and project managers working on the programme and the frequency of meetings was appropriate. The Chair reiterated this sentiment and reminded Members that there was the provision for extraordinary meetings should the need arise.

The Board discussed the renewable energy sources being used in the Town Centre Regeneration project. Some Members requested clarification as to whether renewables were included in the contract or whether they could be value engineered out. The Board heard that the buildings would be designed to be as energy efficient as possible and there was an expectation that Inside Ltd. would apply to the LCCF for a grant to ensure this could be delivered. Officers would continue to look for other ways to increase energy efficiency of the development within the available resources. 

Some Members queried whether an objection, raised by a local business, from the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) consultation would delay the Town Centre Regeneration project. Officers reassured Members that this was on the radar of the relevant team and contact with the business would be made.

Some Members requested an update on the interest in the incubation units. The Board heard that a drop-in event had been held to gauge the interest from businesses in taking up the units. The Board received details of the interest received as a result of the event. Members heard that there had been an enquiry into letting an entire block to one tenant. The benefits of letting the block instead of breaking it into individual units were discussed. It was agreed that an update on the status of the incubation units would be brought to the next meeting.

RESOLVED –

1.That the Board noted the presentation.

2. That the Board receive the following updates at the next meeting:

A.     Risks around skills and learning outputs from learning providers.

B.     Status of the incubation units.