Agenda item

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services confirmed that major projects required a closure report and the Chard Leisure Centre was part of a wider initiative within the town.  The report helped to learn through the experience and improve programme management for the future.  In particular the costings had not taken account of a potential ground contamination issue and the public consultation which requested a full size 5 lane pool.  The early feedback had been very positive and the project had been delivered on time and to budget, but not all the elements that had originally been envisaged were completed.  The cost of the project had increased as construction industry costs increased, supply chain interruptions due to the pandemic and Brexit had all impacted.  The lessons learned from the project would assist in planning other projects in the future.

The Regeneration Programme Manager advised that 11 of the proposed capital programme projects for the following year would be impacted by the report recommendations. Four of the projects were part of the Regeneration Programme which she would be monitoring and the remaining 7 projects would be required to produce a staged assessment plan.

In response to questions from Members, the Regeneration Programme Manager and Chief Finance Officer advised:-

·         As the project progressed, external project management and cost consultants were consulted but the budget had been set very early in the process and the feasibility study had produced costs to build a standard leisure centre and not how much it would cost to build the Chard leisure centre with its subsequent issues.

·         The new budget set with appropriate contingency levels was correct and the project was delivered on time and within that budget.

·         A Contingency Budget would be proposed as part of the new Capital Programme for the next financial year.

During discussion, the following points were made:

·         Allocating a large contingency budget would mean there was less funding for other projects.

·         Public opinion should be taken into account in the towns regeneration projects.

·         The ground conditions at the site had been highlighted by local members on a number of times in the early stages of the project.

The Director for Place and Recovery said that significant changes had been made to the governance arrangements of regeneration projects to clarify when decisions should be referred to Executive or Council for approval.  Also financial monitoring had been improved to ensure future regeneration projects were closely monitored.

The Chairman of the Regeneration Board said they knew it was going to be a challenging development site and the lessons would be learnt for future projects.

In response to questions from the Scrutiny Committee the Director for Place and Recovery advised:-

·         This was the lessons learned report which was agreed to be presented to Members.

·         The detailed breakdown of the finances were in the report presented to District Executive in September 2021.

The Regeneration Programme Manager advised that there was an open planning application for building 11 at the site and depending on the outcome of the planning application, there may be further costs to recover from the remaining project budget.

At the conclusion of the debate, the recommendations were unanimously approved by Members.