Issue - meetings

Chris Blundell, Finance introduced the report and gave a PowerPoint slides presentation. He made the following points:

• These proposals were in line with the objectives of the scheme;
• The Kent innovation Centre building had very high usage and reducing its carbon footprint would assist with the council’s overall objectives of a reduction in the council’s footprint to carbon neutral by 2030;
• A bid made by the council was successful and £1.1million had been paid by the end of March;
• A Cabinet Member decision had been ,made to add the project to the council’s Capital Programme for 2021/22;
• There was a September 2021 to get the project underway;
• The building would be insulated to make it energy efficient;
• The aging gas heaters would be replaced with air source heat pumps;
• Renewable electricity will be installed;
• The project was being financed from external sources;
• There were some risks that would need to be managed;
• TDC would like the way in order to motivate the community.

Members asked questions and made comments as follows:

• This was a good project. Will the LED lights to be installed controllable and consideration be given to people with disabilities?
• Was this planned to be a major construction that would later be used by organisations that could include TDC?
• It was said that air source heat pumps only work if the if the walls were insulated;
• There was Member support for this work;
• This was a good example of incorporating ecological concerns on major construction works and this would be beneficial to the council;
• The project cost would be £1.236million against a grant of £1.1million. Could officers assure Members that the project costs would stay within the fund limit?
• If there were anticipated costs overruns, why not get a fixed cost tender?
• Would any cost overruns be reported to the Panel?

Mr Blundell and Ms Homer responded as follows:

• This was the first of many more projects to come. The council had committed £3million for council offices and green criteria would be considered when sourcing for these offices;
• Currently there are tenants in the KIC building. The council was in the process of reviewing its council base (offices) and reviewing its future options for efficient working;
• KIC had an 85% occupancy of the building;
• There was some substantial work being done to the wall insulation and these works were being carried out around the organisations currently suing the office space;
• There were risks for cost overruns of the projects. There was therefore a need to keep an eye on that. The project had a 10% contingency built in;
• Although there was a main contractor, there were several suppliers involved in the project. It was therefore not possible to get a single fixed cost tender due to the nature of the project;
• Officers would be reporting to the Panel on any overruns.

After the discussion, Members noted the proposals.