Content

17.1

This report explains Housing
cleared sites, current issues they present and seeks the Housing
Policy Committee’s approval to commission services that will
manage and maintain these sites under a four-year contract intended
to commence before September 2024.

 

 

17.2

RESOLVED
UNANIMOUSLY: That the Housing Policy
Committee approves the commission of services to manage and
maintain Housing cleared sites across the city under a contract for
a 4-year term.

 

 

17.3

Reasons for Decision

 

 

17.3.1

The Cleared Sites Maintenance Contract serves
as a proactive measure, mitigating risks by addressing potential
hazards, promptly removing litter and fly-tipped materials, and
bolstering site security. Its continuous execution is essential to
upholding our duty to provide safe, secure, and aesthetically
pleasing environments for our residents. A break in the provision
of this vital service could result in a breach of our duty,
exposing the council to legal and reputational consequences.

 

 

17.3.2

It is the recommendation of the report to
reprocure the cleared site contract for the duration of 4 years to
allow the Council to fulfil its duties. The contract will ensure a
safe and aesthetically pleasing sites increasing the attractiveness
to potential developers.

 

 

17.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

17.4.1

Option to not relet
the contract – Not Recommended
While this option presents an immediate cost
saving, it was promptly dismissed due to its potential for
significant operational, reputational, and financial problems.
Without proper maintenance the cleared sites would quickly become
overgrown and prone to various issues such as littering, illegal
dumping (fly tipping) and antisocial behaviour. Historic data
indicates that poorly maintained sites not only attract undesirable
activities but can also hinder the marketability and development
potential of the land. Overgrown vegetation could conceal safety
hazards such as discarded materials, drug paraphernalia, and broken
glass which could endanger residents.
 
This option is not recommended due to the risk
that a poorly maintained site could compromise public safety and
diminish the long-term value of the cleared site, attracting less
investment in the area.

 

 

17.4.2

In-house service
delivery model – Not Recommended
After making enquiries with Parks &
Countryside and Street Scene & Regulation services, the
conclusion was that an inhouse service are not resourced to
adequately deliver to the specification for desired outcomes. There
would be limited flexibility inhouse to take on additional work or
remove sites from the schedule of works at short notice, without
implications for staff management.
 
There is a significant risk that implementing
an in-house model at this time could lead to the provision not
being fully met. It is anticipated that it would take longer to
organise and implement frameworks internally to meet the
requirements than going straight out to the market. This may result
in potential safety issues for residents and deter investment from
other parties in the area while this work is undertaken.

 

 

17.4.3

Amendment to
corporate contract to incorporate this work – Not
Recommended
The council’s procurement team advised
that of existing commercial contracts, the Amey contract seemed
most closely aligned to possibly deliver works required for Housing
cleared sites. This led to discussions with contract managers for
the Amey contract to assess the feasibility of lawfully varying
that contract to accommodate works required on Housing cleared
sites. Discussions considered the possibility of unplanned issues
such as Japanese knotweed which it was present on site, would have
substantial cost consequence under the current contract so that
this route did not offer best value for money.
 
Although there was scope for the Housing
cleared sites Contract to be included under the existing contract
this would be non-core work and managed outside of the main Amey
contract, and there would be no formal Service Level Agreement for
the Council to be able to manage the contract under. Additionally,
this process would not be evaluated against other bids and
therefore, it will not be proven to be the best bid both in terms
of quality and financially. Not being core work, the cost of
providing this work would be more expensive and not considered
viable.