Agenda item

To receive and consider a report from the Director of Law and Governance outlining details of a call-in received on the Leader of the Council Decision taken on Meridian Water Station – Public Realm Construction (Report No.77)

The decision that has been called- in was a decision made by the Leader of the Council taken on 5 September 2018 and included on the Publication of Decision List No: 17/18-19 (List Ref:1/17/18-19) issued on 7 September 2018.

It is proposed that consideration of the call-in be structured as follows:

·         Brief outline of the reasons for the call-in by representative (s) of the members who have called in the decision

·         Response to the reasons provided for the Call-in by the Leader of the Council

·         Debate by Overview and Scrutiny Committee and agreement of action to be taken

Please also see the Part 2 agenda

The committee received a report from the Director of Law and Governance outlining details of a call-in received on the decision taken by the Leader of the Council on Meridian Water Station- Public Realm Construction.

NOTED that this report was considered in conjunction with the information in the part 2 agenda.

The Chair invited Councillor Smith to outline the reasons for the call-in. It was noted that this discussion was held in public under the part 1 section of the meeting. Further discussion took place under the part 2 section of the meeting.

1.    Councillor Smith outlined the reasons for calling in the decision:

·         That the decision taken by the Leader of the Council on the 5^th September 2018 to approve the works to the public realm adjacent to the new railway station on meridian Way was based on a completely inadequate report (Reports 1 and 2) by officers that did not provide sufficient background information on the procurement process, programme, specification, cost of the works or risks to the Council involved. The inadequacy of the report showed nothing short of contempt for elected members.

·         The procurement process- Concern regarding the lack of background information provided in the report regarding the decision taken to carry out a formal procurement process by going out to remediation contractors via the framework which failed instead of civil engineering contractors capable of carrying out the highway works involved? This created major avoidable delays. No timeline was provided in the report regarding when the procurement process started, finished or when the waiver was applied for.

·         Programme- The Council is now under extreme time pressure to carry out the works by May 2019 when the station is due to open before substantial damages are levied by Network Rail. Delays in appointing a Contractor has meant that the timescales for completing the project have become shorter and shorter. The procurement process should have been undertaken much earlier than it was in order to avoid this situation. Why wasn’t this specific works scheme dealt with separately from the main negotiations with Barratt/PCPD in a timely manner rather than waiting in the hope that the main negotiations would be resolved in the Council’s favour. No assurances are provided in the report that the public realm works by Volker Fitzpatrick can actually be completed by the May 2019 deadline.

·         Report- The lack of essential details regarding the specification of works and the maps included in the reports are also difficult to read. Detailed maps have now been reviewed from which it is now clear that there are significant road works involved in this part of the programme. This was not at all clear from the original maps circulated with the report. Members’ attention should have been drawn to the Scope of Works.

2.    The response of the Leader of the Council, Council Caliskan. She highlighted the following:

·         The opening of the train station has always been crucial to the success of Meridian Water. A delay in this and the public realm works will have a significant effect on this which is why she feels strongly that this is the correct decision.

·         She too had sought clarification from Officers regarding the procurement process as well as the delays (outlined by Councillor Smith in his reasons for Call-in) and full and satisfactory responses had been provided by Officers. She went on to remind the Committee that there had been a procurement process but unfortunately no tenders were received.

3.    Other issues highlighted by officers in support of the decision, included:

·         The events to date with Barratt/PCPD which had essentially led to the Council’s current position. The Council had relied on Barratt in good faith to deliver their contract which included the public realm works. The Council’s investment in the station has always been a catalyst for Meridian Water but is also there to open up the area for regeneration.

·         In order to deliver the new Meridian Water Station, it is essential to complete the adjoining public realm works to allow public access to the station. In order to protect its position, Enfield Council tendered for these works through its Remediation Framework. Following a robust and compliant tendering exercise involving six contractors no submissions were received from the contractors approached. Feedback from the contractors indicated that the timing of the work and proximity of the station development were significant obstacles, also stated was the lack of capacity.

·         Volker Fitzpatrick, the appointed contractor (by Network Rail) to build the new Meridian Water station were approached to submit a cost plan for delivering the public realms works and an estimate for entering into a Pre-Construction Agreement. It made sense that Volker Fitzpatrick were the party Enfield Council turned to as they are now on both sides of the interface project.

·         Given the failure of recent procurement exercises and the need to get a contract in place a waiver of Contract Procedure Rules (CPRs) has been approved by the Head of the Council’s P&C Hub to appoint Volker Fitzpatrick as this is essential to avoid Enfield Council incurring significant penalty costs should the station opening be delayed beyond May 2019.

·         To enable achieving a timely completion of the public realm works appointing VFP is considered the most economically advantageous tender route providing both value for money and quality that compliments the station design.

·         Doing nothing would result in not being able to discharge planning conditions (Enfield Council are currently working on the discharging of planning conditions), failure to comply with Enfield’s Customer obligations under the implementation agreement with Network Rail to deliver the new Meridian Water Station resulting in stalling of delivering of the station and potentially open the Council liable to penalties from Network Rail.

·         This part of the public realm works was about ‘knitting’ the station into the public highway. There are a series of obligations on Enfield to provide (such as public, emergency and staff access along with some utilities) known as station public realm interfaces. It is key that these are provided in order for Network rail to commission and bring the new station into service.

4.    Questions and comments addressed from members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee:

·         Councillor Laban felt that planning work should have started a lot earlier when it had become apparent that things were turning sour with Barratt. Why had this not been the case?

·         Members at the time had leant towards negotiating with the other bidder PCPD and the Council had been confident that this deal would go ahead.

·         Councillor Needs asked whether there had been any assurances given by VFP that the works would be completed by May 2019.

·         VFP are confident that the works can be completed by May 2019 subject to factors that are external to the e.g. utilities, highways, discharging of planning conditions.

·         Councillor Smith did not accept that a procurement process where no tenders had been received should just be dismissed and felt that this was an issue that needed to be further addressed.

·         Further concerns were raised as to whether VFP could complete the extensive scope of works so that the station can be commissioned and opened on time to avoid incurring serious penalty costs.

·         Councillor Caliskan again emphasised that there had been a robust and compliant procurement process, but the fact remained that no tenders had been received.