Agenda item

The Committee considered the undernoted report:

 

“1.0   Purpose of report

 

1.1      The Council’s Capital Programme is a rolling programme of investment which either improves existing Council facilities or provides new facilities. This report provides –

·         proposed recommendations for movement between the Capital Programme stages

·         specific project updates on the Public Bike Share Scheme and Phase 1 of the Leisure Transformation Programme (Olympia and Andersonstown regenerations)

 

2.0     Relevant Background Information

 

         Capital Programme

 

2.1     Members have agreed that all capital projects must go through a three Stage process where decisions on which projects progress are taken by SP&R. This provides assurance as to the level of financial control and will allow Members to properly consider the opportunity costs of approving one capital project over another capital project. Importantly it will also enable Members to focus on delivering the projects which can have maximum benefits and investment return for the city and local areas.

 

         KEY ISSUES

 

         Proposed movements from ‘Stage 2 – Uncommitted’ to ‘Stage 3 – Committed’

 

2.2     Members are asked to consider if they wish to progress the project as outlined in Table 1 below from ‘Stage 2- Uncommitted’ to ‘Stage 3- Committed under the Capital Programme.

 

 

Project	Project overview	Proposed Stage	Estimated Gross Cost	Estimated Net cost
City Hall works	The development of dedicated exhibition space on the ground floor East wing of the City Hall	Stage 3- Tier 0 (schemes at risk)	Up to a max of £1,300,000	Up to a max of £1,300,000

 

         City Hall Works

 

2.3     Members will be aware an EQIA on Memorabilia in the City Hall was carried out in 2012 with the outcomes reported to Committee in Nov 12. The report set out 14 recommendations in relation to promoting a good and harmonious environment in the City Hall. Following this, an independent consultant was commissioned to undertake work in relation to the next steps for displays, the findings of which were presented to the Joint Diversity Group in March 13.  The Joint Diversity Group subsequently requested that the displays & memorabilia element be referred to the SP&R Committee as an Emerging Project as part of the overall City Hall project and that a composite SOC for all elements of the City Hall works be developed.  This was agreed by the SP&R Committee in Sept 2013. 

2.4     The outcome of the Stage 1 SOC was reported back to Committee last month and Members agreed to advance the City Hall Works project from a ‘Stage 1 – Emerging project’ to ‘Stage 2 – Uncommitted’. It was agreed at this time that further detail on the costs would be brought back to Committee in March. As part of the development for the SOC, the Council commissioned independent consultants to look at the creation of a memorabilia led visitor exhibition within the East Wing. A high level plan and designs were produced as part of this. The findings from this were presented to the Joint Diversity Group on 31st January and Party Group briefings were subsequently held w/c 3rd February.

 

2.5     Further work has now been carried out on the costs for this project which has estimated the cost at nearly £1.6million. These costs are based upon dividing the ground floor of the East side of the City Hall into a number of zones as previously highlighted to Members during the Party Group briefings and at the Joint Diversity Group. For each zone there are a number of internal building works (painting, electrical, joinery etc required) together with costs for refurbishment and fit-out of the rooms/zones including signage, graphics and IT equipment. A breakdown of the zones and the estimated costs is attached at Appendix A.  Members are asked to note however that these costs could be significantly reduced as the internal building works can be carried out by the Council’s Property Maintenance Unit. 

 

2.6     In reviewing these costs, Members are also asked to consider a number of issues which are outlined below which have an overall impact on this project. Members are therefore asked to recognise that the costs cited are notional and that they will be more robustly challenged at the tender preparation stage and will be reviewed as the project progresses.  

 

·         Content - Members are asked to note that these are still indicative uses/names for the zones only and that this does not constitute agreement on the final content for each of the zones. It is acknowledged that issues around the content are very sensitive and will require time to develop and agree. All discussions around this will be brought forward via the Joint Diversity Group and will be taken in the context of the recommendations from the EQIA and the subsequently  agreed guidelines around the City Hall memorabilia -  

 

-         Represent: to represent all the people of Belfast through the prism of the City Hall and its history

-         Re-present: to ensure that all the interpretation presented to visitors within City Hall is balanced and inclusive

-         Reach Out: to attract new visitors to City Hall, and to re-engage and enthuse existing ones

-         Re-vitalise: to take the best of what is currently offered to visitors to City Hall and enhance the overall visitor experience.

 

         Members are asked to note that the estimated budget contains costs for IT equipment, graphics, signage etc. for each zone. These are based upon best practice for equipment etc in similar sized zones/spaces elsewhere. The costs and numbers of IT/audio-visual equipment have been benchmarked against recent technology led-projects including the Welcome Centre

 

·         City Hall – Usage and accommodation - Members are also asked to note that this project has a number of major inter-dependencies with other ongoing strategic initiatives including –

 

-         Local Government Reform – increase in the number of Elected Members from 51 to 60 which may impact the number and size of party groups.  This may necessitate further space for party rooms within the City Hall which will have to be looked at within the context of the emerging proposals. The Council is also assuming increased roles and responsibilities through the transfer of functions and there will be associated governance and organisational structural changes

-         Council accommodation – a number of the proposed zones in the East Wing are currently used as office accommodation. Members agreed last month that work is progressed on securing a new building and this is currently a Stage 3 project on the Capital Programme

-         Overall use of the City Hall i.e. should it become more customer facing with a ‘One Stop Shop’ approach to all services

 

         Members are asked to note that any in decisions in relation to the East Wing also need to be taken in the context of the City Hall’s Grade ‘A’ listed status and resultant statutory obligations. 

 

2.7     As there are a number of factors that may continue to influence the finals cost of this project, the Director of Finance & Resources has recommended that a maximum of £1,300,000 be allocated to this project and has confirmed that this is within the affordability limits of the Council. This has been reduced from the £1.6million notional costs due to the fact that many of the internal building works can be carried out in-house by the Property Maintenance Team which significantly reduces project costs. It is also recommended that approval is given to engage independent consultants to help further develop proposals around the presentation of items and facilitate the discussions around content at the same time as giving consideration to the physical environment – the costs for the consultant will be met out of the £1.3m budget allocation. Setting a maximum budget will help to give the appointed consultants a parameter within which to work, will help to control the costs and prevent project creep and therefore eliminate the possibility of costs escalating. Importantly, it will also enable the Council to fulfil its equality obligations under Section 75 and implement the recommendations arising from the EQIA report, as agreed by SP&R Committee in November 2012 and ratified by the Council at its meeting in December 2012.

 

2.8     Given all of the above, it is recommended that this project is moved to ‘Stage 3 – Tier 0 (Schemes at risk)’. This will allow designs and specifications to be fully worked up whilst still allowing time for the outcome and impact of LGR to become clear and allowing time for more detailed discussions around the content to further inform the designs.  Members are asked to note that if this is progressed to ‘Stage 3 – Tier 0’ that further updates will be provided to Committee as the project progresses including a detailed project plan and that NO construction contracts will be let until all outstanding issues have been resolved. Members are therefore asked to agree if they wish to progress this project to Stage 3 – Committed (Tier 0 – Schemes at risk).

 

3.0     Updates on capital projects

 

         Public Bike Share Scheme

 

3.1     Phase 1 of the Public Bike Share scheme aims to create a network of 30 docking stations supporting 300 bikes with associated infrastructure in the city centre. It is anticipated that it will facilitate cheap and accessible transport, as well as benefits such as increased tourism, improved health, and reduced congestion. Bike share schemes have proved very popular in cities across the world including London, Dublin and New York.

 

3.2     Members agreed last month that an update on this project would be brought back to Committee this month following the outcome of the tender process.  As background Members agreed in June 2013 to move the Public Bike Share Scheme from a ‘Stage 2 – Uncommitted project’ to a ‘Stage 3 – Committed Project’. At this stage it was highlighted that external funding of £698,700 had been secured from DRD under the Active Travel Demonstration Projects for the capital costs for this project with all money to be spent by March 2015.  However the Scheme was moved to ‘Tier 0 – Schemes at risk’ as the ongoing revenue implications for this scheme had not been agreed. This meant that the scheme could be advanced to tender stage but that no construction contracts would be let until all outstanding issues were satisfactorily resolved.

 

3.3     Since June 2013 officers have worked hard on progressing this project.  An Invitation to Tender was advertised on the 4th November 2013 with the procurement was divided into two lots:

 

         Lot 1 – Design, supply, maintain and operate the Public Bike Share Scheme and

 

         Lot 2 –Sponsorship of the Public Bike Share Scheme

        

         The tender assessment is now complete for Lot 1 and a preferred bidder (who submitted the most economically advantageous tender) has been selected. Assessment of the Lot 2 tender for sponsorship is still ongoing. It was agreed that following completion of the procurement process a further report would be brought back to SP&R to inform the Investment Decision on the implementation of the scheme and to seek approval for the contract award.

 

         Capital Costs

 

3.4     Members are asked to note that the submission from the preferred bidder for Lot 1 to Design, Build, Operate and Maintain indicates that the capital cost for Phase 1 will be £1,140,000. The current Council grant award is £698,700 therefore there is a deficit of £441,300.

 

3.5     The original Council bid was based on an OBC commissioned by SIB which was completed in July 2011. The estimate for the capital costs at that time was based on comparison with available cost data and was not a precise specification. The differential in the original bid and the result of the procurement is in part due to the fact that the bike share market was relatively young at that time and definitive data on costs were not widely available. The Council recently engaged consultants to review the capital costs provided as part of the tender process against the capital and operating costs projections set out in the 2011 OBC. The findings of the review show that the capital cost proposed by the preferred bidder for the Belfast scheme falls within a range of costs identified for other cities and is lower on a ‘per bike’ basis than the cost of recent similar schemes, including the proposed expansion of Dublin bikes. The review concludes that the submission from the preferred bidder for the Belfast scheme represents value for money.

 

3.6     A supplementary application has been made to DRD for an increase in grant support to cover the additional capital cost for Phase 1. This will be dependent on the Council ensuring the project is implemented, expenditure incurred and the grant claimed by March 2015. Members are asked to note that DRD have verbally indicated their willingness to consider funding for the full capital costs however the Council will require confirmation of the additional funding in writing.

 

         Revenue (Operating) Costs

 

3.7     Members are asked to note that most cities fund the operating costs of Bike Share Schemes from a number of sources including income from subscriptions/usage and income from sponsorship or advertising revenue. However most schemes do not meet their full operating cost through these alone and some form of public sector subsidy is usually required until the scheme is established. The Council will be liable for meeting these costs as the DRD funding is only for the capital costs of the scheme.

 

3.8     The preferred bidder outlined the costs for the operation and maintenance of the scheme in the form of an annual comprehensive management fee. They state that it will cost £422,780 to operate and maintain the scheme annually. The contract will be for 6 years (with an option to extend) so the total cost for the basic contract duration will be £2,536,680.  This will be partly offset by the income through fees and sponsorship as outlined below

 

·         Income through Usage fees - The scale of income generated will depend on the level of fee charged and the number of users who subscribe or use the service. An update to the OBC estimates an initial subscription registration rate of 4% of the city population* (approximately 13,356) could be achieved for the scheme based on a comparison with other cities who have introduced similar schemes. The level for the annual subscription fee has yet to be finalised, however the OBC estimates that an annual fee of £20 would generate annual revenue subscription income of £267,120. This would be supplemented by revenue generated from casual usage such as non-subscription users/ user charges over the free allowance / visitors for which the revised OBC estimates an annual income in the region of £66,000.  The Active Travel funding bid stated that the public bike share subscription charges would be affordable to encourage accessibility and usage. A comparison of charges for bike share schemes elsewhere is included in Appendix B. The projected operational income variation based on the percentage subscription take up and based on a £20 fee is set out in Table 2 below.

 

·         Income from sponsorship - The initial results of the ongoing procurement for Lot 2 suggest an income of £100,000 for annual sponsorship and exclusive naming rights of the scheme. However this bid is conditional and would limit the potential for additional income from other sources. If accepted the bid would result in a maximum of £300,000 over the proposed 3 year sponsorship contract. The Council engaged a consultant to undertake communication activity associated with sponsorship of the scheme and carry out a review of the procurement process for Lot 2 sponsorship. The feedback concluded that the chosen procurement route whilst offering optimal levels of transparency, limited the potential for best communication of the benefit gained from being associated with the scheme to a prospective sponsor. The consultants highlighted that whilst companies were interested, they were unsure of the unique opportunity and the benefits of being linked to the naming rights /sponsorship of the Belfast Public Bike Share scheme. Recent market research from elsewhere indicates that the bid submitted has undervalued the potential naming rights of the Belfast scheme, when benchmarked against other similar scheme sponsorships and has various conditions which would not be beneficial to the Council in the long term. In addition, interest has been shown from a number of organisations for the naming rights of docking stations and there is also potential for advertising revenue from panels on the bike baskets which is common in other bike share schemes in Europe.  The opportunity also exists for the Council to use the bikes to advertise their own services or campaigns and make savings on our advertising costs. It is recommended to extend the assessment period of the Lot 2 return to negotiate a change in conditions with the current bidder and investigate other potential interested parties.

 

         Nett Annual Running cost – Impact on the Council

 

3.9     The nett annual running cost to the Council can be calculated using the operating cost minus the income generated from subscriptions and usage of the Bike Share Scheme and the potential naming rights/sponsorship or advertising income as outlined in 3.8 above. It should be noted that depending on outcome of negotiations for Lot 2, this contribution from sponsorship could potentially increase.

 

 

 

         * Population is based on the NISRA data for Belfast (LGD 2014) of 333,900

 

 

3.10   Members are asked to note that the final revenue implications will not be known until after the outcome of Lot 2 and discussions around potential sponsorship are finalised however there is currently no provision for any recurring running costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the proposed Bike Share Scheme. This project, which delivers a range of potential benefits, extending from health and leisure to tourism and transportation, would need additional provision to be made within the future Council revenue budgets to support any deficit related to the operation and maintenance, although the projections indicate a deficit in years 1 and 2 with a surplus in following years. It is recommended that this revenue support is met centrally in recognition of the corporate nature of the initiative and the potential cross organisational benefits.

 

         Phase 1 – Leisure Transformation Programme – Olympia and Andersonstown

 

3.11   Members will be recall that the SPR Committee, at its meeting in June, agreed a £105m capital expenditure affordability limit for the leisure transformation programme. This included £38m towards the Olympia and Andersonstown schemes under Phase 1.

 

         Olympia Regeneration

 

3.12   The Olympia Regeneration proposal concerns land and assets that are currently owned and/or leased by three parties; the Council, Linfield FC and IFA, and is broken down into three phases:

 

·         1a: A new facility for leisure and community use, as part of the new stadium

·         1b: A new access boulevard plus two pitches and a play park to replace and re-orient existing facilities

·         2: Preparation of two sites on Boucher Road available for new commercial development

 

         In June 2013 Members were made aware that there was a very tight timescale for the delivery of Olympia given the construction programme for the new Windsor stadium. Phase 1a is integral to this development because the project design involves sharing a new roof structure.  In October 2013, approval was given to progress the Olympia project from Stage 2 to Stage 3 – Committed however it was highlighted that a number of outstanding issues remained to be resolved (as outlined below) and therefore it was moved to ‘Tier 0 – Scheme at risk’. This means the project can be advanced to the invitation of tenders however no construction contracts are to be let until letters of offer are received and/or other outstanding issues in relation to projects are satisfactorily resolved.

 

3.13   Members are asked to note that the Council has continued to work closely with DCAL, the IFA and Linfield in order to ensure successful development and delivery of the project in order to meet the tight programme timescale.  An update on the outstanding issues is outlined below.

 

1.     Confirmation in writing from DCAL of its £2.75m contribution to the project - Correspondence from DCAL in February 2014 confirms that their preferred option is for a Council led development at the new stadium. Several milestones are identified by DCAL that need to be met by 30 May 2014 to precipitate release of the £2.75m. This deadline allows IFA time to revise their project if agreement is not reached. DCAL plans to release a Funding Agreement in advance of this date for Council consideration. Members will be aware that there are no Committee meetings in May, so if the Council is to meet this deadline, a decision to proceed would be necessary now for ratification in April 2014. The majority of the pre-conditions closely reflect the conditions already placed on the project by Members, and include agreement with stakeholders on leasing, land and community benefits arrangements.  One of DCAL’s other pre-conditions relates to planning permission for the leisure facility. The Council has submitted designs for Phase 1 to Planning Service for approval. Members are asked to note that in order for this condition to be met in time, it would require consideration by the Town Planning Committee in April 2014, and that this is dependent on a decision from Planning Service prior to this date.

 

2.     Detailed land agreements with Linfield FC being resolved - Members are reminded that LFC is head landlord of the stadium where the Council proposes to lease a new facility, as well as land owners for Midgley Park which the Council proposes to relocate to allow for a new access boulevard. Heads of Agreement have been prepared in conjunction with Linfield FC based on a land swap between BCC and Linfield, provision of a 3G pitch to replace the existing pitch at Midgley Park, and a sum for LFC to provide a stand and changing facilities. The land swap involves the transfer of a portion of the Midgley Park site currently held by LFC to BCC and a simultaneous transfer of an area of BCC land to LFC. This swap will facilitate the realignment of both the Midgley Park site and the Council’s new sport pitches and allow for the development of the central access boulevard. Officers have had the cost benefit analysis of this proposal independently verified and confirmed as fair and equitable by Land & Property Services (LPS).  The Board of LFC met on 10 March and it has agreed to put the proposal before an EGM for LFC Members within two weeks to determine if they are in favour of the project.

 

3.     Maintenance and management agreements with Linfield being formally agreed - The proposal stipulates that LFC will own and manage the pitch and associated car parking which replaces the existing Midgley Park facility. LFC would also be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the facility. As an additional step to maximise the impact of this investment once the project is up and running, LFC has agreed to develop a Sports Development Plan which would give consideration to non-footballing outcomes for the wider community.

 

4.     Subleases and licences with the IFA being agreed -The new leisure facility is to be built adjacent to the west stand of the stadium and within the site curtilage held by IFA from Linfield.  The land is to be subleased from IFA who, in turn, lease the stadium from Linfield FC. This will be at a nil rental, for a period of 25 years with an option to extend up to 50 years. The appropriate Heads of Agreement have been prepared in conjunction with IFA, and are now being developed further by Legal Services and the IFA’s legal representatives. They remain subject to IFA Board ratification. The IFA Board is due to meet on 20^th March 2014 and Members will be updated at Committee of the outcome of this meeting.  In addition, the SP&R Committee previously agreed in principle (22^nd June 2012) for an access for the stadium construction traffic to the side of Olympia Leisure Centre onto Boucher Road subject to terms being brought back to Committee. It is proposed that a construction licence is granted at nil cost, which will continue at nil cost if the new leisure centre development proceeds and the access is shared. In the event that the leisure centre proposal does not proceed, a licence fee of £30,000 per annum would become payable. Other terms including reinstatement will be agreed between the parties.

 

5.     A mutually beneficial community benefits partnership with the IFA being agreed - A mutually beneficial community benefits partnership with the IFA being agreed – Over the last number of months, Council officers have been working with the IFA and DCAL to draft a partnership agreement to create the necessary conditions to deliver sustained city and community benefits.  This is to ensure that the stadium, leisure facilities and public realm are shared, safe and welcoming spaces for all.  It is proposed that both the Council and IFA would seek to reduce health inequalities in the city by encouraging and enabling more people to be more active, more often, whilst also contributing to government policy objectives, including the Department for Culture, Arts and Leisure’s mission statement to promote equality, and to tackle poverty and social exclusion. The proposed partnership agreement includes draft objectives and priority themes for action which are: community engagement, good relations and local outreach; health and participation; and economic and environmental regeneration.   In the first 5 years, the practical outcome sought from the implementation of the agreement is to realise 25,000 participation opportunities in the Belfast area, including at least 2,500 in the immediate (1 mile) vicinity of the stadium.  Some of these activities would include:

 

a)  Annual programme of stadium and small-sided games area activities (sports, heritage, environmental and arts based activities e.g. midnight soccer, ‘try-it’ events, schools programmes) to encourage participation in sports

 

b) Multi-sport initiatives with IRFU (Ulster Branch) and Ulster GAA including Game of 3 Halves; educational programmes; training events and workshops; and networking opportunities

 

c)  Youth programme focussed on inter-generational and inter-community relationship building with events on themes related to tolerance, heritage, community safety, contested space, volunteering and citizenship

 

         Detailed scoping on activities and SMART targets will be undertaken in the first 3 months of the agreement, including consultation and engagement with the relevant stakeholders and local communities.  The IFA is keen that the proposed partnership has a duration of 25 years, and the agreement itself would remain in effect for 10 years, followed by review in terms of programme delivery and contribution to costs.  Subsequent reviews would be undertaken as necessary in five year cycles to coincide with the term of the lease.  The IFA has written to the Council seeking a revenue contribution of up to £100k per annum over 10 years, for staff costs and programme costs.  Council officers have indicated that this is an ambitious contribution to the partnership agreement and is dependent upon nil rental for leisure facility and match revenue contribution from IFA.   Members are asked to determine a realistic financial contribution for the delivery of the community benefits partnership and authorise officers to develop and agree the appropriate delivery and partnership arrangements with the IFA, subject to legal advice. Members are asked to note the update in relation to community benefits with regard to Andersonstown at 3.16

 

         Andersonstown Regeneration

 

3.14   The project at Andersonstown will provide new leisure facilities at the site of the existing Leisure Centre. It will also include regeneration of the wider site for uses such as recreation and commerce. Discussions are also ongoing with other key providers in the area including the health trust to maximise the overall use of site and provide a centre that delivers the best outcomes for the local area. Three proposed design schematics have been drawn up and a period of intensive public engagement is now underway, with drop-in sessions organised (see 4.1 below) in order to gain as much feedback as possible on the design for the centre, what should be included etc set within the context of the budget and delivery programme.

 

3.15   The West Area Working Group recently took part in a workshop on site issues such as planning, as well as a thorough exploration of comparative projects elsewhere. A number of key points were agreed including the need to ensure the full potential of the project is delivered while minimising the impact on residents where possible; that the new facility should have a frontage along the Andersonstown Road; the potential for a commercial element to the project and a desire for a family centre, retaining the community feel of the existing centre. As part of this it was agreed that a series of best practice visits by Members (up to 2 Members per party group) would be undertaken to leisure facilities elsewhere to help inform the design development. Options for site visits are being investigated and could include visits to similar centres in Northern Ireland (Magherafelt), the Republic of Ireland (Drogheda) and Scotland (Glasgow) or a combination of these.

 

3.16   Members are asked to note that the correspondence received from DCLA (Feb 2014) has highlighted that the Department is keen to explore further opportunities in and around the Casement Park site in conjunction with the Council but highlights that arrangements between DCAL and the Council with regard to the wider investment in community facilities around Casement Park will need to be similar to those progressed for Windsor.  The pressing programme timeframe for Windsor required the Council to progress these discussions in advance however this will now be taken forward with DCAL and Members will be kept up to date in this regard.

 

3.17   Members are asked to note that the input received through the consultation process and any learning from best practice visits will be gathered and fed into the brief for the appointment of a design team in Spring 2014.  Further engagement with Members and the public will then take place on the concept design in Summer 2014, with an indicative date for the new site opening in 2017.

 

4.0     Capital Programmes – Communications and Events updates

 

4.1     Members are asked to note that a number of key events in relation to schemes under the Capital Programme are being held over the coming weeks.  Further details on these are in Appendix C.

 

·         Girdwood Hub – ‘Cutting the sod’ ceremony marking the start of construction of the Hub, to which all Members will be invited, is planned for Thursday 10th April. 

·         Connswater Community Greenway/East Belfast Flood Alleviation Scheme – Official opening of the Sam Thompson Bridge in Victoria Park is scheduled for Friday 4th April. 

·         Andersonstown Regeneration – 5  information sessions/ drop-in sessions being held between 20th March – 12th April in Andersonstown Leisure Centre, Kennedy Centre and at CastleCourt  

·         Annadale New MUGA–information session  on Monday 31st March in the Ormeau Park Bowling Pavilion (Park Avenue entrance) from 1.00pm-7.00pm

·         Pitches Investment – event planned to mark the investment in pitches (Pitches strategy and other pitches projects) provisionally scheduled for end of March however date to be confirmed.   Members will be updated on this.

 

5.0     Recommendations

 

5.1     Members are asked to note the contents of this report and

 

         Movements

 

-         City Hall Works - agree if the proposed City Hall Works project is progressed from ‘Stage 2 – Uncommitted’ to ‘Stage 3 – Committed’  and agree that this projects is advanced to the invitation of tenders, to be awarded on the basis of most economically advantageous tenders received and full commitment to deliver. It is proposed that this is moved to ‘Tier 0- Schemes at Risk’ as there are a number of outstanding issues to be resolved. Members are asked to note that the Director of Finance & Resources has recommended that up to £1.3million is the maximum amount available to this project given that some of the internal building works can be delivered in-house through the Property Maintenance Unit.  It is also recommended that an independent consultant is engaged for this work. Members are asked to note that no construction contracts for this project will be let until all outstanding project issues have been resolved. 

 

         Project Updates

 

Public Bike Share Scheme

 

-         agree to proceed to awarding the contract for Lot 1 of the Public Bike Share scheme, subject to the additional resources required for the capital construction being secured from DRD to allow the project to be implemented by March 2015

-         note the continuation of negotiations for the sponsorship with interested parties with a view to securing the optimal outcome and further approve the award of a sponsorship to the party(ies) who offer(s) the most economically advantageous sponsorship proposals

-         support the provision of revenue funding from central corporate budgets to meet the running cost deficits associated with the operation and maintenance of the Bike Share Scheme

 

Phase 1 – Leisure Transformation Programme – Olympia and Andersonstown

 

Olympia Regeneration  - Land and licence issues

 

-         approve the Council entering into a leasing arrangement with IFA in respect of the site of the proposed leisure facility, on the basis of a 25 year lease (with an option on the part of the Council to extend on the same terms for a period(s) up to a further 25 years) at nil rent subject to detailed terms being agreed by Estates Management and Legal Services.

-         Approve any associated legal agreements as required in relation to access arrangements for the boulevard

-         approve the grant of a construction access licence to IFA or their contractor at nil cost, which will continue at nil cost if the leisure centre proceeds and the access is shared.   In the event that the leisure centre proposal does not proceed, a licence fee of £30,000 per annum would become payable.  Other terms including reinstatement will be agreed between the parties.

-         approve the land swap between Council/Linfield whereby a portion of the Midgley Parks land will be transferred to BCC at nil cost and simultaneously an area of adjoining BCC land will be transferred to LFC at nil cost

-         approve the provision by the Council of a 3G pitch and associated parking to replace the existing Midgley Park pitch and a sum of £250,000 to provide a stand and changing facilities

-         any additional agreements as required between BCC, LFC and IFA to facilitate the construction and occupation of the leisure facility within the wider Olympia/Windsor Sports Village.

 

         Olympia Regeneration and Andersonstown - Community benefit 

 

-         determine a realistic financial contribution for the delivery of the community benefits partnership and authorise officers to develop and agree the appropriate delivery and partnership arrangements with the IFA, subject to legal advice

-         note that the correspondence received from DCAL has highlighted that the Department is keen to explore a range of opportunities in and around the Casement Park site  but highlights that any wider investment in community facilities around Casement Park would need to be similar to those drawn up for Windsor.  Members are asked to agree that officers progress discussions in relation to this with DCAL  

 

         Communication and Engagement – Capital Programme projects

 

-         Note the events updates in relation to the ‘cutting the sod’ ceremony at Girdwood Hub and the official opening of the Sam Thompson Bridge as part of the Connswater Community Greenway and the details for the information/drop-in sessions for Andersonstown regeneration and the Annadale new MUGA

 

5.0     Decision Tracking

 

         The Director of Property and Projects and the Director of Finance and Resources will oversee the implementation of the recommendations within this report.

 

6.0     Equality

        

         City Hall Works - it complies with the recommendations contained within the report entitled Equality Impact Assessment on Belfast City Hall: Promoting a Good and Harmonious Environment.

         Public Bike Share Scheme - Equality screening was carried out and there are no specific equality or good relations implications

 

         Phase 1 – Leisure Transformation Programme - A high level EQIA is currently being prepared for the LTP.  This will include capital investments and will be presented to SP&R in due course for its consideration.”

 

 

            Moved by Councillor Reynolds,

            Seconded by Alderman Campbell,

 

            That the Committee does not agree to progress the City Hall Works Project from Stage 2 – Uncommitted to Stage 3 – Committed in the Capital Programme. 

 

            On a vote by show of hands eight Members voted for the proposal and ten against and it was accordingly declared lost.

 

            The Committee accordingly agreed that the City Hall Works Project be progressed to Stage 3 on the terms as set out in paragraph 5.1

 

            The Committee adopted the remaining recommendations contained within the report, with the exception of that in relation to the Community benefit aspects of the Olympia Regeneration and Andersonstown Schemes to enable a deputation from the Committee to meet with representatives of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to discuss the matter further.

 

(Councillor Hargey in the Chair.)