Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
megilleland

It never rains, but it pours at Plough Lane office

Recommended Posts

Urgent improvement roof works at Plough Lane Head office

Decision to award the contract to carry out maintenance and improvement works to plough lane roof

To award the contract to carry out the urgent improvement roof works at Plough Lane Head office through the expenditure of the 2018/19 capital maintenance budget.

The reasons to award the contract to carry out the improvement roof works at Plough Lane offices through the BBLP public realm contract are:-

(a) The estimate of 249K for the works was provided by Integral (Hereford) Ltd, the council's current provider within an agreed delivery timeframe, however the current maintenance contract with them is due to finish by 1st September. BBLP have been awarded the maintenance and cleaning contract from the 1st September and in order to address the urgency to carry out the work before winter the most expedient course of action is to appoint BBLP to carry out he works through the existing public realm contract.

(b) there is rain water ingress through the roof   that is causing damage to the finishes within the building

(c) water ingress damage is causing disruption to services every time it rains

(d) the water ingress is causing deterioration to the building fabric which will lead to greater cost and losses in the medium to long term if the issue is not resolved and will also ultimately render the building no longer fit for its intended purpose

Given the nature of the ingress problem equality issues in respect of the working environment have been taken into account.

The contract with Integral is due to finish by 1st September and therefore they cannot deliver the works hence BBLP is being asked to take on the works through the public realm contract. Timescale for completion is to be agreed and may run into periods of inclement weather.

Details of any alternative options considered and rejected:    
Alternative option —do nothing.
This has been discounted as there is water damage to the finishes within the building and disruption to services every time it rains as well as deterioration to the building fabric leading to greater cost and losses.

Instigate patch repair.
This will not provide a comprehensive resolution to the problem and may lead to greater deterioration of the roof in the longer term.

The cost implication of not completing the work is potentially further damage to the buildings fabric and interior therefore adding to cost overheads. Service delivery will also be affected.

Haven't they already spent a large sum of money on this office?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Replacement of roofs over Units 1-6 Tarsmill Court, Rotherwas, Hereford

Purpose:
To seek approval to release capital funds set aside in the approved budget for the financial year 2018/19 and undertake replacement of defective roofs over units 1 – 6 Tarsmill Court, Rotherwas via an appropriate contractor procured and appointed through the council’s competitive tendering process.


Decision:

That:

(a) replacement of defective roof over units 1 – 6 Tarsmill Court, Rotherwas  be undertaken within a budget of £400k; and

(b) the works are procured from an appropriate contractor via open tender to ensure that best value is obtained.

Alternative options considered:

1. Do nothing.  The existing roofs leak extensively and are causing significant disruption and damage to the two business tenants of the units.  Both have threatened to leave and to sue the council for financial loss caused by water penetration damaging machinery and goods and loss of business.  If the tenants leave, current rental income of £61k will be lost, the units will be difficult to re-let in their current condition and the value of the council’s investment property portfolio will be reduced.

2. Dispose of the freehold interest in the units, selling as seen in their current condition. This would shift responsibility for improving the units to the new owner but the capital value achievable would be depressed due to the condition of the roof.  It would also lead to the loss of the regular rental income stream which the council invests in delivery of local services.

3. Use existing contractor to carry out work. The cost estimate is higher than the threshold for both the existing Integral maintenance contract or the new BBLP contract so open tender is the most appropriate method of procurement and will be managed by the design and maintenance team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just know how this little slice of joy is going to work out don't you! God help us I say. Their preferred provider will throw up some scaffolding, swarm the roof with clip boards, hard hats and bloody yellow vests, spend ages piddling about and when nobody is looking, they'll tip fifty gallons of liquid sealant purchased from the firm who laid the High Town Block Paving onto the Clown-Cil roof, sweep it about, and then after they've popped downstairs and told the suits it'll cost a lot more than was first thought, they'll walk away confident that the next Monsoon will see them back on the bloody roof and heralded once again as their Preferred Provider because the water is still pouring in and soiling all our bloody Council Tax demands that read, 'Pay Us. Pay Us Now Or Else'.

And when it's all gone wrong again, and it bloody will, it'll be lessons have been learned and our once uPreferred Provider who buggared the job up ain't no longer our first choice Preferred Provider as they once were before the public were shafted out of another big lump of public money.

Then, to make your testicals twitch a little more, the hierarchy within Plough Lane will call upon a recently departed CLOWN-CIL Director who's gone self employed to advise Local Authorities on how to provide value for money. Thereafter, after piddling about, not lifting up stones and ignoring the bloody obvious, he'll announce, 'Plough Lane Is Clean' 'Best Practices' have been employed, value for money has been attained, global warming is to blame for the monsoon, sack the bloody tea lady because her eyes are to close together for my liking and round and round we go again shifting from one self inflicted fiscal disaster to the next one.

Well, it'll be something like that!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bravo b47.

Just 4 years ago, they spent £4m on Plough Lane and £3m on the Shire Hall, plus unspecified amounts on the Bath Street offices (now apparently needing £3.4m to be spent for the Uni) and the Bulmers Lab (Nelson House) plus of course £2m on Blueschool House.

Back in the day when Herefordshire Council wasn’t infested with self-serving managers in cahoots with preferred providers and looked after itself reasonably well, when building work was required, it went down the time proven route of inviting builders to tender and all costs were managed by an independent Quantity Surveyor. It wasn’t perfect, but it worked. Now it seems (in fact we know, following Blueschool House) that there are no controls in place and contractors seemingly charge whatever they think they can get away with. In the wake of Blueschool House, I asked why were the costs not being independently analysed by a Quantity Surveyor to see if we were getting what we were paying for ('best value' in their speak)- I had no response. It does not cost £250k to fix a bloody roof! We are being robbed - Councillors, do something about it!!

Edited by twowheelsgood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather they spend money on repairing whatever is wrong with the Town Hall,I mean what the hell is going on there?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fairly certain that there was some working done on the roof of the plough lane offices?…exactly what work was carried out up on there I'm not sure of?…maybe Megilleland can dig out this information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, megilleland said:

Replacement of roofs over Units 1-6 Tarsmill Court, Rotherwas, Hereford

Purpose:
To seek approval to release capital funds set aside in the approved budget for the financial year 2018/19 and undertake replacement of defective roofs over units 1 – 6 Tarsmill Court, Rotherwas via an appropriate contractor procured and appointed through the council’s competitive tendering process.


Decision:

That:

(a) replacement of defective roof over units 1 – 6 Tarsmill Court, Rotherwas  be undertaken within a budget of £400k; and

(b) the works are procured from an appropriate contractor via open tender to ensure that best value is obtained.

Alternative options considered:

1. Do nothing.  The existing roofs leak extensively and are causing significant disruption and damage to the two business tenants of the units.  Both have threatened to leave and to sue the council for financial loss caused by water penetration damaging machinery and goods and loss of business.  If the tenants leave, current rental income of £61k will be lost, the units will be difficult to re-let in their current condition and the value of the council’s investment property portfolio will be reduced.

2. Dispose of the freehold interest in the units, selling as seen in their current condition. This would shift responsibility for improving the units to the new owner but the capital value achievable would be depressed due to the condition of the roof.  It would also lead to the loss of the regular rental income stream which the council invests in delivery of local services.

3. Use existing contractor to carry out work. The cost estimate is higher than the threshold for both the existing Integral maintenance contract or the new BBLP contract so open tender is the most appropriate method of procurement and will be managed by the design and maintenance team.

Why does the council put it will be done within a budget of £400k?…surly it would be wise to get the quotes in first before letting potential bidders know what the budget is beforehand?

im guessing these roofs are covered with roof metal sheeting? Which are not that difficult to take off & replace so again this money to do the works seem like it will be a very lucrative  contract for whoever gets it?

Edited by Cambo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I see the figure of £249K in any context, I put on my Dudley Moore nasal voice and say: " 'ello (sniff-sniff). Fu...nny!" Who do these people think they are fooling ffs? 

The council's prestigious Plough Lane Palace was originally the purpose-built headquarters and heart of the Bulmers empire. It was no architectural masterpiece, I grant you, but no expense was spared on its construction or fitting out. Since they acquired it, HC has been throwing money at it, internally and externally. So the news that close on a quarter of a million pounds now needs to be spent on fixing a leak in the roof makes me wonder whether "...there is something rotten in the state of Denmark."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am full of admiration for Ragwert's investigative skills, but if Colin has any more job vacancies I think he should appoint Cambo as this site's Roofing Cost Consultant

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×