In accordance with procedure rules, this report seeks Cabinet approval for the proposed method of procurement and the basis of tender evaluation in connection with the proposed major improvements to Southport Pier and the delegated authority for acceptance of the most advantageous bids received.

Recommendation(s)

1. Approve the proposed method of procurement and evaluation as set out within the report.

2. Authorise Head of Investment & Employment to accept the most advantageous bid received in each instance if a successful grant offer is received.

3. Subject to 2 above, authorise the Head of Regulation and Compliance to enter into contracts with the successful contractors if a successful grant offer is received.

4. The scheme to be included in the capital programme for 2017/18 that will be presented to Council on 2 March 2017 if the grant is approved.

5. Note the provision made within the existing pier contingency fund for works proposed of this nature

6. It be noted that the proposal was a Key Decision but had not been included in the Council's Forward Plan of Key Decisions. Consequently, the Leader of the Council and the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Regeneration & Skills has been consulted under Rule 27 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules of the Constitution, to the decision being made by the Cabinet as a matter of urgency on the basis that it was impracticable to defer the decision until the commencement of the next Forward Plan because of the lead in time required if a grant offer is received.

Reasons for the Recommendation:

Cabinet approval is required to comply with the Council’s procedure rules. The recommendations will support the receipt of the most competitive tenders for the proposed works and permit the project to progress in accordance with identified programme requirements subject to a grant offer being received.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

All appropriate design and technical options have been considered during the scheme development and it is believed that the final proposals which have received planning and listed building consents represent the most appropriate solution.

What will it cost and how will it be financed?

(A) Revenue Costs
There are no revenue implications attached to this report.

(B) Capital Costs
£2,875,557. An application for external funding of £1.9 million has been submitted to the Coastal Communities Fund with the remainder to be funded from the existing Pier Sinking Fund and S106 should the bid be approved.

Capital
Coastal Community Fund
£1,940,000
Bid submitted


Pier Contingency Fund
£900,557
Funding in place*


S106
£35,000
Funding in place
Capital Total


£2,875,557

The Pier contingency fund will total £807k on 1 April 17, a further £50k will be added to the fund in March 2018 and 2019 giving a total of £907k available for capital match.

Implications:

The following implications of this proposal have been considered and where there are specific implications, these are set out below:

Impact of the Proposals on Service Delivery:

Completion of the Southport Pier project will safeguard the future of the country’s oldest and second longest seaside pier, increase the range and quality of the pier’s facilities available for visitors and increase the revenue to the Council that is generated by the Pier.

What consultations have taken place on the proposals and when?

The Head of Corporate Resources (FD4483/17) and Head of Regulation and Compliance (LD 3766/17) have been consulted and any comments have been incorporated into the report.

Implementation Date for the Decision

Following the expiry of the “call-in” period for the Minutes of the Cabinet Meeting


Contact Officer: Mark Catherall Tel: 0151 934 2315
Email: mark.catherall@sefton.gov.uk

Background Papers:

None

What restoration is actually required?

Can't we just sell it? then we have little
liability and revenue coming in from
rates etc.
Some places I'm told have fires.???????

It's only a couple of years since millions were spent on a refurb, if it requires more millions we should let nature take its path.

Wouldn't regular maintenance be the cheaper and better option?

Originally Posted by pedoja

What restoration is actually required?

They are building stairways from the beach to the pier and replacing the shelters with cafes/retail outlets. I'm sure the proposals were publicised on here.

Wouldn't regular maintenance be the cheaper and better option?

Regular maintenance is carried out.

The pier has £100,000 worth of maintenance every year.

Just reading the article, one has to ask how many departments
of pen pushers and quangos has this gone through to get here.
What a lot of money money has been spent to date and thats
before we open a tin of paint.

Originally Posted by mike1979

The pier has £100,000 worth of maintenance every year.

Don't know who told you that but it's £250 k over five years.

Originally Posted by Ric

Don't know who told you that but it's £250 k over five years.

It came from a FOI which confirms between 2004 and 2014 just over 1 million was spent maintaining the pier. £100,000 is the average over that time.

Originally Posted by mike1979

It came from a FOI which confirms between 2004 and 2014 just over 1 million was spent maintaining the pier. £100,000 is the average over that time.

It gets £50k a year ring fenced to be spent every five years or earlier if needed. Maybe that amount included the £330 000 for the tram.

Originally Posted by ausard2

What a lot of money money has been spent to date and thats
before we open a tin of paint.

Go on then, enlighten us as to how much has been spent on this to date?

And how would you do it differently?

Well firstly education is a helpful, to date I would on the lower
end of guesstimates use a number of 15, 000 but that is
lower end.
Hey, that for how many departments to sit around and just discuss the issue.
Do not be too concerned , because a hospital elsewhere
has just exposed the cost of a roller blind. £23 in a store
price to hospital £ 850. some plonker pays the bill. DOOH
can't think ,hey this seems a little expensive.

Originally Posted by pedoja

Wouldn't regular maintenance be the cheaper and better option?

Ever since the restoration of the Pier, people have been suggesting regular
maintenance, to the DEAF EARS of our Councillors.

Now its once again going to cost megga bucks to restore something that should have been maintained on a regular basis and simply because once again, our elected representative, would not and do not
listen

It should have been rebuilt in concrete and hard wood years ago. This is commonly seen on the east coast of the USA and it looks fine and weathers very well.