Agenda item

Committee considered a report which provided an update on completed schemes, schemes currently being delivered and pipeline sites.

The completed schemes showed both evidence of delivery and income to the Council. DDL had projects scheduled for delivery across the next two years and were also supporting a neighbouring authority that had been affected by the collapse of Robert Woodhead Ltd. (RWL).

A Member queried the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) in relation to the Rood Lane site. The officer explained there was a small plot of land outside of the curtilage of the main site which was required as part of the scheme – a number of enquiries had been made and officers were now looking to finalise a CPO for the plot.

A Member noted that DDL was aiming to complete work for other authorities, and he queried the expected duration of the schemes and whether there was sufficient capacity to deliver for other organisations on top of delivery for the Council. The officer noted that the current scheme being delivered was due to complete in early 2024. Delivery of Bolsover Homes sites remained the number one priority but there was capacity for the company to deliver other schemes elsewhere. While DDL was not actively seeking additional work, there was scope to deliver more.

A Member queried the time frame being attributed to the current pipeline sites identified in the report. The officer noted that it was difficult to define a clear rigid time frame as currently the company had found the need to be flexible and alter scheduled works where an urgent scheme was identified. For example, the company had initially dealt with sites in progress affected by the RWL collapse. DDL management were open to look at opportunities as they arose and adjust the planned work programme if there was a clear benefit in completing other projects. An example of this was the development of the new crematorium in Shirebrook which was now being taken on by DDL.

A Member queried an open-book methodology, opposed to a closed-book methodology. Officers confirmed that normally companies delivering projects such as this would operate under a closed-book system whereby the contractor set the cost for a project and where they delivered for less than anticipated, make more profit, or conversely where the total cost was more than expected, they could incur a loss, if additional charges could not be passed on to the client.

Open-book was where the contractual parties were totally open about the project procurement and worked together to deliver what the client wanted. Where this happened, there was more likelihood of a project being delivered on time and on budget. In this case the contractor was open about the profit margin. To reduce risk to the Council, and as DDL was a young company, it had been agreed that open book was the preferred methodology to use.

A Member queried if future reports could include cost details or associated risks registers. The officer noted that some of the cost information may be commercially sensitive and would not be included in a public report, however, detail on risks could be.

In response to a Member’s query, the Chief Executive advised that the Shareholder Board was now set up and could report on the Terms of Reference, remit, and ongoing work programme to a future Scrutiny meeting.

In response to a Member’s query regarding membership of the Shareholder Board, the Chief Executive Officer confirmed these were the three statutory officers of the Council, the Portfolio Holders for Housing, Growth, and Corporate Performance and Governance and the programme manager/support officer.

In response to the Member’s query regarding a scrutiny Member or opposition member to be part of the Shareholder Board, the Monitoring Officer clarified that the Shareholder Board was not a decision-making group and would report to the Executive. However, reports from the Shareholder Board would be taken to Scrutiny.

Moved by Councillor Tom Kirkham and Councillor Will Fletcher

RESOLVED that the update be noted.