BASINGSTOKE COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION
CAPITAL PROJECT COMMITTEE
Minutes of a Meeting held on Monday 15 December 2014 at 9.00am
Membership:
*
*
*
*
*
Phil Wilding
Anthony Bravo
Steve Fussey
Mike Howe
Lynne George
External Member
Principal
External Member
External Member
External Member
Chair
2 Members required
5 present at start
Meeting quorate
*
*
*
*
*
Simon Burrell
Hazel Jones
David Moir
Richard Burgess
Dominic Gaunt
Clerk to the Corporation (Clerk)
Head of Estates & Facilities (HEF)
Deputy Principal Finance & Resources (DPFR)
Design ACB (ACB)
Design ACB (ACB)
*
Present at meeting
Quorum:
In Attendance:
PART 1 – NON CONFIDENTIAL MINUTES
64.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE/WELCOME
None received.
Richard Burgess and Dominic Gaunt were welcomed to the meeting.
65.
CONSTRUCTION BLOCK PROJECT
The DPFR advised outlined a proposal to re-roof the Construction Block and to create a new
covered extension at the rear of the site for brickwork and storage etc, at a cost of £1.2m (incl VAT).
He advised further that he had sought financial assistance towards the project from the LEP (Local
Enterprise partnership) but they (the LEP) had not been interested in offering any support.
The ACB representative advised that a condition survey of the roof had shown that it would need to
be replaced within the next 5 years. There were also a number of problems associated with the
Construction Block, particularly that vehicle access around the rear of the block had very limited
visibility/bad sight lines, poor pedestrian links, insufficient workshop space, inadequate storage,
leaking roofs and a generally untidy appearance. He advised further that, following discussions with
staff, the HEF and DPFR a design brief had been established and proposals made.
The ACB representative gave Members a visual presentation on his initial proposals for
developments to the Block. They included a re-roof of the main building and the construction of an
extension to the rear the incorporated a brick workshop, storage, open and covered external working
space, vehicle access for deliveries, better vehicular access around the rear of the Block, and new
pedestrian walkways.
In response to a question from the Chair of the Ctte the DPFR confirmed that there had been a
number of discussions with staff, and plans drafted and reviewed. He advised that the plans would
enable the College to re-introduce brickwork courses to meet industry demand for these skills. In
response to a question he advised further that there were, currently, 8 learners undertaking
brickwork.
In response to a question from the Chair the ACB representative agreed to review the scheme to
consider the possibility of expansion with upper floors at a future date. He agreed to review the
matter. The DPFR stressed that the cost of preparatory works required to be undertaken to
accommodate such an expansion would be outside of the proposed budget and were not affordable.
The HEF advised that the proposed works would be undertaken over a 4 month period, with some
works being started in the Summer Term. She also advised that planning consent was due to be
sought in January 2015. When received, the structural design would be finalised, and tenders under
Stage E Design and Build would be issued in February 2015, with a return date in March 2015. She
stressed the tight time-frame involved if works were to commence before the summer holiday period.
The Chair of the Ctte sought clarification on the condition of the existing roof of the Construction
Block, and the proposed works for its replacement. The ACB representative advised that it was
anticipated the cost of the re-roofing would be £400k (plus VAT) and the extension works £600k
(plus VAT). The Ctte sought clarification on what alternatives had been considered for the
replacement roof systems, and questioned whether the contract should be broken-down into two
separate elements; the re-roof and the extension works. It was reported that the best option would
be for a single design and build process as there would be less risk involved. The Chair of the Ctte
suggested, though, that two specialist roofing manufacturers (Kingspan and Euroclad) be invited to
make their recommendations on the best options available to re-roof the Construction Block.
The Ctte adjourned to walk round the Construction Block and view the proposed works areas.
In resuming the meeting the Chair of the Ctte stressed that the deciding factor to the overall scheme
was the roof works. He suggested that a single main contractor could be invited to co-ordinate the
overall works.
The DPFR reminded the Ctte that the overall budget for the works was £1.2m (incl VAT). The
Corporation had agreed to a 10% contingency that would be used only with the approval of the
Capital project Ctte.
It was noted that a detailed structural design would need to be drawn-up and a clear specification
issued for the tendering process. The Chair of the Ctte and Steve Fussey were invited to be involved
in the drafting of the specification etc and to review the tender documentation.
(Richard Burgess and Dominic Gaunt left the meeting)
66.
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
The Chair of the Ctte made a declaration of interests. He advised that he had worked with Design
ACB through his professional connections.
67.
HEATING AND COOLING SCHEME: BLOCKS F & G
The DPFR advised that there was a need to consider some form of works to the heating and cooling
system in F Block, and that detailed design work had been undertaken. A high-tech solution had
been proposed that would be linked to the College’s BMS system. However, he felt that it was not a
compelling project and estimated costs were high at £1.4m (incl VAT).
The HEF advised that there were a number of issues with the BMS system and that it was currently
under review, especially with regards to its ability to do more on energy management matters.
The DPFR advised that there had to be a clear demonstration that the project was a sound financial
investment. He expressed his concern that funding could be spent and the results would not be as
anticipated. He advised further that F Block did have heating but that it was inadequate, there was
no cooling option and some rooms had stand-alone air conditioning units for the summer, while
others had additional electric heaters for colder periods.
The DPFR advised that visit to reference sites were required in order to see first-hand how the
system proposed operated and that it did deliver to the specification.
In response to a question the DPFR advised that the cladding works around G Block had eased the
pressure for heating works to be undertaken and so had been removed from the proposals for the
current time. This would be revisited after F Block.
The DPFR would report back to the Ctte at a future meeting.
68.
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Friday 13 February 2015 @ 9.00am
(10.07am Meeting closed)