Agenda item

To receive a presentation by the Stevenage Regeneration Team, outlining plans for SG1 following the appointment of MACE as the Regeneration Delivery Partner in February 2018.

The presentation will also outline the implications for the Swingate House CCTV Control Room.

The Committee received a presentation from the Stevenage Regeneration Team that outlined the plans for the SG1 Development following the appointment of MACE as the Stevenage Regeneration Delivery Partner in February 2018.

The scheme submitted by the preferred development partner, MACE, had timetabled the demolition of Swingate House (the location of the CCTV Control Room) in the first phase of work.  It was therefore necessary to relocate the Control Room.  The cost of the relocation would be met by Stevenage Borough Council (SBC)

Relocation in alternative SBC owned buildings and privately owned accommodation had been considered but it was noted that partner authorities might wish for other site options to be considered. 

It was suggested that whilst Herts Constabulary had indicated that there was insufficient space to relate the control room at the Stevenage Police Station, the Headquarters in Welwyn might be a possible alternative.  Officers agreed to make relevant enquiries.

Officers outlined what they believed to be the technical requirements in terms of relocation but following a number of questions from Members it was accepted that detailed technical advice was required to fully understand what options could be realistically considered including relocation outside of Stevenage.

Members expressed concern that to successfully relocate the control room with minimum downtime and disruption, a 12 month timetable was ambitious.  Officers explained that the detailed contract with MACE had not yet been signed and so there could be flexibility with the timelines.

In response to questions raised by Members as to why the Joint CCTV Executive had not been consulted at an earlier stage regarding the relocation, Officers explained that the timetable was dependent upon which developer’s bid was successful.  The detailed proposals from some of the bidders had the demolition of Swingate House timetabled for 2021, therefore it was only when MACE were confirmed as the preferred bidder, was the 2019 demolition date confirmed.  Whilst the decision as to the preferred bidder had not been taken until the end of January, Officers apologised that the Joint Executive had not been consulted at an earlier stage.

Members were of the view that this had been very unsatisfactory and had led to serious concerns regarding the operation of the Partnership.  However, it was accepted that the proposed governance review would address these issues.

In response to a Member’s question Officers stated that if the costs of relocation of the Control Room was more than the £1 million budget secured SBC would seek to ensure that there was sufficient capital allocation for the work to proceed.

It was concluded that any further consideration regarding the relocation of the Control Room was dependent upon technical information regarding the specifications for connectivity, capacity, broadband speed etc.  Therefore external technical advice would be sought with the report then circulated to all Members.  Detailed discussions should take place at the Officer Management Board who would also consider the report in relation to options for relocation put forward by Partners and a protocol for the decision making for the relocation.

Officers again apologised for the turn of events and stated that they would work with partners to resolve the situation as swiftly as possible.

It was RESOLVED that an external consultant’s report be commissioned as soon as possible into the technical requirements for the successful relocation of the Control Room from Swingate House.  This report to be circulated to all Members, with initial discussion on the report being undertaken by the CCTV Officer Management Board who will also consider options for relocation put forward by Partners in the light of the technical advice.

Reasons for Decision: To ensure that the relevant technical advice is available when considering the relocation of the Control Room.

Other Options Considered: None

The Committee received a presentation from the Stevenage Regeneration Team that outlined the plans for the SG1 Development following the appointment of MACE as the Stevenage Regeneration Delivery Partner in February 2018.

The scheme submitted by the preferred development partner, MACE, had timetabled the demolition of Swingate House (the location of the CCTV Control Room) in the first phase of work.  It was therefore necessary to relocate the Control Room.  The cost of the relocation would be met by Stevenage Borough Council (SBC)

Relocation in alternative SBC owned buildings and privately owned accommodation had been considered but it was noted that partner authorities might wish for other site options to be considered. 

It was suggested that whilst Herts Constabulary had indicated that there was insufficient space to relate the control room at the Stevenage Police Station, the Headquarters in Welwyn might be a possible alternative.  Officers agreed to make relevant enquiries.

Officers outlined what they believed to be the technical requirements in terms of relocation but following a number of questions from Members it was accepted that detailed technical advice was required to fully understand what options could be realistically considered including relocation outside of Stevenage.

Members expressed concern that to successfully relocate the control room with minimum downtime and disruption, a 12 month timetable was ambitious.  Officers explained that the detailed contract with MACE had not yet been signed and so there could be flexibility with the timelines.

In response to questions raised by Members as to why the Joint CCTV Executive had not been consulted at an earlier stage regarding the relocation, Officers explained that the timetable was dependent upon which developer’s bid was successful.  The detailed proposals from some of the bidders had the demolition of Swingate House timetabled for 2021, therefore it was only when MACE were confirmed as the preferred bidder, was the 2019 demolition date confirmed.  Whilst the decision as to the preferred bidder had not been taken until the end of January, Officers apologised that the Joint Executive had not been consulted at an earlier stage.

Members were of the view that this had been very unsatisfactory and had led to serious concerns regarding the operation of the Partnership.  However, it was accepted that the proposed governance review would address these issues.

In response to a Member’s question Officers stated that if the costs of relocation of the Control Room was more than the £1 million budget secured SBC would seek to ensure that there was sufficient capital allocation for the work to proceed.

It was concluded that any further consideration regarding the relocation of the Control Room was dependent upon technical information regarding the specifications for connectivity, capacity, broadband speed etc.  Therefore external technical advice would be sought with the report then circulated to all Members.  Detailed discussions should take place at the Officer Management Board who would also consider the report in relation to options for relocation put forward by Partners and a protocol for the decision making for the relocation.

Officers again apologised for the turn of events and stated that they would work with partners to resolve the situation as swiftly as possible.

It was RESOLVED that an external consultant’s report be commissioned as soon as possible into the technical requirements for the successful relocation of the Control Room from Swingate House.  This report to be circulated to all Members, with initial discussion on the report being undertaken by the CCTV Officer Management Board who will also consider options for relocation put forward by Partners in the light of the technical advice.

Reasons for Decision: To ensure that the relevant technical advice is available when considering the relocation of the Control Room.

Other Options Considered: None