MINUTE of EAST RENFREWSHIRE COUNCIL
Minute of meeting held at 5.00pm in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Giffnock on 11 December 2024.

EASTWOOD HEADQUARTERS REFURBISHMENT – UPDATE

1078 Under reference to the Minute of the meeting of 13 December 2023 (Page 707, Item
694 refers) when proposals regarding modernisation works at Eastwood Headquarters,
Giffnock had been approved, the Council considered a report by the Director of Environment providing an update on the project.

It was clarified that the structure of the building was sound, but that much of its core infrastructure was obsolete, life expired and/or in an unsatisfactory condition, creating a threat to business continuity or service provision if left unmanaged and requiring the building to be upgraded to extend its useful life.

The report commented on a range of related issues, including employee welfare facilities in the building, the planned relocation of staff from Spiersbridge to the building and related implications.

Having referred to updated cost projections following an invasive survey and other
developments and opportunities identified, the report clarified that to deliver fully the originally desired outcomes would require the approved budget of £4.86m to increase to £7.20m.

Against this background, 4 options for proceeding were summarised together with the related budgetary requirements of each, the recommended course of action being to approve Option 4 which involved a reduced schedule of works and aimed to reach a reasonable compromise between outcomes and available resource.

Whilst Option 4 would incur a significant increase in budget of £1.30m, that investment remained £1.04m below the increased cost of delivering the whole project as originally envisaged.

It would deliver many originally envisaged benefits and a revenue costs saving, extend the life of the building for at least 20 years, and much improve the working environment for the increased number of staff to be based in the building.

Subject to approval of the proposal, it was estimated that work would start on site during the summer of 2025 and be completed in early 2026.

The programme would be subject to final agreement on designs and any works additionally discovered upon commencement on site.

Further updates would be provided to the Governance Board, Corporate Management Team
and Elected Members periodically on progress and issues of interest.

Councillor Ireland referred to concerns she had expressed previously on costs, acknowledged the need for some work to be done, but confirmed she held concerns regarding the proposed increased expenditure when other projects were not proceeding.

She welcomed clarification provided on the reduced work to be done on the Council Chamber, and also that updates to Elected Members were to be provided moving forward.

In response to issues raised by her, the Head of Environment (Housing and Property) confirmed that Hub West Scotland would be involved in the project and, regarding the £0.6m contingency provision for the project, highlighted that the project costs were now more certain than at the end of 2023, given the current stage of the project.

In reply to Councillor Bamforth, the Chief Executive confirmed that approval of Option 4 would allow infrastructure work on the Council Chamber to be completed.

Subsequently, it would be for the full Council to decide if further cosmetic work on it was to be done, if it wished, at some stage in future.

Councillor Ireland highlighted that an original aim had been to develop the
Chamber into a more flexible space that could be used more.

Councillor Wallace highlighted that, as for some other projects, the costs had increased from those anticipated and approved originally.

In response to him, Councillor O’Donnell referred to the project’s complexity, the age of the building and its current infrastructure on which there had been underinvestment, potential unknowns, and related challenges of managing such
issues without allocating an unacceptable level of contingency to the project.

He highlighted that, in contrast to what would be considered acceptable in the public sector, it was common for changes to be made to such projects in the private sector, but also for more funds to be invested in maintaining buildings in that sector on an ongoing basis.

Having heard the Chief Executive confirm that issues raised on the condition of the building had been accepted, the Head of Environment (Housing and Property) provided an update on work now underway in terms of the Capital Strategy to address such issues going forward.

Amongst other things, he referred to the need to be more up front on potential costs, expressed the view that the costs approved for this project had been optimistic, and highlighted that no guarantees could be given on costs until the latter stages of projects.

He also commented on the importance of controlling issues which were under the Council’s control, issues such as inflation and market conditions being out with those.

Further in response to Councillor Wallace, the Director of Environment confirmed that the costs specified in the report for Option 1 were for delivering the original project.

Councillor Wallace highlighted various issues, including the almost unanimous support for proceeding with this option in December 2023, the lack of progress on making the building fit for purpose, and concerns he held that the project costs could change again.

He suggested that a further option was to proceed with Option 1, but to develop funding proposals which could include using financial resources available to the Council following a reduction in employer contributions to the Strathclyde Pension Fund and take account of any overall budgetary underspend by the Council for the current financial year.

Councillor Morrison expressed support for this approach, commenting on a range of matters, including the issues identified through the detailed survey and lack of space within the building at present for collaboration.

In response to Councillor Edlin who proposed some form of inquiry on the project, the Chief Executive stressed that it was not uncommon for project costs to exceed those approved initially.

Supported by the Head of Environment (Housing and Property), he emphasised that
the professionalism of officers involved in the project thus far was not being questioned.

Whilst commenting on the proposals within the report, Councillor Buchanan expressed
support for Option 4, taking account of a range of issues, including the outcome of the detailed survey and importance of bringing the infrastructure of the building up to standard.

Adjournment

The Provost adjourned the meeting for a short period to allow some discussion amongst the Group Leaders to take place on the way forward, taking account of issues raised during discussion.

On the reconvening of the Council, Councillor O’Donnell confirmed that all of the political Group Leaders shared disappointment that the original vision could not be delivered, acknowledged the issues raised by Councillor Wallace which were considered fair, and referred to political alignment on the importance of delivering a good working environment for staff.

He added that support had been expressed for approving Option 4.

The Council:-

(a) approved increasing the Eastwood Headquarters refurbishment budget allocation by £1.3m to £6.16m;

(b) approved the reduced scope of the works as set out in Option 4, and
described in paragraphs 19, 20 and 21, of the report; and

(c) agreed that the refurbishment works at Eastwood Headquarters proceed