Issue - meetings

Report of the Head of Highways and Public Protection

The Cabinet considered the report of the Head of Highways and Public Protection that sought approval for the Chief Legal and Democratic Officer, in consultation with the Head of Highways and Public Protection, to:

(a)       enter into an agreement to purchase the depot currently used to deliver the winter gritting service (winter service facility), located at Heysham Road, Netherton from the existing term maintenance contractor; and

(b)       agree an extension to the existing contract.

The report highlighted that the facility had replaced the previous Council owned facility which was no longer fit for purpose as it did not meet the requirements of the Council’s statutory duty and could now be disposed of.

Decision Made:         That

(1)       the Chief Legal and Democratic Officer, in consultation with the Head of Highways and Public Protection, be authorised to enter into an agreement to purchase the winter service facility located at Heysham Road, Netherton from the existing term maintenance contractor, Graysons H&E Services, as detailed within the report;

(2)       the Chief Legal and Democratic Officer, in consultation with the Head of Highways and Public Protection, be authorised to vary the existing contract to include a 20% reduction in tendered rates, as agreed with the existing contractor and extended the existing winter service contract for a period of 4 years. Provision for this extension was included within the existing contract; and

(3)       the Head of Corporate Resources, in consultation with the Head of Highways and Public Protection, be authorised to dispose of the Council owned site of the former winter facility on Damfield Lane, Maghull, in accordance with the Council’s Asset disposal policy.

Reasons for the Decision:

The purchase of the facility will save revenue funding over the remaining 9 years of the existing contract and allow the Council to consider alternative methods of procuring or providing the statutory winter service after that point, including bringing the service in-house.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

The alternative is not to purchase the facility and therefore not take advantage of the revenue rate reductions offered by the contractor. Furthermore, at the completion of the existing contract, the Council will have to re-procure the contract to include the provision of a winter facility, thus potentially paying for the facility twice.

Based on the above and the financial analysis contained within the report, the “do nothing” option would place the Council in an adverse financial position due to the need to contract its own facility and fail to take advantage of the 20% revenue savings.

A further option would be for the Council to build its own facility at the end of the contract which would be excessively expensive in comparison to the proposed recommendation in this report.