Agenda item

In accordance with Section 100B 4 (b) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Chairman approved consideration of this item as agenda item B1 as a matter of urgency to avoid further delay of implementation.

1. The Chairman invited Antony Hook, one of the call-in members, to provide the reasons for the call-in. Mr Hook outlined his primary concern as the financial implications of withdrawing the sale of Sessions House and instead disposing of Invicta House. He argued that Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) was an insufficient justification for the decision and questioned the administration’s prioritisation of short- term savings in light of the long- term financial risks of retaining Sessions House as KCC’s permanent strategic headquarters. These risks included the heightened financial burden on any future strategic authority, the costs of red and amber rated repairs to Sessions House and the abortive costs arising from withdrawing the sale.

2. Alister Brady, one of the other call- in members, raised accessibility concerns for staff and visitors at Sessions House, highlighting the cost required to achieve the necessary standards possibly exceeding £2.5 million. He also emphasised the contrast between the spend required to ensure KCC meets accessibility and maintenance standards for a temporary 2-year period and the greater potential costs of ensuring Sessions House as a safe and sustainable working environment in the long term. He referred to the Bidwells survey carried out on Sessions House and requested further information to be provided on where funding would be allocated to carry out necessary repairs. 

3. The Deputy Leader, Brian Collins, assured the Committee that the decision had been taken after careful consideration of both advantages and disadvantages. He emphasised that delays in implementing the decision would result in continued holding costs for Invicta House, estimated at £700 per day. A key consideration was the uncertainty posed by LGR to long-term planning, which led to a strategic re-direction to achieve immediate savings. He also confirmed that £4 million had been allocated to address repairs required for a historic building such as Sessions House and stated that referring the decision to full Council would incur an additional cost of approximately £21,000 per month.

4. In response to questions and comments from Members, discussion covered the following:

a)    Rebecca Spore, Director of Infrastructure, confirmed that the Bidwells condition surveys, that had independently estimated £20 million cost for red and amber repairs to Sessions House were conducted in 2023. She established many elements were subject to change and that several factors relating to day-to-day operations had influenced the figures within the report. Work to achieve these repairs would be required to go through the traditional procurement process.

b)    Considering the uncertainty surrounding the impact of LGR and future pricing parameters, Mr Collins stressed the need for short- term decision- making pending further clarification on these issues.

c)    According to the Bidwells survey rating system, a red rating indicated an item had failed or was in immediate danger of failing within the next year; an amber rating indicated a risk of failure if not dealt with within 3 years and a green rating posed a risk of failure outside of that time period. Mrs Spore emphasised that the actual lifespans could differ and the most accurate assessment of conditions and the £20 million estimation would require the Bidwells Survey to be brought up to date. Further granularity on the Bidwell’s assessment could be provided outside of the Committee.

d)    It was confirmed that the decision had been through all the necessary governance procedures.

e)    Mrs Spore outlined the steps taken to address accessibility through staff consultation at Sessions House which included inviting staff to review proposed plans and provide feedback, and the engagement of officers with the Level Playing Field group throughout implementation. She also explained the accessibility adjustments that had been made to offset some of the building’s historic structural limitations, including signage, door opening changes, layout plans, fire evacuation refugees and a bookable desks for staff. It was highlighted that alongside these adjustments it would be necessary for management action to be put in place. Finally, it was acknowledged that the accessibility in relation to physical measures at Sessions House would be limited by the historic nature of the building and the resources available. Engagement remains ongoing but at the date of the meeting no formal complaints had been received in relation to the adjustments that had been made.

f)     The £2.5 million referenced in the report for accessibility improvements was accounted for within the £4 million allocated to invest in condition issues and reasonable accessibility changes, for example lift upgrades.

g)    Mr Collins asserted that it was not prudent to commit to the £14 million of upgrades required at Invicta House, considering the uncertainty surrounding LGR. In response to a question regarding options that included the disposal of both Sessions House and Invicta House, Mr Collins confirmed that this was considered as part of the business cases that had been prepared but there was still an operational requirement at this time.

h)    Certain repairs had taken place since the Bidwells survey as part of decant and compliance works, examples including roof repairs, emergency lighting and fire doors.

i)     An itemised list of amber rated repairs currently requiring immediate action had not been identified at this stage but could be provided upon its availability. Work was underway to define the scope of those repairs, balancing addressing urgent issues within the building and the need to retain capital for future requirements to maintain the standard of ‘warm, safe and dry’ across Sessions House.

j)     Subject to the implementation of the decision, KCC staff and visitors would have access to allocated parking spaces in Albert Street and parking associated with Sessions House, but not Invicta House. However, the financial modelling included provision for alternative parking equivalent to the current capacity of Invicta House.

k)    KCC had an annual reserve across its entire capital programme to cover abortive costs, but this was not allocated to individual projects. A financial contribution was made annually to this reserve but if this was insufficient, there would be a review as part of the annual reserves review process.

5. Following the questions, the Chairman welcomed comments and views from the Committee about the call-in. These included:

a)    It was suggested the Committee formally recommend option A from the report, based on the view that the cost of the red and amber repairs to Sessions House were insufficient to justify further delay on the decision’s implementation. The Member also highlighted the similar repairs required at Invicta House and the lack of new information provided at the call- in stage.

b)    A concern was raised by a Member about whether the decision’s short- term approach aligned with their role as custodian of the Council’s assets for Kent’s taxpayers. This was informed by the assertion that Invicta House offered greater suitability for the Council’s long- term operations and that LGR could not be relied upon as confirmation the Council would only remain at Sessions House for 3 years.

c)    A Member argued that some of the necessary repairs to Sessions House such as boiler upgrades, could be achieved within the Council’s existing Budget.

d)    It was raised that Sessions House was not suitable to respond to seasonal changes and once the scope of the repairs was understood, retaining the building would not be financially viable.

e)    A Member stated that the 2023 survey completed by Bidwells was most reliable to inform this decision due to their independent expertise. Therefore, concern was expressed that past 2-3 years, Sessions House would become increasingly expensive to run, maintain and modernise, resulting in unnecessary expenses.

f)     A Member posed that the Committee formally recommend option C or D from the report (preferably option D), on the basis that the long- term cost of delivering repairs to Sessions House and abortive costs meant the current decision was overwhelmingly against Kent’s financial interests.

g)    It was argued that the administration’s short-term approach could result in losing a potential buyer for Sessions House with experience in building restoration, while Invicta House would remain unused despite its potential for housing or other usage.

h)    Members referred to the original 2023 business case and options appraisal, which identified the move to Invicta House as the preferred option, and highlighted the absence of new evidence to support an alternative conclusion.

6. The Chairman proposed and Mr Eustace seconded the motion to exclude the press and public from the meeting for the following business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of part 1 of Schedule 12A of the act.

7. RESOLVED that the Press and Public be excluded.

8. Upon the Committee resuming its public session, Mr Hook proposed and Mr Hood seconded the recommendation that the Scrutiny Committee ‘(d) require implementation of the decision to be postponed pending review or scrutiny of the matter by the full Council’.

9. Members voted on the motion. The motion failed.

10. Mr Hook proposed and Mrs Hudson seconded the recommendation that the Scrutiny Committee ‘(c) require implementation of the decision to be postponed pending reconsideration of the matter by the decision- maker in light of the Committee’s comments’.

11. Members voted on the motion. The motion failed.

12. Mr Eustace proposed and Mr Mole seconded the recommendation that the Scrutiny Committee ‘(a) make no comments’.

13. Members voted on the motion. The motion was carried by a majority vote.

14. RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee make no comments.