To consider the above urgent report

In accordance with Part 2 C6.2 of the Constitution the Mayor agreed to add the urgent item to consider approval of an immediate resource investment to progress the necessary works within the timetable.

Members considered approval for an additional capital allocation of £2,630,000 to cover the removal of 5,650m³ waste material found during the secondary groundwork investigations and the cost of archaeological work

Under Part 2 c6.2 of the constitution, the Mayor had agreed to add the urgent item to consider approval of an immediate resource investment to progress the necessary works within the timetable.

Councillor S. Rayner explained that during the archaeological excavations that were required as a planning condition, an Iron Age ditch had been found. It was proposed that signs be erected in the car park area of the leisure centre to identify the location. Fragments of Saxon pottery had also been discovered. These were currently being preserved and carbon dated and would be displayed in the borough museum.

Unfortunately part of the survey had also revealed asbestos which had not been discovered as part of the initial ground investigations that had included 60 boreholes. It was critical the asbestos was removed in a controlled and safe manner. Contingency funding of 14% had been included in the budget however this now sat at £0.5m which was required for the building stages of the project.

Councillor Hill stated that he was a supporter of the leisure centre, however he questioned how such a large amount of asbestos, on a site known to contain landfill, had not been identified previously. He was concerned that the initial survey of 60 boreholes did not reveal the asbestos and asked if the surveyor should pay the additional costs?

Councillor Majeed asked whether, before spending the £2.6m, were there plans to undertake more boreholes to determine if there was any other hazardous materials present? He also asked whether a planning application would be required for the controlled removal as there had been for Badnell’s Pit?

Councillor Smith commented that there were different risks associated with different types of asbestos; white asbestos was a lower risk. HSE rules needed to be applied but the council should also ensure it did not overspend.

Councillor DaCosta asked for the value of the contingency if the report was approved.

Councillor Saunders commented that this was an extremely common situation. His company had dealt with a large site near Liverpool Street Station that had uncovered 750 bodies; the archaeological excavations had delayed the project by three years.  It would be important to determine if the survey had been performed as intended and whether the surveyor was obliged to cover any costs. When the original budget had been set, the contingency had been set at two times the normal level because of a number of uncertainties. Contamination of the site had been found on the eastern side which records had demonstrated was a likely area for hazardous deposits. The area to the west had been expected to contain regular refuse material however because of uncertainties a full survey had been commissioned. There was an unambiguous obligation to put in place a programme to deal with the issue; he expected Councillor S. Rayner and officers to seek redress where possible.

Councillor Werner stated that he was deeply disappointed given previous errors and overspends in relation to Stafferton Way and the Waterways. He had been assured such a situation would not happen again. Councillor Saunders had given an impassioned speech that enough contingency had been included. Residents who had lived in the town for years knew the area had been a tip. He was deeply disappointed that, despite warnings, more boreholes were not completed.  He asked for reassurance that sufficient contingency was now included.

Councillor Saunders commented that the basis of establishing construction risk management was that unusual circumstances could arise. If further issues arose with the project, they would be dealt with.

Councillor Dudley commented that Councillor Werner was consistent; he had said the Waterways project would not happen.

Councillor Werner responded that this was untrue and asked Councillor Dudley to withdraw the comment.

Councillor Dudley commented that Councillor Werner had also voted against the Borough Local Plan and planning applications for the regeneration of Maidenhead; he would rather run Maidenhead down for his own political reasons than rejoice in the opportunities. The requirement for additional funding was an unfortunate situation, however if he had been told from the start the project would have cost £3m for asbestos removal he would have approved a larger budget. The costs would be covered by the residual development land value at St Clouds Way.

Councillor Jones requested evidence be provided to back up Councillor Dudley’s statements in relation to Councillor Werner.

Councillor Dudley confirmed the contractual documents with the surveyor would be looked at in detail and enforced on behalf of residents if there had been a breach. Councillor Saunders reiterated that the situation was unfortunate and was an exceptional circumstance. If further issues arose they would be dealt with. Therefore at this stage he did not expect further requirements than the residual contingency, but this was in the absence of further exceptional circumstances.

Councillor S. Rayner highlighted the need to undertake due diligence given the discovery of asbestos. The consultants had confirmed that the remaining £0.5m was sufficient for the remaining building phase. A planning application was not required for the controlled removal of asbestos form the site.

It was proposed by Councillor S. Rayner, seconded by Councillor Dudley, and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Council notes the report and:

i)     Approves additional capital allocation of £2,630,000 to the Braywick Leisure Centre budget to fund the removal of waste material and archaeological investigations.

(A named vote was taken at the request of the Mayor however all Members present voted for the motion).