Minutes 3 July 2025

1.

INTRODUCTION AND APOLOGIES

Introductions made and apologies were noted as above. 

Brian said now as we enter new stage of project he envisages shorter, focused decision making meetings.

2.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATION

None.

3.

PROJECTS PROGRESS UPDATE

The minutes of 4th April were agreed as a true record.

4.

DIGITAL MANUFACTURING AND INNOVATION CENTRE

Neil outlined progress / update:

At the time of the last meeting, the Stage 2 designs had just been signed off. Stage 3 designs are now complete, although still subject to final sign off whilst further value engineering takes place. Estimated costs from Gleeds have increased from £12m (end of Stage 2) to £15m (end of Stage 3), which is significantly above the construction budget of £12.8m. However, this is prior to any value engineering taking place which has the potential to bring down costs significantly, whilst there is also potential to utilise underspend from elsewhere within the Town Deal programme (i.e. – Public Realm).

NB shared the designs and highlighted key changes since Stage 2, in addition to 3D visuals of the building. The next steps is to commence value engineering exercises whilst working towards appointment of Stage 4 contractors to work alongside the design team in preparing more accurate costings so that informed decisions can be reached.

NB provided further insights into potential value engineering which could be carried out including revisions such as MEP (Mechanical Engineering and Plumbing), removal of raised access floor, removal of skimming etc. In more extreme instances, reduction in number of solar panels or even overall building size could be considered.

Discussed that budget is a set amount and value engineering needs to take place in line with available funds.  Neil said at the next stage we will have costings instead of estimates.  Some protections in place to control the budget. Noted extra construction costs but key that is before value engineering and desktop and not contractor cost – estimate only.    

Value engineering process has now started with project teams and will continue throughout  Stage 4 taking approximately 10 weeks from August so concluded by October. 

Bob asked if we have our own cost consultancy to help guide and steer activities. Neil said we haven’t got anyone yet client side but we do / will want that as we go into the next stage, so he is progressing how this will best work and then report back to the Board so someone is representing us.  Brian said he felt that we are over reliant on external support but we are now in an excellent place with the new team now on top of it.  Procurement is key and clear we won’t be manipulated – we must drive hard with suppliers.

David asked when we will start to get realistic costings through. Neil said up to the end of October, although he will be pushing for them to cost everything as early within the Stage 4 process as possible. Bob asked that everything procurement wise is checked with Procurement Team/Claire and regulations – Neil informed Bob that we are already working closely with legal and procurement to ensure compliance.

Planning application is ready for submission, although we need to wait until value engineering takes place to ensure there are no fundamental changes to the building post-submission.

The initial draft of LEP application has been submitted and meeting taking place with AECOM on Monday 7^th July for initial feedback. It is anticipated that this will feed into the October 8^th EZ partnership meeting prior to final sign off at BCC Cabinet on 9^th December (prior to construction commencing in January 2026).

5.

PUBLIC REALM

Jane updated on work as per highlight report.

Update

All footways have been completed. The carriageway resurfacing has been completed with the cycle lane and church grounds to be completed from the original scope.

Next Steps

The Church were working to rectify some drainage issues in the Churchyard delaying the start from June to July. The project was further postponed when the church announced proposals to carry out internal alterations to the church, using the church grounds as a compound. We wouldn’t want to improve the grounds prior to this project due to a risk the work could be damaged. This would push back the start of our work to March. The Church have now proposed a further delay to this project with an unknown timescale.

Moving forward the options to consider are as follows:

Option 1

Continue with development of St Stephens Churchyard only.  Public Realm underspend transferred to the Innovation Centre along with any unused contingency.

This option allows for the public realm scheme to be delivered as planned, providing improvements to the Churchyard that include re-siting parking spaces from the front the back of the church, increasing the grass area at the front of the church and upgrading the surfacing. The Church have been however been slow to engage with the project and it is still not ready to go. Key risks relate to delayed delivery timescales which remain uncertain. Due to delays in communication from the church we have lost the availability of the archaeologists who are required to provide a watching brief for work in the Churchyard. The availability of this service could dictate the start date for the project which is a risk for the programme.

Option 2

Utilise public realm underspend for development of Church Green East (in addition to Churchyard).  Any unused contingency transferred to the Innovation Centre.

The addition of Church Green East has been costed at £325,000 and could be delivered by Worcestershire County Council (WCC) with only 3 months’ notice.  This option would see the upgrading of a key thoroughfare within the Town Centre in addition to the Churchyard scheme. 

Option 3

Deliver the Church Green East improvements and put the Church yard scheme on hold.  Public realm underspend transferred to the Innovation Centre along with any unused contingency.

This option would involve removing the Churchyard from the project and instead deliver improvements to Church Green East. This work would be ready to commence early Autumn 2025. Note that Public Realm improvements to Church Green East are costed at £325,000 compared to projected Churchyard improvements of £200,000. It would therefore require an additional £125,000 from the Public Realm budget, although still leaving significant underspend to support the Innovation Centre. Developments to Church Green East would arguably be of greater benefit to the Town Centre in terms of completing the public realm improvements to all paved areas.

Option 4 – ‘do nothing’

Deliver no further public realm improvements and transfer remaining funding to the Innovation Centre.

No further public realm improvements would be delivered under the current funding.  The town centre would have partial improvements with the Church Green East and Churchyard remaining in their current state. The success of the Town Deal improvements shows the need for the remaining areas of public realm to be completed. Church Green East would complete improvements in the Town centre conservation area. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) would need to be consulted on this approach which would result in reduced outputs under the Redditch Public Realm project.

These options were also reviewed by the Capital Programme Board on 30th June.

Jane provided a high-level overview of planned improvements to the Churchyard. The plan is to move parking from the front to the rear of the Church within the area to improve the aesthetics.  Noted we are very generous, but it is presenting some difficulties due to change in Church Leadership and communication as a result.  The alternative is to spend it on Church Green East (it was in original plan but was value engineered out so can be added back easily).  Pete said he / his team have close links with St Stephens and provided very positive feedback relating to the new Vicar and about young people, and would therefore be happy to facilitate any further discussions / communications. Unfortunately, the church timetable no longer aligns and it would be preferrable to do Church Green East rather than the Church Grounds (and is best value).

6.

TOWN DEAL UNDERSPEND

Neil referred to Public Realm Options Paper (circulated) to consult with the Town Deal Board on the options available to deliver the Public Realm element of the Town Investment Plan. Neil recapped on the following options as introduced by Jane under the above public realm update:

Option 3 was supported/preferred unanimously by the Board; and ties in with discussion at item 5 above.  Rachel said she needs to have a further discussion with Bob in relation to risk element and brief Members to confirm their support.  Also need to communicate back with Church.  Based on if there is sufficient funding at the end we can revisit work with Church when/if the Diosese/St Stephens are ready. The development of the Churchyard will remain a key priority for future developments within the town centre.

The following was also noted in relation to selection preferred option and wider Town Deal programme consequences:

• Budget for the Innovation construction phase is currently remains fixed at c.     £12.8m
• Latest indicated cost is currently based on an unconvincing estimate, prepared by Gleeds (sub-contractor of AHR Architects) at just under £15m.
• Stage 3 designs are nearing completion. Value engineering is taking place and will continue throughout Stage 4. The appointed design and build contractor will work with the design team during Stage 4 which will result in accurate construction estimates by end of October 2025. Note that costs may differ substantially from current cost consultancy estimates which remains a key project risk. Further value engineering options need to be identified in advance should these be required.
• Potential for budget transfer from public realm to Innovation Centre is not yet approved, although it is acknowledged that there will be a likely surplus which could be utilised. The Town Deal Board are happy to consider virement of budget once more accurate costings are in place.
• Procurement strategy for the Innovation Centre will need to be assessed at this same point to determine whether the pre-selection of contractor has been able to deliver the project within-budget. It may be necessary to tender the works based on a fixed building design, although this is undesirable due to the adverse effect on timing.

Neil/Rachel

/Bob

7.

RAILWAY STATION QUARTER UPDATE

Penny not present, so would seek a written note for circulation.

Susan

8.

CIVIC PRIDE INITIATIVE

Brian updated on work with Muj and Doug Henderson to improve the visuals of the Town Centre.  Brian had a summary of the work (as per note from Doug) been carried out.  This included street sweeping, landscaping, jet washing, furniture replacement, fountain to be cleaned and repainted.

9.

AOB

None.

9.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING:

3^rd September