The current garden gallery is decaying and leaking, aesthetically it is unattractive and out of keeping with the rest of the surrounding conservation area. The building is also poor in relation to energy efficiency. A new facility could make use of natural resources in its design; it would improve the local environment by providing a more aesthetic building, more in keeping with its environment. In addition the environmental benefits include:
v use of natural materials
v enhancing the site by replacing an ugly prefab with a building more appropriate to the setting
v fully insulated and fuel efficient facility
v maximising the potential of the site by developing the educational opportunities of the rear garden
v making environmental improvements to the existing garden.
Social / community implications:
The current garden classroom is in a poor state of repair and cannot meet the needs of all groups who would wish to use it. An improved facility would help to attract new audiences and priority would be given to tackling social inclusion through the programming of the new facility and the educational work. A new facility would also provide an opportunity to support local groups and organisations and could provide a venue for local businesses to hire, which would increase the Museum’s capacity to generate revenue. As a runner up in The Guardian’s National Family Friendly Museums Award this facility will increase the facilities available to families in particular. In addition the social benefits include:
v providing affordable space for community groups to meet or hire for exhibitions and events
v filling a gap in Adult Education provision in the community
v working with day centres and retirement homes to provide an outreach programme
v provide training for volunteers such as NADFAS, Friends of the Museum etc.
v encourage FDMS to return to museum premises for meetings, events and lecture programme
v working with disadvantaged youth groups
v working with adults with learning difficulties by establishing heritage projects lasting several months at a time
v providing more space to cater for a wider range of family activities
v providing greater accessibility to the museum collection, especially for the disabled.
There are no e-government implications arising from this report.
Resource and legal implications:
The total estimated cost of the replacement project is £508,500. To date the Council has committed £95,000 in the 2007/8 Capital Programme towards the cost of refurbishing the existing building. The Council agreed in July agreed to earmark an additional £25,000 grant towards the overall project from the Community Partnership Fund in the event that the outstanding funding applications were unsuccessful.
At the time of considering the grant request, Officers had made applications to various external sources details of which are set out in Annexe 1. The outstanding applications to Farnham Town Council, the Surrey Community Foundation, and The Foyle Foundation were all unsuccessful. However the application to Biffa and the Heritage Lottery Fund were successful and a total of £483,500 has now successfully been secured which leaves a shortfall of £25,000. In order for the project to proceed it is now necessary for the Community Partnership Grant to be drawn upon.
Contract Procedure Rules
1. Phase 1 of the project involved the work of a quantity surveyor. The work was awarded to MEA, with a value of approximately £1,500. At this level of contract value, Contract Procedure Rules (CPR) do not require a competitive tendering exercise.
2. Phase 2 is estimated to involve a further £5,000 worth of quantity surveying work. In the interests of continuity, it is proposed that this also be awarded to MEA, as the company is familiar with the project and the works required. This would help ensure smooth working and aid efficiency as another quantity surveyor would not have the background knowledge.
3. CPR Q101(h) allows for additional work to be awarded without tendering where it is “inappropriate to offer the additional work to competition”. This requires the approval of the Director of Environment and Leisure. However, in this instance the approval of the Executive is sought because of the relative quantum of the value of the additional work, which is 333% of the phase 1 work.
The Executive is requested to:
1. agree that the previously agreed grant of £25,000 from the 2007/8 Community Partnership Fund be drawn down as a contribution towards the Museum of Farnham Garden Classroom replacement project; and
2. approve the use of CPR Q101(h) to allow the appointment of MEA.
Background Papers (DoEL)
There are no background papers (as defined by Section 100D(5) of the Local Government Act 1972) relating to this report.
Name: Julie Maskery Telephone: 01483 523432