Waverley Borough Council Home Page Waverley Borough Council Home Page

Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Executive held on 09/07/2002
East Street Regeneration Scheme - Farnham Assessment Criteria and Weighting






[Wards Affected: All Farnham Wards]

Note Pursuant to Section 100B(5) of the Local Government Act 1972

Annexes to this report contain exempt information by virtue of which the public is likely to be excluded during the item to which the report relates, as specified in Paragraph 9 of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, namely:-

Any items proposed or to be proposed by or to the authority in the course of negotiations for a contract for the acquisition or disposal of property or the supply of goods or services.


1. Members will be aware that schemes and bids are due to be received from the eight short-listed developers by noon on 15th July 2002.

2. Previous meetings have considered the criteria for assessing the submissions and have recognised the need to attach more importance to some factors than others by means of a weighted scoring matrix. This matrix will be an important tool in the ultimate decision-making process.

3. This report was considered by the Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee, with members of Community and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committees invited to attend and participate, at its meeting on 25th June 2002.

Basic Criteria

4. The development brief set out for the benefit of the developers the basic criteria against which submissions would be assessed. In no particular order of importance these are:-

o Mix and volume of proposed land uses
o Quality of design
o Experience and structure of the design team in development
o Project management and the treatment of risk
o Financial proposal
o Funding arrangement
o Quality of artistic input and design
o Regeneration benefits
o Sustainability

Officer Considerations

5. Officers and members of the S.I.G. have given detailed consideration to these criteria and their relative importance. At its meeting on 30th May the S.I.G. devoted its time to a “brainstorming” exercise to establish the order of importance.

6. Further advice has also been received from your consultants, Cluttons. In particular they advise against weighting of the financial proposal and the certainty of receipt, rather, they suggest a straight score out of 100 for simplicity in order to compare financial offers. The offer itself may need to be discounted if stage payments are offered in order to compare all bids on the basis of net present value.

7. In considering the relative importance of the criteria both officers and members of the S.I.G. have acknowledged that the original aim of this project was, and remains, to secure the regeneration of the East Street area. It has been further acknowledged that in order to do this any scheme must have long-term economic viability.

8. Cluttons have suggested the criteria can be divided into three categories:

1. Development Proposals comprising
2. Finance comprising 3. Partnership Proposals comprising
Decision Making Process

9. An updated programme of meetings is attached at Annexe 1. The outcome of the SIGs discussions on the weighting criteria is attached at (Exempt) Annexes 3 and 4. The scoring process is merely a tool to be used to assist the Council in its selection of a development partner. It is considered that members should retain as much opportunity as possible for wide ranging debate allowing both objective and subjective views to be voiced without any risk of prejudicing the degree of competitiveness in which the developer will approach the matter.

10. The developers who have submitted schemes will be asked to provide presentations and, if necessary, clarification of their schemes to the Council’s appointed Panel. Given that this is visual information which will form part of the evaluation, and will assist in the decision making process, any Waverley Borough Councillor may, if they so wish, attend the presentations as observers. It is important that the role of those members does not conflict with the role of the appointed Panel as this could prejudice the evaluation process. Further, it is important that any such member should attend the majority, if not all, of the presentations, as part-attendance could lead to a claim by a dissatisfied developer that the Member was more informed about one developer than another, and that as such was biased when making a decision.
Public Information Process

11. As part of the ongoing commitment to keep the public informed of developments on the East Street Regeneration Scheme, it is proposed to hold an Exhibition of the schemes submitted by Developers on the 9th, 10th and 11th August 2002 at the Bush Hotel, Farnham. The aim of the Exhibition is to give the public the opportunity to view the schemes as early as possible, and to provide the Council with feedback on any issues or features relating to the development which the public find unclear so that clarification can be provided.

12. The dates proposed are the optimum dates for the exhibition to allow sufficient preparation time following receipt of the tender bids, at the same time ensuring that the exhibition takes place before the developers' presentations in mid-August.

13. It is proposed that the Exhibition should be lead by Surrey Social and Market Research Ltd (SSMR) who are a local firm, have undertaken similar work on behalf of the Council over many years at very competitive rates and most importantly have experience in running exhibitions. They will provide early general feedback during the following week with a more detailed analysis of the feedback at the end of August.

14. The work programme submitted by SSMR and the costs of that work are set out at Annexe 2 to this report. Members will note that the final cost of an element of the work ‘data capture’ is not known because it will depend on how many people complete the questionnaire. However, as a steer, it is likely to be in the region of 500 based on the assumption of 500 questionnaires at 1 per form being completed over the 3 days of the Exhibition. This would give a final total of 4,100 for SSMR’s costs.

15. Your officers are seeking committee approval under the provisions of Standing Order (Contracts) 103(1) to exempt this contract from the need for competitive quotation for the work programme in paragraph 14 above, to enable SSMR to be appointed to provide external support for the proposed Exhibition, for the special circumstances set out in paragraph 13 above.

16. Further informative sessions with different groups will be undertaken and members will be advised of the programme in due course.

Observations of the Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee

17. The observations of the Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee are set out at (Exempt) Annexe 5 to this report.

Resource Implications

18. The next few months of this project are likely to see a very intensive involvement of both your property and legal consultants. The present budget of 50,000 is likely to be insufficient to match the expenditure and therefore a supplementary estimate is sought. Subject to successfully appointing a development partner, the Council's costs in preparing a development agreement and lease are to be met by the developer. However, in addition to the 4,100 exhibition costs which are not budgeted for, there will continue to be consultancy costs on further advice from Cluttons and Lawrence Graham. It is proposed that a supplementary estimate of 125,000 be approved to fund these costs. This amount will be funded from either the capital receipt generated from the East Street site or alternatively, any savings in the capital programme.

It is recommended that the Executive recommends to the Council that

1. the decision making process outlined in Annexe 1 and composition of the presentation panel be endorsed and adopted;

2. the exhibition process set out in paragraphs 11 – 16 be adopted and the contract for the main exhibition be exempted from the need for competition in accordance with Standing Order (Contracts) 103(1);

3. the criteria weighting set out at (Exempt) Annexe 4 be adopted; and

4. a supplementary estimate of 125,000 be approved to fund the exhibition costs in August 2002 and consultancy costs prior to the development agreement and lease being agreed, to be funded from either the capital receipt generated from the East Street site or any savings in the capital programme.


Background Papers (DoPD)

There are no background papers (as defined by Section 100D(5) of the Local Government Act 1972) relating to this report.


Name: Mr M Stevenson Telephone: 01483 523455
E-mail: mstevenson@waverley.gov.uk

Mrs A Bott Telephone: 01483 523415
E-mail: abott@waverley.gov.uk