Ventnor Regeneration - Ventnor Harbour Scheme

To update the Executive on progress with a range of issues relating to the Ventnor harbour scheme, to seek approval for the revised funding and procurement arrangements and to note the harbourside development brief; the Brief to be finally agreed through further consultation.

At the meeting of the Executive held on 17 August 2000 the Director of Environment Services presented a report to members on the harbour scheme. Since then significant progress has been made with respect to completion of the necessary environmental studies including the Appropriate Assessment, a key requirement under the European Habitats Directive which must accompany the submission of a planning application. The Appropriate Assessment has been completed by DEFRA and neither English Nature, the Environment Agency nor the DTLR have raised any adverse comments. There is an outstanding objection from the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust. This objection, lodged after advertisement of the harbour scheme under the Coast Protection Act has been questioned by both the Council and by Ventnor Town Council. In a letter to the Town Council the Trust has stated that subject to a satisfactory environmental statement and Appropriate Assessment it will consider withdrawing its objection to the scheme. The Council’s consultants, Posford Haskoning, together with the Council’s Ecological Officer are meeting the Wildlife Trust to discuss this in the near future. The planning application for the scheme will be considered by the Development Control Committee at its meeting on 18 February.

In parallel with completion of the environmental studies a planning brief has been prepared for the Eastern Esplanade itself. This follows the major public consultation programme held at Ventnor Winter Gardens, which was attended by over two hundred residents and interest organisations. Those attending expressed overwhelming support for the harbour project as well as submitting ideas on a range of issues relating to the adjacent Eastern Esplanade, an area previously identified by the Civic Trust in their ‘Regeneration Report on Ventnor’ (1994) as that part of the town in greatest need of improvement. The regeneration of the Eastern Esplanade, including appropriate harbourside facilities, is an important component of the overall scheme and the Executive is requested to note the contents of the brief which will be the subject of further consultation (see Appendix 1). Subject to approval by the Executive of the financial arrangements described below, receipt of planning consent at the meeting on 18 February, receipt of coast protection grant aid and resolution of the Wildlife Trust objection, construction work can be expected to start later this year. This is one of three projects that the Council is actively progressing and which forms part of a £10 million investment programme in the Isle of Wight’s coastal zone.

Following the preparation of the harbour proposal by the Isle of Wight Centre for the Coastal Environment the project was subsequently approved for funding as part of the SRB II programme under the heading of Ventnor Regeneration; total funding from SRB for the harbour has amounted to £1,225,000. A table of the funding sources and expenditure plan over two phases is provided in the table below. The completion of phase 1 will enable the harbour to commence operation.

VENTNOR HARBOUR - ESTIMATED COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES

1. Single Regeneration Budget

2. DEFRA Coast Protection Grant

3. Private Sector

4. Previously agreed capital receipts

5. Capital bid 2003 / 04

6. Lottery

Phase 1

1,225,000

200,000

100,000

250,000

175,000

Phase 2

50,000

100,000

* 300,000

£1,950,000

+ £450,000

= £2.4 million

* Up to £300,000 from Sports Lottery to assist provision of complementary sport / recreational facilities.

In 2000 / 01 the Council approved a sum of £250,000 towards the project and this sum is being retained for the main construction phase. In the report of the Director’s Group on the 2002 / 03 Capital Programme it has been recommended that a bid of £175,000 for further funding for the harbour should be made available as a first call on capital for the financial year 2003 / 04. This would be satisfactory in relation to the harbour construction phasing as the project is likely to take 8 months to complete and, therefore, it would extend into the 2003 / 04 financial year. At the meeting of the Environment and Transport Select Committee held on 30 January the Select Committee also resolved to recommend to Executive that this sum of £175,000 should be made available for the harbour scheme in 2003 / 04 and that this should be first priority for their capital programme. The Executive is asked to approve this sum at this stage as it is a vital component of the overall funding package without which the scheme cannot commence.

In addition to Council funding £200,000 is being sought from DEFRA as the coast protection contribution to the harbour scheme. The harbour arms will provide effective long term coastal protection for that section of Eastern Esplanade wall that was not upgraded in Spring 1995 when the remainder of Eastern Esplanade and the main Western Esplanade seawalls were reconstructed. The Council and its consulting engineers, Posford Haskoning, have prepared a comprehensive Engineer’s Report which will be submitted to DEFRA for grant aid immediately after receipt of planning consent.

At the meeting of the Executive held on 17 August 2000 the need to re-invest income generated from the long lease of sites on Ventnor Eastern Esplanade was highlighted. Although up to £200,000 might accrue from appropriate harbourside development in the longer term the Property Services Manager regards a £100,000 contribution to the harbour scheme as realistic in the short to medium term. It should be pointed out that the harbour and the Eastern Esplanade are essential components of the overall regeneration scheme. Without the harbour proposal the Esplanade would not benefit from such regeneration opportunities with a corresponding reduction in lease values. Approval is sought from the Executive to re-invest these receipts in the harbour scheme and to underwrite the sum of £100,000 against long leases to be achieved by 1 April 2004 to contribute to the construction costs.

The various funding elements described above are sufficient collectively to fund the construction of the main Eastern and Western harbour breakwaters together with entrance marking piles and navigation lights. The scheme includes provision of deep water mooring buoys in Ventnor Bay for large yachts, the cost of which will be met from private sponsorship. Further works including alterations to the slipway and import of beach replenishment are desirable as a second phase and other funding opportunities are being explored.

In terms of procurement of the harbour construction works, every effort is being made to minimise risks arising from contractual claims which occur on many large civil engineering schemes particularly in relation to the marine environment. The approach that is being widely adopted now is through partnership between the client, the consultant and a contractor. Discussions and correspondence have been taking place between our consultants and the Council’s Audit Manager with respect to this approach. The Council’s Standing Orders requires an open, fair and transparent and competitive process as well as ensuring best value from the Council’s point of view. Partnership is now widely accepted as the most appropriate method of procurement since the co-operation and partnership culture which is at the centre of the method is more likely to deliver a better balance of risk between the Council and its chosen partner. The proposed methodology for this approach is being considered by Internal Audit. Members are asked to agree in principle to this method of procurement, subject to the approval of the Strategic Director of Finance and Information as to the detailed procurement proposal. For members information, a summary of the partnership approach is provided as an appendix to this report (see Appendix 2).

With respect to the SRB funding element of the scheme there is a requirement to spend at least £360,000 by 31 March 2002. As members will be aware the protracted discussions over environmental issues has led to considerable delays in finalising the scheme and in obtaining all the necessary consents.

Fees and studies relating to the detailed design already expended this year on the harbour project together with ground investigations will involve expenditure of at least £360,000. The geotechnical studies will provide information assisting the detailed design and stability of the rock arms and foundations as well as demonstrating the contribution that ‘toe-weighting’ at the foot of the Ventnor Landslip complex will provide to overall stability for the area. This work will be commenced as soon as possible to avoid any impacts on the summer season.

As far as on-going harbour revenue implications are concerned these are estimated to be minimal. Being constructed of substantial rock armourstone the harbour arms will be virtually maintenance free. It will be necessary to appoint a harbourmaster to maintain a safe harbour environment (eg. changing navigation lights, closing the pedestrian access to the harbour arm in severe weather) and to collect harbour dues. The mooring fees will be set to cover the cost of any additional necessary maintenance works.

The former South Wight Borough Council applied for and gained a Harbour Revision Order for the construction of a harbour at Ventnor in 1994.

1. Support the recommendation of the Director’s Group (see Paper C4) and the recommendation of the Environment and Transport Select Committee that a sum of £175,000 should be made available from the 2003 / 04 capital programme to enable the construction of Ventnor harbour to commence this year.

2. Further to the report to the Executive relating to 17 August 2000 to approve the principle of income from regeneration of the Ventnor Eastern Esplanade being re-invested as a contribution towards the harbour construction costs and to underwrite the sum of £100,000 against land leases accrued up to 31 March 2004.

3. To approve the formal submission of an application to DEFRA for coast protection grant aid for the sum of £200,000 for the Ventnor Eastern Esplanade Phase 2 (harbour project).

4. Taking account of the public consultation programme undertaken on the harbour scheme and outline proposals for the Eastern Esplanade, to note the planning brief as attached.

5. To consider support for the partnering approach recommended for procurement of the harbour scheme with the aim of minimising financial risks and ensuring best value for money.

2. Environmental Statement ‘Ventnor Haven, IW’, Posford Duvivier Environment, August 2000.

This brief has been prepared by the Isle of Wight Council to promote appropriate and complementary development on the Eastern esplanade at Ventnor linked to the construction of a new Harbour on the adjoining seaward side.

The aim is to provide some limited but high quality development which complements the new Harbour but also retains the open character of the area in line with its importance to both tourists and local people as an informal recreational resource.

Ventnor is located towards the southern tip of the Island and grew as a tourist resort when Queen Victoria made the Island a popular location for the well-to-do. The climate of Ventnor and the Undercliff was identified as a major health benefit for the treatment of respiratory problems.

The Esplanade has historically been an open and accessible tourism and recreational facility linked to the former pier and beach. This has undergone considerable investment from Southern Water through the construction of a pumping station which doubles as a seating and viewing point and has created further open areas with potential to enhance the tourism infrastructure of the seafront and the town.

The Eastern Esplanade provides an important focal point for both visitors to the seafront by car (to access existing facilities such as pubs, arcades, beaches and holiday accommodation) as well as those walking between Bonchurch and Ventnor (or visa versa), using the skateboard park, fishing from the seawall, jogging etc. These functions are important and must be retained for both local people and tourists. The car parking is reasonably well-used by visitors and local people especially during the summer months.

The site comprises a level area of land located below the Cascade (an attractive landscaped waterfall area), and is currently occupied by open car parking, public toilets, paddling pool, seating and also provides pedestrian access along the seafront from Ventnor to Bonchurch by way of the revetment. The northern boundary of the site is formed by the cascade and cliff whilst the southern boundary is the seawall. The site extends eastwards towards the temporary Southern Water pumping station and westwards is bounded by the esplanade road.

All main services are thought to be available in the vicinity of the Esplanade. The toilets are already served by electricity and connected to drainage/sewage services however not all services are thought to be available through the whole site and the means of servicing any proposals, either individually or collectively will be an important consideration in assessing any development proposals.

The site is characterised by its open aspect and undeveloped appearance. The only building of note is the public toilets built into the wall of the Cascade. The area is predominantly open car parking but also includes the ?Isle of Wight? paddling pool. This has existed in this area of the esplanade for many years although it has been relocated to accommodate the access road for the car parking area towards the eastern end of the site. The public consultation exercise (discussed in more detail below) determined that any development proposals would need to resolve the retention or relocation of both the public toilets and the paddling pool within the scheme.

The statutory development plan for the area is the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan (UDP) May 2001 which provides up to date planning policy guidance.

The site is located within the development envelope for Ventnor where development is normally acceptable in principle subject to more detailed policies of the Plan (Policy G1). The principle policy factors will be:

? G4 (General Location of Development) which states amongst other things that proposals are expected to harmonise with their surroundings, create an interesting, attractive environments and do not intrude into prominent views.

? D1 (Design) all developments are expected to show a high quality of design which maintains and enhances the quality and character of the built environment.

Other policies relating to highway, parking, landscaping and the specific use proposed may also be relevant. The full text of the UDP can be located on the Councils web site at www.iwight.com

Parts of the Ventnor area have been the subject of ground movement and the small specific areas of concern have been identified in a Landslip study undertaken between 1998 and 1991 although the site itself is not thought to be affected the requirements of PPG 14 will need to be considered in determining any development proposal with reference to Policy G7(Development on unstable land) of the UDP

In order to ascertain public views on any future development an exhibition showing sketch proposals of a potential scheme were made available for public comment in Spring 2001. The two day exhibition received the full support of the Town Council, the Hoteliers Business Association and the Regeneration Forum. In addition over 200 residents attended and there was unanimous support for the Harbour proposal. The suggested landward components of the scheme included:

The position was reported to the IOW Council Executive on 17^th August 2001 who have endorsed the approach to date.

In association with the new the harbour facility ( and public uses supported by the consultation exercise), any landward development must be appropriate and complimentary to both the activities and character of the Harbour as well as the wider esplanade and town.

The site would be acceptable for a mixed-use development which could include commercial/tourism/leisure community facilities (e.g family zone, restaurant/ other A3 uses, play, marine related employment etc.) provided these enhance, complement and do not conflict with public access and domain of the esplanade area.

The possible relocation of local fishing businesses from the beach at the Western Esplanade may play a key role in establishing the complimentary nature and mix of uses supported by the consultation exercise.

The site could either be developed out as a single proposal or as an incremental development over a longer time period.

? Parking areas to the East of the proposed site should allow for storage/over-wintering of boats when it is less well used.

? A Harbour-master?s office should be incorporated into the scheme; the possibility of this being housed in the existing toilet block should be explored.

? Shower and toilet provision for harbour users should be planned into the scheme at an early stage.

? Street lighting will need to be carefully designed and positioned and should avoid light spillage. Bulkheads, flush fittings and ground-level units are alternatives to conventional street lighting.

The site will need to accommodate both vehicular and pedestrian access to the eastern esplanade and this should ensure the most efficient and effective use of land. Consideration should be given to shared surfaces particularly along the quayside/revetment. It should be designed as a pedestrian priority area whilst recognising the need for vehicular access. Consideration should be given to:

? Giving a clear sense of direction and destination to walkers using the Esplanade

? Providing opportunities for high quality open space which reflects the unique strengths of this site

Road widths will not be expected to meet with minimum standards provided the design and materials can ensure a safe shared surface environment for pedestrians and other users.

The appropriate scale, height and massing of the development is crucial to its success. The views inland from the harbour and the sea, as well as the roof scape from the Winter Gardens and Shorehill must be cohesive, attractive and interesting, and should reflect local character.

It is anticipated that a development of random one-,two- and some elements of three-storey terraced buildings in a variety of styles, materials and finishes may be appropriate. Varied building lines and irregular structures will provide an organic and intimate character, optimizing the sense of enclosure provided by the cliffs. The street scene should be interesting and fully reflect the quayside setting. Although local materials and traditional finishes should be used and the Victorian heritage of the town respected, the Council will consider appropriate high quality contemporary designs.

? minimising the impact of buildings on what was previously an open and undeveloped area.

? Well designed shared surfaces that a) ensure pedestrian safety and b) encourage a variety of uses

? ensuring the development is characterised by complimentary public and commercial uses

Any re-routing of vehicular access could release a significant area at the western end of the site, encompassing the padding pool and the Cascade. Linked together this could become a ?child friendly? environment. Landscape treatments here should encourage informal community use and provide a focal point at the harbour entrance as well as a visual link and setting to the Cascade.

Hard landscape treatments for the rest of the site will be most appropriate to a harbour side location. Planting may be difficult to establish and maintain in what is a relatively exposed environment; interest may be added through a variety of surface treatments. Street furniture should be simple, functional and robust as appropriate for a working quay and harbour environment.

The Council has a fixed budget for undertaking the Ventnor Haven scheme. Therefore, it is highly desirable to find a form of contract which will eliminate or significantly reduce the risk of over-expenditure. Due to weather conditions all coastal and maritime construction projects carry significant risks associated with them. In addition there are a number of site specific aspects concerning the construction phase of the Ventnor Haven scheme relating to environmental issues and the weather, involving working in shallow water at low tide. Should there be significant wave action at low tide delays will be experienced.

A normal competitive tendering arrangement could be utilised, by approaching up to six contractors. To ensure that they are competitive, each tenderer will tend to either qualify their tender to limit their risk and keep their price low, or they will allow a small sum for unquantifiable sections of the contract and will try to claim at a later date; this is an adversarial approach. The appointed contractor will be actively looking for ways of presenting claims to justify additional costs. This will, therefore, often lead to the final out-turn costs being higher than the initial contract sum. One other aspect of this approach is that it is very difficult to predict out-turn costs during the contract as the resolution of any claims will generally be postponed until after the construction work is completed. The resolution of the claims can be costly both in time and money for the client.

This will be highly undesirable for the Haven scheme as there are strict budgetary constraints.

This option commences by means of selecting, through an open and transparent process, a shortlist of two competent marine contractors and initially negotiating with both of them. It is necessary to be totally open about any budgetary constraints, site specific risk areas and any other problems or issues.

The choice between which contractor would be appointed would be based on the following criteria :

This approach is called ‘partnering’. A partnering approach is primarily an attitude and not a contract but it epitomises Value Management (VM) - meeting the perceived needs of the client. VM requires all parties to ‘buy in’ to the process, ie. the client, the contractor and the designer.

∙ maximises the functional value of the project by managing its development through the procurement and construction stages.

Value management is not just focussed on cost but seeks to achieve the best balance between time, cost and quality. It is generally achieved by meeting as a team on a regular basis. Initially to define a client’s objectives, ie. to establish what can be achieved within the cost, time and quality constraints. At the first meeting the objectives are clearly defined and the means by which they will be achieved, eg. completion within budget by close monitoring of on-going expenditure and setting priorities of scheme components that may be deleted if cost overruns are inevitable.

This approach relies on close co-operation, together with a ‘no blame’ culture. All parties must ‘buy in’ to the partnering / VM approach. When problems arise, since all have ownership of the scheme, all work together to find the most cost-effective solution that achieves the client’s objectives. This relies on all parties generating ideas / brain storming potential solutions and agreeing by consensus what is to be implemented.

Risk identification, assessment and management are important aspects of the process. The allocation of the risks needs to be established and agreed; this is achieved at the regular team meetings.

The traditional ICE type contracts have been used for all the coastal contracts on the Isle of Wight to date. The EEC involves the principle of sharing risk, by clearly allocating it, by agreement, at the start of the project. This leads to far fewer ‘surprises’ at the end of the contract. The ECC is intended to promote an atmosphere of partnering. This leads to a less contentious / adversarial project and achieves better value for money for the client.

As indicated above, the ECC also provides a mechanism for innovation leading to cost savings, which themselves can be shared between client and contractor. The partnering arrangement allows sensible discussion of any site issues and is proactive in resolving problems rather than the reactive / adversarial way problems are resolved in the ICE based contracts.

A consequence of the proactive position is that the ‘Project Manager’, as defined in the ECC, must be capable of and empowered to make swift decisions. To do this he or she must :

∙ preferably be site based, or at least on site for a significant proportion of the time;

∙ be located close to the client to discuss and agree items that have cost or programme implications;

∙ be supported by technical staff (ie. design engineer(s)) and quality control staff (ie. Clerk of Works), to allow this rapid decision-making process to take place.

On the other hand, a traditional ICE contract at Ventnor would have a named ‘Engineer’ based remotely from site, supported by site staff, who have various delegated powers.

The cost of site supervision may be a little more using the ECC, because the senior site staff member needs to allocate more time during the contract to deal with any contractual issues as they occur, rather than dealing with them at the end of the contract. However, the overall cost to the client (ie. site supervision, head office administration and contract out-turn cost) will almost certainly be less due to a significant reduction in effort resolving any claims and final account issues at the end of the contract.

The process does, however, rely upon all parties adopting the partnering principle / attitude; in particular the contractor must contribute to this. As indicated above the track record of the selected contractor and his commitment to partnering will need to be clearly established before the contract is awarded.

The converse is true for the traditional ICE type contracts. The level of site supervision can be reduced a little compared to the ECC, however, as indicated earlier the resolution of outstanding issues and claims will tend to last for a period of many months.

On balance, it is believed that partnering through the ECC contract will achieve best value for money to procure the works for Ventnor Haven. It needs to be noted that there are various ways of procuring the works under the ECC. The ECC has within it six options, one of which must be selected at the procurement stage.

ECC Options A and B are lump sum contracts, ie. the cost of the contract is fixed, and only changes if the scope of the work will change the agreed initial lump sum. The Contract allocates all the risk to the contractor. However, the scope of works must be extremely well defined otherwise there will be changes to the scope and consequential cost change negotiations will ensue. These options are most similar to traditional ICE type contracts.

ECC Options C and D (Schedules of Activities and Bill of Quantities) are target cost contracts. A cost estimate of the works is made along with the contractor’s fee estimate. This is used to compare tenders and select a preferred bid. This bid then becomes the target contract price. The contractor is then paid for the cost of doing the work. Any savings or cost over-runs are split between the client and the contractor (the proportion of split will be agreed when developing the contract).

The pain / gain element of this split encourages the contractor to be innovative, and the client to question or review the need for the specification to be met in view of the potential cost savings that may be offered by the contractor.

We would recommend that a target cost contract approach be adopted at Ventnor. Due to the nature of work, for example the trans-location of environmentally sensitive boulders, an incentive for the contractor to be innovative and look for cost savings would be most welcome. Further, the various different areas requiring works lend themselves towards an activity schedule (Option C) rather than a Bill of Quantities (Option D) type contract.

For information, Options E and F are for contracts when the scope of work is not known, and where the client leads the work (ie. rates are provided for types of work, the amount of which is not known).

It is therefore recommended that Option C (Bills of Quantities) of the Engineering and Construction Contract is adopted to procure the works for the Ventnor Haven Scheme.