Agenda item

Paul Lightfoot, Direct Works Manager, presented a briefing note to the Committee, copy interleaved, which outlined the potential costs of providing an in-house scaffolding service. A discussion was had during which the following main points were made –

·         The cost of providing scaffolding for responsive repairs work had recently decreased from around £1,100 per scaffold to £460. The Council was in the process of re-tendering its contract and a price of around £450 per scaffold was expected.

·         It was commented that an in house service would increase costs, and the existing responsive repairs contract already enabled a quick response to urgent works.

·         Responsive repairs were often required most during the winter months and any in-house service would need to consider seasonal demand and how to utilise staff during the summer. It was noted that the London Borough of Camden’s service had previously been provided in-house and the retention of staff was a contributing factor to this no longer being the case. The Committee queried if an in-house service could make use of multi-skilled staff which worked on other services during periods of low demand.

·         It was reported that some of the capital works schemes visited by the Committee the previous month still had scaffolding erected, when the contractor on site advised that it would be removed within three days.

·         The use of alternatives to scaffolding was supported where possible. It was suggested that an estate based work plan should be prepared which would assess the need for scaffolding on all council properties and clarify if there were any viable alternatives, such as towers or cherry pickers, for each property.

·         It was suggested that future capital works contracts could specify that the use of scaffolding should be minimised or scheduled in a way which causes the least disruption to residents. It was also noted that, as different capital works contractors used different scaffolding sub-contractors, the cost of scaffolding varied on different capital projects and the view was expressed that this added additional costs. It was requested that these costs be identified and circulated to members.

·         Due to the urgent nature of responsive repairs, scaffold licences were occasionally sought retrospectively to ensure repairs were carried out as soon as possible.

·         It was confirmed that the service did not yet have access to technology such as drones and thermal cameras but this could be investigated in future.

·         It was suggested that an in-house scaffolding team could be used as an income generation opportunity and any initial cost would be recouped over time. Apprenticeships could be offered to improve the skills of local people. It was also commented that cuplock scaffolding may be cheaper and easier to assemble, if the Council was minded to pursue an in-house service.

·         It was commented that some cherry pickers have a very small footprint which could assist with access to some properties.

·         A resident provided an example of a scaffold that had been erected for three weeks without any substantial works taking place. It was queried what controls were in place to stop contractors leaving scaffolding unattended for a prolonged period of time. It was advised that officers check the scaffolding erected by contractors and would investigate the particular scaffold mentioned.

The Committee thanked Paul Lightfoot for his attendance.

RESOLVED:
That the costs of scaffolding on different capital works projects be circulated to members of the Committee.