SOUTHWARK AND CROYDON: Setting Up Public Private ...

Copy and paste this link to your website, so they can see this document directly without any plugins.


Council, CCURV, that, with, from, which, Competitive, Dialogue, team, this, development, March, process, will, This, been, were, Case, Croydon, 2009, partnership, Study, Council’s, public, Procurement, Draft, Version:, have, through, would


Produced by
26 Gray’s Inn Road
London WC1X 8HP
t. 020 7831 9986
f. 020 7831 2466
Special thanks to Igloo, Southwark
Council and Croydon Council
March 2010
Securing a mix of uses 2
Setting up a partnership 3
Making a scheme financially viable 4
Managing relationships 5
Changing an area’s image 6
Conclusions 6
Appendix A
Participants and apologies
Appendix B
Croydon Urban Regeneration Vehicle
Croydon Council Case Study, March 2009
Setting up public private partnerships
Summary report of the fifth meeting in the sixth series of TEN
Nicholas Falk
March 2010
public private partnerships
The final meeting of the TEN Group considered the
lessons from setting up public private partnerships to
develop Bermondsey Square in Southwark and a
number of major sites owned and occupied by Croydon
Council, using one the first Local Asset Based Vehicle
(LABV) to be set up by a local authority. Partnerships
can range from partnerships in spirit or contractual
partnerships, using Development Agreements to joint
companies and Special Purpose Vehicles, and even not
for profit trusts. The Southwark meeting
complemented lessons that had been learnt from
previous visits, including the models of a public private
company used to develop Vathorst in Amersfoort,
and the different arrangements at Paddington Basin
and Swiss Cottage.
The meeting provided a unique opportunity to compare approaches and to learn from
those directly involved. We are very grateful to all who made it possible, including Igloo
who provided the space for the meeting. Tim Thompson, Project Director at Southwark
Council and Chris Brown, Chief Executive of Igloo led the tour of Bermondsey Square
and kicked off the meeting, and a
presentation was given by Emma
Peters, Executive Director and
Malcolm Lyon, Project Manager at
Croydon. The excellent case study
provided by Croydon (Appendix B)
should make it much easier (and
hopefully less expensive) for others
to follow the route they have
Apart from the quality of the discussion, highlights of the visit were not only looking out
from the top of the Bespoke Hotel and the private roof gardens, but also seeing a mixed
use scheme that really works. This was confirmed by the numbers of people using the
Moroccan restaurant where some of us ate afterwards, and the transformation that has
taken place along Bermondsey Street over the last decade.
The new square which is used by the
Bermondsey Antiques Market and a Farmers
Market and for events such as the LLC Bike
Apartment roof gardens
Summary report of the fifth meeting in the sixth series of TEN
Nicholas Falk
March 2010
The briefing pack summarised a range of alternative ways in which local authorities can
raise capital for projects, along with an evaluation of the basic LABV model. Public
private partnerships offer a number of benefits, but can also be quite intimidating. The
discussion concentrated on the issues of most concern to members: securing a mix of
uses, setting up a partnership, making a scheme financially viable, managing relationships
with both councillors and the immediate community, and changing the image of a bad
Securing a mix of uses
Mixed use schemes are notoriously difficult
to set up, because developers and investors
tend to specialise in either commercial or
housing development and because a site will
often have one use that is value maximising.
While the general aim in both cases was to
secure higher quality and mixed use
development on sites owned by the Council
that were not prime candidates for private
investment, the situations were in fact very
different. Bermondsey was a former industrial
area on the site of a former abbey. A wave of
investment was already underway in North Southwark around the site of London Bridge
Station. The location was not far from where regeneration already had taken place, but
the site was quite small (1 ½ acres). Archaeological investigations proved protracted and
expensive. Southwark first went out for ideas, and then worked up a brief for what the
Council wanted to achieve, which included retaining the Bermondsey Antiques Market,
while attracting new shops, a hotel, a
cinema, and a mix of housing. There
were extensive consultations with
ideas displayed in portacabins on the
site. Igloo (along with Urban
Catalyst at the time) was selected
because their proposal not only best
met the brief but also offered the
Council the best financial return.
Croydon had a boom in the 1950s and 60s and then languished. There is a million sq ft
of empty offices, and despite ambitious masterplans, first by Urban Initiatives and then
Will Alsop, little had been seen to happen apart from projects such as the tram and the
new library, which has started to give the town a Continental feel. Though there is more
retail space in the town centre, than in Bluewater, promised private developments have
Bermondsey Antiques Market
The boutique hotel offer a special place to stay
Summary report of the fifth meeting in the sixth series of TEN
Nicholas Falk
March 2010
failed to materialise and much of the centre looks dated and somewhat unfriendly
compared with out of town developments. A new Conservative Council and Chief
Executive were concerned about the low level of office demand, and the need to show
early results. Furthermore the Council’s own office accommodation was very
unsatisfactory. The priority was therefore to pump prime the office market and to make
the most of surplus local authority assets as a means of changing the town centre’s
image. The Council has updated the policy framework, for example to make the most of
the transport capacity, and initiated masterplanning work with the main stakeholders.
Setting up a partnership
The process of setting up a public
private partnership involves both time
and money, and sharing the risks and
rewards is inherently tricky.
Bermondsey Square is a conventional
public private partnership in which
the developer operates on a lease and
is granted the freehold when the
scheme is complete as agreed, with a
lease back to the Council of the
antiques market (for one morning
a week). The scheme aroused
some controversy and so success depended on the commitment shown by both the
Council officer responsible and the developer in delivering what they had promised.
There are very few developers able and willing to undertake mixed use development so
the Council was fortunate in attracting the right partner for this particular project. The
legal issues were relatively straightforward in producing a development agreement that
transferred the freehold once all the agreed works had been completed. However it was
difficult at first to build up trust that the developer would deliver what had been
In Croydon, the Council needed to take a greater degree of risk and to create the capacity
to undertake a range of projects, using its own demand for a new Public Service Delivery
Hub of some 22,000 sq metres to kick start regeneration. As the Council owns sites in
the town centre, it is able to ‘sweat the assets’ and secure better returns than simply
continuing to occupy its current premises. This was achieved by setting up a 50:50
Limited Liability Partnership to bring together Council and private skills, and to open up
new sources of capital. The Croydon Urban Regeneration Vehicle (CURV) provides
access to John Laing Projects and Development’s development expertise, and harnesses
the design skills of an in-house Council team. In all some £450 million of development is
expected to be procured through CURV over a 7-8 year period.
The Sainsburys serves both the local community and
Bermondsey Square
Summary report of the fifth meeting in the sixth series of TEN
Nicholas Falk
March 2010
Professional advice was provided by King Sturge and Eversheds along with some input
from 4Ps (now Local Partnerships) which brought the fee bill to some £2 million. Costs
were contained through these being based on a success fee, that is the full fees would not
have been charged if the scheme had not gone ahead. The partnership promised
immediate results, rather than being dependant on a developer who may not move once
they have been selected. Furthermore by setting up CURV the Council can take on a
whole range of different projects and areas, without having to go through an expensive
tendering process again.
Making a scheme financially viable
Development involves taking a long-term view, as it can take many years to assemble
sites, secure planning permission, and then build and occupy the new space. In the first
instance Southwark Council raised £100,000 to develop and de-risk the brief, using an
‘Ideas’ competition. The site was then sold for ‘best consideration’. The development of
Bermondsey Square was then made viable by being carried out in three and a half phases.
It was only feasible because Igloo has a long-term interest of at least 20 years, which
allows it to ride the ups and downs of the property market. This is because Igloo is a
specialised investment vehicle funded by a number of pension funds. They managed to
get the Council to accept the need for wealth creation in what was traditionally a very
poor area, and undertook the most profitable parts first, with the social housing coming
in at the end. Fortuitously in this location the
different ground floor uses had similar values.
The site was originally seen as valueless, but it
still involved a major effort to retain Council
support and ‘broker agreement’ between all the
interests. Thus the brief required a cinema, and
the developer was able to find someone
independent willing to run a very small (50 seat)
independent cinema and bar. Over one
difficult period the London Development
Agency helped out by loaning £3/4 million.
The great advantage of CURV is that it can borrow funds from the Public Works Loan
Board at much lower rates than any developer can access, and without as much effort.
But this was only possible because there were potential schemes that would enable the
loan to be serviced and repaid. However as a Limited Liability Partnership the scheme
would not be attractive to pension funds interested in a long term investment (but a
Limited Partnership [LP] would be attractive). As a 50:50 partnership CURV is not
subject to having to publicise projects through OJEU and is therefore able to act
relatively quickly. The arrangement appealed to a Conservative Council as a ‘market
An independent cinema and bar occupies the ground
floor with apartments above
Summary report of the fifth meeting in the sixth series of TEN
Nicholas Falk
March 2010
solution’. Significantly there are no politicians on the board. There are three Directors
who are Chief Officers of Croydon Council (but not the Development Director, who
might have a conflict of interest), and three from John Laing Developments. The
company is able to use whatever contractors it wants. The two sides are held together by
sharing the profits from development, with the Council putting in its buildings (with
40% of the value being treated as equity), while John Laing puts in funds. The Council
therefore gets an income related to the assets it put in, but as CURV invests its funds, the
interest reduces.
Managing relationships
Public and private organisations have different motives and ways of behaving. One of
the keys to the success of Bermondsey Square has been managing the site intensively,
which has enabled good relations to be built with the different tenants, and the Chief
Executive of Igloo actually lives near the site! The market traders and the firm that rents
out the stalls, are notoriously difficult to please, but have helped create a unique identity
for the development. The Council still
collects the fees from the market
traders and is responsible for the
public realm. It was also responsible
for assembling the whole site, and
there were some tricky relationships
with adjoining properties to be
negotiated. The Council changed in
2002 which set the project back 18
months and so a lot of time had to go
into building relationships. This was
helped by having a project officer with
a specific responsibility for the wider
regeneration area.
The Croydon partnership was set up relatively quickly and the process started in April
2007, with the partner selected a year later. This was achieved through a two stage
process in which they first sought expressions of interest, which were evaluated carefully
against a questionnaire with over 50 questions. The Council then entered into
Competitive Dialogue with the three best contenders. There are 48 documents that
specify the relationships in three key areas. Croydon’s Chief Executive acts as the Chair,
and John Laing provide management services for a fee. However there could be conflicts
when it comes to expenditure on the public realm or leisure facilities. There is an issue of
whether the company should have dedicated staff, and better information might have
been provided on the desired masterplan. Undoubtedly a key is a commitment to ‘joinedView from the hotel looking down on to the Square,
Sainsburys and offices above it and to the right the award
winning bike shed
Summary report of the fifth meeting in the sixth series of TEN
Nicholas Falk
March 2010
up’ management, for example Total Place, and the arrangement would not suit every
Changing an area’s image
Investors are generally risk averse, while
community groups generally distrust both
developers and councils, so the process of raising
demand and values is extremely hard to get going,
and can easily get out of control. The image of
Bermondsey, which was once very rough, has been
transformed by retaining all the main buildings that
lie within the Conservation Area of Bermondsey
Street, and gradual gentrification, with a good range
of specialist shops and design oriented businesses.
For Chris Brown the key to success was ‘searching
for the potential direction and then magnifying it’.
Undoubtedly the quality of the architecture and
urban design has also been vital, as has retaining the
old antiques market throughout the development
For Croydon it is still early days, but the masterplans now are taking in transport and
energy as well as the public realm, and therefore are much more real than their
predecessors. Croydon has secured a lot of positive publicity for setting up CURV which
should help in attracting other investors, and in retaining key employers. In turn the lead
taken by the Council has helped in attracting good staff, and the Council’s design team
were recently profiled in a feature in the Observer.
By comparing and contrasting two very different approaches a number of useful
conclusions emerged, and we have set out ten general principles:
1. Public private partnerships are an important way of accessing private development
skills and finance, while making better use of Council property assets where the
Council occupies outmoded buildings or underused sites.
2. It is important to decide the level of intervention or sharing of risk that is needed,
which depends on the state of the local property market and private sector
confidence at the time.
Summary report of the fifth meeting in the sixth series of TEN
Nicholas Falk
March 2010
3. A straightforward sale works best when the Council knows what it wants on the site
and this will produce a positive property value. A Local Asset Based Vehicle works
best when there are a number of sites, which need low cost finance to develop them.
4. In both cases a balance must be sought between following European Union
procurement rules (which come into play when works are specified), securing an
appropriate partner, and keeping transaction costs within reason.
5. The development partners should have a long-term interest in placemaking, and as
there are few such firms around they need to be courted and evaluated against
multiple criteria which are clear from the outset.
6. By going for ‘Competitive dialogue’, it is possible to get to know who you will be
working with, and the prospective partners can be used to select two or three bidders
from those who return outline proposals.
7. You should control your professional advisors and not be led by them. This may
mean employing other consultants as a ‘critical friend’ and to provide objective
advice on the range of models.
8. The other public sector agencies also need to be brought along, as do politicians, to
avoid it becoming a political football.
9. You should avoid inflexible and over-expensive service contracts but consider having
an independent chair and secretariat, and a Project Board or equivalent for key
10. Be realistic about the development potential and likely value, which means investing
in site master planning and urban design upfront.
APPENDIX A - Fifth meeting in the sixth series of TEN
March 2010 8
Appendix A
Participants and apologies
Chris Berry, Chief Planning & Regeneration Officer, LB Redbridge
Chris Brown, Chief Executive, Igloo
Nicholas Falk, Director, URBED
Sue Foster, Director of Place Shaping and Enterprise, LB Enfield
Karen Galey, Head of Economic Development, LB Waltham Forest
Pat Hayes, Executive Director of Regeneration and Housing, Ealing Council
David Hennings, Head of Regeneration, Catalyst
Tom Jeffrey, Director, Environment, Culture and Public Participation, Croydon Council
Malcolm Lyon, Project Manager, Croydon Council
Shifa Mustafa, Assistant Director of Development, Waltham Forest Council
Emma Peters, Executive Director, Croydon Council
Daniel Ratchford, Strategic Director of Environment and Leisure, LB Sutton
Darren Richards, Head of Planning and Transportation, LB Sutton
Tim Thompson, Project Director Canada Water & Bermondsey Spa Regeneration, Southwark Council
Ed Watson, Assistant Director Planning and Public Protection, Camden Council
Anne Wyatt, Project Manager, URBED
Chris Donovan, Assistant Director (Strategy, Planning & Regeneration), Bexley Council
Marc Dorfman, Assistant Director Planning & Regeneration, Haringey Council
Mark Lucas, Head of Regeneration, Redbridge Council
Brendan Walsh, Director of Regeneration and Community Development, Ealing Council
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 1 18 March 2009
Croydon Council - Case Study
Croydon Urban Regeneration Vehicle
Procurement of Private Sector Partner
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 2 18 March 2009
Para No Description Page No
1 Purpose of Document 3
2 Background 3
3 Objectives of the Council for CCURV 4
4 Principal Development Sites 5
5 CCURV Structure 8
6 The Private Sector Partner 9
7 Overview of the Competitive Dialogue Process 10
8 Project Management Structure 10
9 Timetable 12
10 Expressions of Interest and Pre-qualification 12
11 Invitation to Submit Outline Proposals 14
12 Competitive Dialogue Stage 2 15
13 Calling, Submission and Evaluation of Final Tenders 16
14 Contract Finalisation and Commercial Close 17
15 Client-side Management 17
16 Prevailing Themes 18
17 Challenges Ahead 23
A Not used
B Not used
C Not used
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 3 18 March 2009
1. Purpose of Document
This document sets out the strategy and process for the procurement of a private
sector partner (PSP) to enter into a joint venture (JV) to develop Council assets.
The JV has been badged as Croydon Urban Regeneration Vehicle (CCURV)
which embraces the Council’s commitment to regeneration of the Borough and
where possible injects its own assets to support the regeneration process.
The aim of the document is to act as a case study in the use of the Competitive
Dialogue process as defined by the Public Contracts Regulations 2006. In doing
so it is set in the context of the process undertaken in the selection of a PSP for
In addition, the document addresses some of the ‘Prevailing Themes’ arising
from the creation of CCURV and the ‘Challenges Ahead’.
2. Background
It was proposed that CCURV would be a 50/50 joint venture between the Council
and its PSP. Its primary purpose was to take forward and physically develop the
sites transferred to it by the Council. It is also intended that CCURV would
pursue new development opportunities which meet its development criteria
where the opportunity arose.
Additionally, the Council would commit to the development of a new Public
Service Delivery Hub (PSDH) consisting of 22,000 sqm as part of the project’s
development objectives. This is planned to be the 1st phase of a campus
approach to the delivery of public services involving the Council and other public
and voluntary sector partners on the Fell Road/ Mink Walk/ Davis House block.
The organisation to become the Council’s PSP needed to be experienced in
undertaking complex regeneration projects and be capable of offering full design,
specification and relocation advice for the Council’s pre-let requirement. It must
also be capable of investing in CCURV’s development programme.
The Council holds a substantial portfolio of assets within central Croydon and the
wider borough. This comprises operational assets, development sites and both
commercial and residential non-operational properties. The Council was aware
that it faced a variety of challenges and opportunities which have arisen from
changing local and national circumstances.
The Council had recognised that if real improvements were to be made to the
borough, the conditions need to be created to ensure that a significant platform
was in place from which the objectives can be fulfilled and that without external
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 4 18 March 2009
funding and investment this platform could not be created. It was essential that
the achievement of sustainable regeneration is a core theme within the Council’s
property activities, in support of the Council’s vision and the sustainable
community strategy.
Following Cabinet approval of the Outline Business Case in March 2007, the EU
Competitive Dialogue process commenced in April 2007 when the OJEU Notice
was posted. Commercial Close reached in November 2008. The CCURV LLP
Partnership is 50/50 owned between John Laing Projects and Developments
(JLPD) and the Council.
3. Objectives of the Council for CCURV
The following objectives were set for CCURV and have been incorporated in the
Partnership Business Plan:
• Enhancing the quality of design in Croydon and ensuring that the Council has
an influence in place shaping in the centre of Croydon.
• Ensuring that regeneration of the centre of Croydon and ultimately the wider
borough is achieved.
• Encouraging employment to generate and encourage the growth of a buoyant
• Ensuring that development projects offer the best and most appropriate use
of sites, employing good quality design, both now and in the future.
• Revitalising town and district centres whilst retaining Croydon’s character and
sense of community.
• Providing affordable housing and supporting the long term aim of increasing
the number of residential accommodation units available in the centre of
Croydon, this includes a drive towards higher quality and higher density
residential accommodation within the centre.
• Providing a better environment.
• Ensuring that environmental and sustainability objectives are achieved as set
out in the Environmental Policy and Green Commitment.
• Ensuring a whole life approach in determining the best use of assets.
• Providing place-shaping accommodation to meet the Council’s short term
accommodation requirements.
• Consolidating the Council’s office holdings and reducing operating costs
across the Council’s occupied estate.
• Providing future proofing to accommodate potential changes in the need for
core Council office space.
• Targeting investment in quality of place and creating healthy, safe,
sustainable communities to help attract and retain businesses and skilled
people within central Croydon and the wider borough.
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 5 18 March 2009
4. Principal Development Sites
The principal development sites, committed to CCURV at establishment of the
vehicle were:
• Taberner House: This is a 19 storey office block built in 1960’s that
presently provides the main civic accommodation for the Council and drop-in
facilities (‘Access Croydon’) for a number of core services. The building is
located adjacent to Queens Gardens and Park Lane. The Council believes
that this building is at the end of its economic life. The Council will require
relocating from this site in order to release it for re-development.
• Fell Road: This is a 5 storey 1960s office block currently occupied by the
Council. The site is adjacent to Queens Gardens, Taberner House and the
historic Town Hall and Clock Tower. The Council will need to relocate prior to
development of this site, which has been designated as the location for the
first phase of the new PSDH.
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 6 18 March 2009
• Tamworth Annex: This building is currently used by Croydon Council and
the NHS for the delivery of mental healthcare facilities. The building occupies
a large site and is not listed.
• College Green: There are several components to this site:
• Designated public open space.
• A building owned by Croydon College
• An underground and multi-storey car park providing approximately
1,300 spaces in total currently leased to the RBS and operated by
NCP. The lease incorporates an option for the Council to ‘call’ for the
surrender of the ground lease in return for the payment of an agreed
capital sum.
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 7 18 March 2009
This is the most complex site within the portfolio. It had been assumed that
any development of the site will need to be undertaken in phases. As a
minimum, the development would require land assembly of the Fairfield Multistorey Car Park and the Croydon College Barclay Road site.
• Fairfield Halls: Fairfield Halls comprises an arts, entertainment and
conference centre, providing a concert hall and theatre amongst other
facilities. At this stage Fairfield Halls site has not been included in the
portfolio to be transferred to CCURV. However, during the Competitive
Dialogue bidders were asked to demonstrate how they would incorporate
Fairfield Halls into a wider master plan for the site.
A further provisional list of Phase 2 sites was identified during the Competitive
Dialogue process and subject to feasibility and best value tests can be expected
to be commitment to CCURV within 12 months of its establishment.
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 8 18 March 2009
5. CCURV Structure
At commencement of the Competitive Dialogue it was expected that the
partnership will be established for a period of up to 28 years, in which the Council
and the successful PSP will each hold a 50% interest. The value of the Council’s
50% interest would be quantified through the bidding process and based upon
the value of the assets it commits to the vehicle.
The role of CCURV will be to undertake development activity including land
assembly, master planning, marketing and some physical development in line
with the Council’s objectives and by reference to the business plans agreed by
the Council.
The legal structure of the partnership would be agreed with the PSP, which will
be a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) and would be established to afford
partners the required levels of corporate governance and financial and
operational efficiency.
The bidding process established a transfer value for each of the assets to be
transferred into CCURV and this will form the basis of the PSP’s required cash
contribution to the partnership. It was anticipated that any development profits
that are generated by CCURV’s activities will be distributed in accordance with
the partners’ equity contributions (50/50).
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 9 18 March 2009
John LaingJohn Laing Gladedaleladedale
LLP Subsidiary Land
LL ubsidiary Land
PSP SPV/John Laing
Supervises LLP
subsidiaries and Devco
/John Laing
Supervises LLP
subsidiaries and evco
Contractors and
ontractors and
Laing Vehicle guaranteed by
John Laing
Laing ehicle guaranteed by
John Laing
Agreement assigned
by CCURV to Devco
gree ent assigned
by to evco
(Occupancy Agreement)
Periodic payments
Duty of
Land commitments
(Conditional sale
and development
Development services
Management services
New council offices
Members Agreement
e bers gree ent
Where appropriate see
comments in note
6. The Private Sector Partner
The successful partner would be required to during the Competitive Dialogue
process to demonstrate:
• It can marry its own skills and strengths in property management and
development with the property potential inherent within the portfolio.
• Evidence its ability to access capital to form the basis of its 50% stake in
CCURV including its commitment to access such capital and its covenant
strength, and therefore unlock opportunities. The evaluation process will
test thoroughly bidders’ ability to access and commit such funds, debt and
equity as well as a clear commitment to funding regeneration activity.
• The ability to enter into a long term partnering arrangement which will
commit to delivering the development projects and unlock value within the
portfolio of transferred assets.
• A shared commitment to the Council’s aspirations for the borough.
• A commitment to achieve a balance between the financial and social
benefits in the short and, more importantly long term.
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 10 18 March 2009
• The skills and capacity to advise the Council on achieving its occupational
7. Overview of the Competitive Dialogue Process
The Competitive Dialogue process can be broken down into the following key
stages, as used in the selection process for a PSP:
• Expressions of Interest and Pre-qualification (Selection of long-list)
• Invitations to Submit Outline Proposals - Competitive Dialogue (Stage 1)
• Competitive Dialogue (Stage 2)
• Calling Submission and Evaluation of Final Tenders
• Contract Finalisation and Commercial Close
Full and formal guidance to the Competitive Dialogue process can be found
8. Project Management Structure
CCURV and its objectives are complex and whilst the model used had been tried
and tested in public sector bodies such as the regional development agencies
and British Waterways, the Council was the first local authority to proceed with
this model. This being the case a strong project management structure was
required bringing together experienced external advisers and an internal team
which, while not having direct experience of the CCURV model, had at least
PPP/PFI, property development, urban design and estate management
The project management structure followed the principles of PRINCE2. The key
Role Description
Project Sponsor - Nathan Elvery
(Director of Finance & Resources/
Executive Director of Resources &
Customer Services)
Strategic sponsorship of the CCURV programme.
Project Owner Tony Middleton (Divisional
Director Asset & FM/ Director of
Regeneration & Infrastructure)
Tactical ownership and direction of the CCURV
CCURV Client Programme Manager Malcolm Lyon
Responsible for the programme management for the
Council, including matrix management of internal and
external resources, lead negotiations for the clientside and advice/reporting to senior management and
Principal Surveyor – Anjli Gupta Responsible for the client management input to
development site opportunities, technical advice and
a member of the client negotiating/evaluation team.
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 11 18 March 2009
Role Description
Urban Design (Planning) - Andrew
Beedham and Peter Fletcher
Technical advice and feedback during the
Competitive Dialogue, preparation of planning briefs
and liaison with planning team.
Legal Services - Sean Murphy Technical support of Council legal requirements and
quality assurance of external legal advisers.
Corporate Finance –
Marion Kelly (to November 2007)
Warren Tricker (to November 2007)
Peter Davis (from December 2007)
Lead on the Council’s financial position, sign-off of
PSC and act as a member of the
negotiation/evaluation team.
Technical & Financial (External Advisers)
- King Sturge
To provide external financial and technical advice
and guidance on the structure of the deal and the
financial model. Day to day organisation of the
Competitive Dialogue process. Member of the
negotiation/evaluation team
Legal (External Advisers) - Eversheds To provide legal advice to the Council, drafting of
partnership documentation and act as a member of
the negotiation/evaluation team.
4Ps – Andrew Rowson To provide external tactical support and guidance to
the Council. Member of the negotiation/evaluation
Internal Team
Another challenge was to put together a team which could dedicate the
appropriate amount of time at the right time to the project. The nature of the
Council and its (competing) workloads is that appointing to the core internal team
had been relatively straight forward, however, the ability of each member of the
team to focus on the job at hand throughout to procurement process was at times
strained. That said the team, through core continuity in some roles and by
setting up complementary roles, had allowed the project to continue without a
major risk occurring. Risk mitigation was helped by the support of the 4Ps (see
below) and having two experienced firms (King Sturge and Eversheds) acting as
external advisers.
Appointment of External Advisers
In view of the relatively novel structure of the CCURV model it was essential that
the Council recruited external advisers whom it had confidence would provide the
right quality of advice, knowledge of the technical, legal and commercial matters.
The Council undertook two selection exercises, the first using the OGCs SCat
procedure which two firms where invited to tender for the technical and financial
adviser role. King Sturge who had worked with British Waterways and the RDAs
were successful in the selection process.
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 12 18 March 2009
Secondly, three legal firms, including one from the Council’s framework
agreement, were invited to tender. Eversheds were successful, and brought
experience of working on the RDA model.
The appointment of these two firms was critical to the success of the project in
reaching Commercial Close.
Further limited external advisers were used for specialist roles such as
Support from the 4Ps
As this project was a ground breaker for local authorities, the 4Ps designated
CCURV as a ‘pathfinder’ project and therefore provided support from the Head of
their Property and Regeneration team. Andrew Rowson joined the team
following the pre-qualification stage. He was involved in the evaluation of the
Outline Submissions, attended the majority of the Competitive Dialogue meetings
and provided ad-hoc guidance on procedural and other matters as they arise.
Bringing a fresh pair of eyes (with experience of the wider local authority
regeneration agenda) to the team clearly added value to the process, even if in
some cases it is reaffirming the Council were on the right track.
Also, Andrew Rowson drew on his 4Ps colleagues to provide specialist and/or
specific advice and guidance as appropriate.
9. Timetable
Event Timing
OJEU Notice Posted April 2007
PQQ Returned June 2007
Invitation to Submit Outline Proposals (CD1) July 2007
Outline Submissions Received August 2007
Competitive Dialogue Stage 2 Commences October 2007
Call Final Tenders February 2008
Final Tenders Submitted February 2008
Cabinet Approval – Selection of PSP June 2008
Cabinet Approval – Move to Commercial Close November 2008
Commercial Close and Establishment of
November 2008
10. Expressions of Interest and Pre-qualification
The objectives of this stage was to seek expressions of interest in tendering for
the role of PSP and in doing so go through a formal pre-qualification exercise
resulting in a long-list of bidders to be invited to submit Outline Proposals.
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 13 18 March 2009
While a formal OJEU notice would be issued, a considerable effort was made to
warm the market up and take market soundings (previously done doing OBC
stage). As the OJEU was planned for April 2007, the Council used the
opportunity to promote the project at MIPIM (March 2007), including the
production of a short DVD.
The OJEU notice was posted in April 2007 however the formal launch was
programmed to coincide with Croydon Expo 07 in early May. The launch event
was attended by over 90 from the industry. The launch event also allowed the
Council to demonstrate support at Member level including attendance from the
Leader and Cabinet lead for Regeneration as well as key senior officers.
As a result the Council received 19 expressions of interest to the Memorandum
of Information issued. Following a period of evaluation a long list of 8
firms/consortia were selected to proceed to the next stage of the competition.
Key Issue for this Stage
One key issue which came out of this stage was the requirement under the
Competitive Dialogue process to set the evaluation criteria for the competition. It
became clear from the advice received from Eversheds that the team would need
to set the evaluation criteria for the whole process from the outset. This does
become a challenge in that through each stage of the Competitive Dialogue
process the amount of detail and information provided by bidders differs and in
some cases certain evaluation criteria is not tested at all (e.g. quantum of the
financial offer is only tested at final offers, while ‘Quality of Consortium’ is key in
the pre-qualification exercise, but less so at final offers in that it was previously
tested and the bidders would not be there if the team was not strong from the
Great care therefore needs to be taken over setting the allocation of scoring
percentages at the commencement of the process, needing to balance the
objectives and demands of each stage of the selection process.
The evaluation criteria used was:
Criteria No.
Criteria Sub Criteria
Quality of
Design and property team (3%)
Financing partners (4%)
Experience of working together (1%)
Financial Offer Quantum of offer* (17%)
Robustness of offer (incl. covenant
strength, transparency of consortium
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 14 18 March 2009
Criteria No.
Criteria Sub Criteria
and guarantee arrangements) (11%)
Caveats (incl. pricing, flexibility,
general qualifications) (6%)
Meeting the Council’s relocation
objectives (7.5%)
Meeting the Council’s regeneration
objectives (7.5%)
Deliverability (incl. planning and
market risks) (5%)
Urban design (5%)
Mix of uses (incl. provision of public
realm) (5%)
Approach to
Approach to Business Plans (5%)
Approach to partnership working
Resourcing plan (3%)
Flexibility (incl. approach to Council
occupancy and other future
requirements) (1%)
Structure of
Acceptance of legal and operational
principles (5%)
Acceptance of project
documentation (5%)
Approach to asset transfers (incl.
taxation and accounting matters)
11. Invitation to Submit Outline Proposals
An Invitation to Submit Outline Proposals (ISOP) was issued to 8 firms/consortia
of which 5 returned Outline Proposals. The Council’s aim was to use an ISOP to
reduce the number of Candidates moving forward into further detailed dialogue to
The shortlisted bidders were asked to respond to 51 questions designed to cover
the evaluation criteria (main exception was ‘Quantum of Offer’). Care was taken
to set questions which sought enough detail to enable the Council to select the
most promising 3 bidders for the final stage of the Competitive Dialogue process
including submission of Final Tenders.
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 15 18 March 2009
Some of the key areas were:
• Confirmation of the quality of the firm/consortia bidding and its professional
team, through indicative and emerging proposals for the sites and the civic
offices provision.
• A willingness to commit to the Council’s objectives for CCURV with a
commitment to regeneration and the development of further assets whatever
the size.
• A steer on their preference for the legal structure of CCURV in particular LP
or LLP.
• Commitment to the proposed Loan Note structure.
At this stage the Council is asking bidders to commit significant resources to the
process, with the odds still 5 to 1. It is important to invest time getting the right
balance on information required to enable a valued assessment of the bids. A
key risk here is that one bidder, with potential may loss the opportunity to score
higher because they have lacked detail in their submission while in essence
committing to the approach set out in the Council’s ISOP.
In addition, because proposals are outline at this stage, there is more judgement
asked of the evaluation team to predict the deliverability of those proposals in the
long run, bearing in mind a considerable amount of design development and
detail added before Final Tenders submitted. The evaluation team benefited
from a system of individual followed by team marking, thereby giving a broad
analysis of the bids submitted. Also involvement of the Urban Design team from
Transport and Planning Department was a great help in giving direction to
bidders on the planning constraints in line with the Council’s UDP and as part of
the evaluation process on deliverability.
12. Competitive Dialogue Stage 2
An extensive Competitive Dialogue process was embarked on at the outset with
3 shortlisted bidders (City 3 Partnership, John Laing and Land Securities
Trillium). Following the initial rounds of the Competitive Dialogue meetings City 3
Partnership withdrew from competition leaving the two remaining bidders.
The Competitive Dialogue process was generally run along 3 streams, design
and property, commercial and legal. This approach worked generally very well,
though there was some clear overlap requiring joint coverage of topics. One
important aspect of this process was to ensure that there was not too much
compartmentalisation of knowledge on the Council team’s side. In particular,
while the members of the team clearly needed the cover the commercial aspects
of the deal, it was extremely helpful that they attend some of the design and
property meetings as this gave them a solid understanding of the links between
what was to be delivered and the commercial impact.
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 16 18 March 2009
Once the team had embarked on the Competitive Dialogue Stage 2, it became
clear that the time allowed for bidders and dialogue between the bidders and the
Council team was not enough. The Council offered an extension of the
Competitive Dialogue period from mid-December to mid-January with the Final
Tenders required at the end of February 2008. The bidders and the Council
used this period productively with Final Tenders to be called in the first week of
February. To give bidders confidence that no material changes were expected in
what would be required at final tender stage, the Council issued a draft Invitation
to Submit Final Tenders in late December. The Bidders repaid that confidence
and agreed to have a relatively short Final Tender period, approximately 3
13. Calling, Submission and Evaluation of Final Tenders
The tactic of issuing a draft Final Tender document, allowed the two bidders to
meet the short deadline for submission of Final Tenders. In retrospect this
worked well and allowed the Council to keep open the Competitive Dialogue
process as long as practical. This approach worked since if in those last few
weeks the Competitive Dialogue was restricted to fine tuning a small number of
issues (not necessarily the same for both bidders).
The Evaluation of Final Tenders was undertaken by the Evaluation team. This
team had essentially been the same team throughout the whole procurement
process, apart from a couple of exceptions, where individuals moved on and
replaced by a new member. However, keeping the core team together and using
that team which was involved in the Competitive Dialogue negotiation meetings
meant that final evaluation was relatively straight forward. It is important that
when evaluating bids on such a complex and multi-facet vehicle, those involved
have been on the journey, understand why decisions were made during the
Competitive Dialogue and where we arrived at.
Furthermore, while views were sought throughout the Competitive Dialogue
process from other groups, for instance presentations to senior management and
members, feedback on proposals from the Urban Design team and planners, it
was considered important to the integrity of the process that that core team only
scored the bids.
Once the evaluation process was completed, a report was produced which
included an updated public sector comparator. The evaluation results were set
out in the report to Cabinet in June 2008, in which Cabinet were asked to
approve John Laing Projects and Developments as preferred Private Sector
Partner. The recommendation subsequently reviewed and endorsed by Scrutiny
and Overview Committee, who backed the recommendation.
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 17 18 March 2009
John Laing Projects and Developments (JLPD) were selected Preferred Private
Sector Partner (PPSP) in June 2008.
14. Contract Finalisation and Commercial Close
The Council moved to PPSP at a time of major economic uncertainty, this being
said both parties maintained a positive position taking the long term view for the
partnership. Working within the restrictions of the Competitive Dialogue process,
the partnership documents were finalised, alibi over a longer period than
planned. The teams were required to respond to the prevailing market conditions
in finalising the partnership arrangements without re-opening the negotiation
In view of the quantum of this deal to the Council it was decided to return to
Cabinet for final approval to move to Commercial Close, immediately prior to this
the report was considered by Scrutiny and Overview Committee. In reporting to
Cabinet and Scrutiny & Overview Committee, the team was able to report that
the deal had been shared with the district auditor and had received a letter of
comfort from then over the approach and the ability of the Council to enter into
such a partnership. Secondly, another important opinion from Deloitte sought and
reported was over Accounting Treatment of both the Public Service Delivery Hub
and CCURV itself. PWC acted as a ‘critical friend’ for the finance team during
this period.
Cabinet approval was given to move to Commercial Close in November 2008
and Commercial Close achieved on 28 November 2008.
15. Client-side Management
It is critical that there is a strong client-side management team in place post
establishment of the vehicle. The core Council team involved in the Competitive
Dialogue process has been retained to manage the client function in the early
stages of the operation of CCURV. The Council at the time of completing this
case study (March 2009) was in the process of restructuring the Directorate of
Regeneration and Infrastructure with a permanent client team to be embedded in
the Strategic Development Section. In addition, important links and support will
come from the Corporate Finance team. In addition, a Project Board has been
formed to manage the PSDH programme, the PSDH being a key CCURV
deliverable. This also has links into the Service Transformation team, again
close working relationships have been established between this team and the
Client Team.
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 18 18 March 2009
To support this client function, a User Manual is being developed. The User
Manual when completed will be a comprehensive suit of documents divided into
the following parts:
• Guide to the User Manual
• High Level Guide to the Partnership
• Guide to Partnership
• Budget Management and Affordability
• Stakeholders, Communication and Public Consultation
• Client Management Role
• Risk Management
16. Prevailing Themes
In embarking on the CCURV joint venture using the Competitive Dialogue
process there are a number of prevailing themes on which to reflect now that the
Council has passed Commercial Close and is in the early months of operating
CCURV with JLPD. While not comprehensive the following is a retrospective
Council view of the position.
Innovation and Best Practice
Croydon Council is the first local authority to enter into the Local Asset Backed
Vehicle model used. This model had previously been used by a number of
Regional Development Agencies (e.g. EMDA and One North East) and British
Waterways. In view of its pathfinder status the 4Ps provided support to the
project throughout the Competitive Dialogue process and was used as a case
study in their [name] publication.
The project was also innovative in that the deal was anchored by the Council’s
requirement for a new 22,000 sqm PSDH and its objective to cover the cost of
this new building through the value created by the surplus sites transferred into
CCURV. This added an extra dimension to the Competitive Dialogue process, in
that the Council was looking for a partner which both could successfully deliver
the commercial development sites and manage the delivery of the PSDH.
It is hard to define Best Practice when ‘Pathfinding’, however the Council used
many of the lessons learnt from more traditional PFI/PPP projects, applied
PRINCE 2 and our external advisers King Sturge and Eversheds brought with
them their experience on the Regional Development Agencies projects.
[To be added: Appendix Lessons Learnt = Sign-posting best practice for similar
CD LABV procurements]
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 19 18 March 2009
Outcomes for Local People
The outputs for CCURV is likely to deliver around £450m of development
providing initially much needed regeneration to the Town Centre but later the
district centres and wider Borough. In achieving this there will be a number of
important outcomes for local people:
Public Services Delivery Hub: This new building will be the first phase of a
campus approach to public services involving the Council and its public and
voluntary sector partners. ‘Access Croydon’ will be the centrepiece of the new
building with ground floor public access to a comprehensive set of services from
housing to the Registers Office.
Improvements to Public Realm: As part of the redevelopment of four
contingent sites will facilitate a major upgrade of the public realm, to include but
not limited to:
• Pedestrian at grade access across Park Lane linking College Green to
Queens Gardens.
• Enlargement of the Queens Gardens green space and reduction in
shadowing at peak lunchtime usage.
• Re-working of College Green to allow for public entertainment space,
better links and interface with Fairfield Halls and improved access to East
Croydon station and Park Hill park.
• Pedestrian access from new PSDH to Queens Gardens.
New Homes: While the final mix on the development sites will be reviewed in
the light of prevailing market conditions, it is expected that a large number of new
homes will be built across the CCURV sites to include both market and
affordable homes.
Jobs: With £450m of development spread over 7 to 8 years initially, it can be
expected that there will considerable job opportunities for local people. The
Council and CCURV will be expecting the CCURV contractors to work with local
training providers, such as Croydon College, to provide opportunities for
placements on development projects.
Also there can be expected to be long-term commercial, public sector and retail
jobs created through the regeneration of these sites.
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 20 18 March 2009
Cultural Quarter: The initial development sites sit within the Cultural Quarter of
the Town Centre. Where possible and practical the development sites will
complement the existing fair and strategy. The re-design of College Green to act
as an entertainment space, supported by ground level retail outlets and linked to
the Fairfield Halls is an example.
Members Engagement
The programme has had considerable support and engagement from Members
throughout the Competitive Dialogue process, but also in the earlier stage with
the first key milestone of Cabinet approval of the Outline Business Case in March
The project has had clear direction from Leadership and active ongoing
involvement from the Cabinet Member for Regeneration throughout. In addition,
the opposition group were engaged and briefed through the procurement
process. This included presentations from the two shortlisted bidders prior to
final evaluation of the Final Tenders.
Also, the team went to Scrutiny and Overview Committee at selection of
Preferred Private Sector Partner and prior to Cabinet authorisation to move to
Commercial Close. Scrutiny and Overview Committee commented in [find]
Key events involving Members:
Event Timing
Cabinet Approval of Outline Business Case and agreement to
proceed with Competitive Dialogue Process
March 2007
Launch Event for Industry May 2007
Bidders Presentations to both Leadership and Opposition Group May 2008
Cabinet Approval of Preferred Private Sector Partner June 2008
Scrutiny and Overview Committee Review of Cabinet decision July 2008
Scrutiny and Overview Committee (Pre-Cabinet decision) November 2008
Cabinet Approval to move to Commercial Close November 2008
It is important to state that while Members were engaged throughout the
Competitive Dialogue process, and feedback considered by the Evaluation team,
the marking and evaluation of bids at each stage was solely left to the Evaluation
The other key point is that Commercial Close took place at a time of major
economic uncertainty. The support of both the Senior Management team and
Members was vital to completing the deal and the creation of CCURV.
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 21 18 March 2009
Maximising Value of the Council Assets
A key driver for the Council in using this Local Asset Backed Vehicle Model was
to maximise the value of the Council assets. This vehicle had been tested and
used by the Regional Development Agencies and British Waterways. Evidence
was that up to 40% more value could be obtained over the traditional sale route.
While the Council had been relatively successful in its disposals programme, it
believed that further value could be attained and the Urban Regeneration Vehicle
route was explored. This resulted in an Outline Business Case being produced
baking the URV route which was approved by Cabinet in March 2007.
The main reasons for creating added value are:
• Transfer values higher than the book value, obtained by offering a group
of assets and potentially further pipeline of sites. Value also added
through opportunities for land assembly of adjacent sites, College Green
is a prime example.
• A 50% share in Developer Profits. This opportunity is lost through
traditional method of land disposal. While ‘overage’ clauses have been
used in the past, realising ‘overage’ payments is not particularly
• A and B Loan Notes which attract a coupon (interest) on the value of the
assets committed or transferred into the Partnership. The A Loan Coupon
applies from commencement of the partnership related to the unmatched
JLPD A Loan and the B Loan Coupon from transfer of the assets at the
point of the ‘Readiness for Development criteria’ is achieved for each
development site.
However, the partnership is not without risk to the Council, though safeguard
have been built into the Partnership Agreement which mitigate exposure to risk
and in many ways limits the risk to the added value created through pursuing this
Local Asset Backed Vehicle route.
A further important point to make is that it is not just about maximising value in
cash terms. Also important, if not just as, is the benefits to the regenerative
impact re-developing these sites will have in kick-starting the Council’s
programme for the Borough, initially in the Town Centre. Traditionally once
assets have been sold the Council is then at the mercy of the pace the developer
wishes to develop out the sites. Being a 50/50 partner in CCURV allows the
Council to ensure sites a moved forward in line with the business objectives set
at the start of the Competitive Dialogue process.
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 22 18 March 2009
Sustainability was considered on two fronts, the first in terms of regeneration and
the impact of the re-development of the sites commitment in supporting the wider
regenerative objectives of the Council; and secondly the requirements of the
quality of build whether BREAM rating or Sustainable Homes rating.
In terms of regeneration this has been covered at ‘Outcomes for Local People’,
as essentially, the same themes apply to sustainability, even though the impact
goes wider than just local people. Making Croydon an attractive place to work,
visit and live is a key goal of the Council and this can only be achieved if the
regenerative initiatives whether driven through CCURV and/or other major
developments go ahead and ideally complement one another.
It is planned a minimum two Combined Heat and Power Energy Centres will be
developed and depending on further detailed master planning a possible third.
These CHP Energy Centres are expected to linked into the Council’s wider
proposals (in its early feasibility stage) for developing a district heating system.
There is a requirement for the new PSDH to be built to BREEAM Excellent
standards. Key features include a Climate Wall, Chilled Beam system and a
CHP Energy Centre.
There is a requirement that any new homes will be built to Sustainable homes
rating 4.
Partnership Working
One of the high level evaluation criteria used for the Competitive Dialogue
process was ‘Approach to Partnership’ attracting 14% of the marks, of which
‘Approach to Partnership Working’ attracted 5%. The Council therefore from the
outset of the Competitive Dialogue process attached considerable importance to
selecting a PSP who was not only committed to the partnership working
approach, but was a partner the Council could work with over what would be a
long period.
CCURV also set the challenge of partnership working in that it would on three
levels. The first is through the Council’s 50/50 joint ownership of the CCURV
LLP, secondly through JLPD acting in the Development Manager role on behalf
of CCURV and thirdly through the requirement of CCURV and ultimately JLPD
(as Development Manager) to deliver the Council’s new PSDH.
Critical to the success of this CCURV partnership is to have well thought out
partnership documentation which both parties are fully committed to and support
the relationships rather than hinder those relationships. In arriving at the final
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 23 18 March 2009
partnership documentation, it was essential that robust governance procedures
were adopted to ensure probity and transparency. This was achieved through
initial drafting from the Council legal and other team members and subsequently
through the dialogue process with the bidders. While not a comprehensive list,
some of the key features around ‘Approach to Partnership’ were:
• Creating a Partnership Business Plan which embeds the Council’s
objectives for CCURV in that plan.
• Creation of the LLP Board approach within the partnership (Board’s are
not technically required for a LLP) and the application of the ‘Delegation
• Development site Business Plans.
• Change Mechanism (particularly important with regard to business plans
and risk sharing)
• Risk sharing and the allocation of risk and reward between the partners.
One important factor which assisted JLPD was their commitment to keep the
team which bid on the CCURV team post creation (to date this has been the
Another factor which is less easy to quantify, but important is the bidders
approach to ‘listening’ and this should be two way. If a bidder does not listen
during the dialogue process in competition then they are hardly likely to listen
when they are in situate.
Finally, as described previously, having a robust client management team is
essential if the partnership is the work successful once established. While the
partnership documentation sets out relatively clear lines of responsibility for the
respective parties, in essence much of the day to day work requires a joint
approach and mutual support. This is whether in holding public consultation
exercises, talking to public sector partners about opportunities or achieving
vacant possession of the Fell Road site.
This section can be summed up by “Chose the right partner, be the right
17. Challenges Ahead
While the purpose of this document is a Case Study covering the Competitive
Dialogue procurement route, it does give the opportunity to signal the
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 24 18 March 2009
‘Challenges Ahead’ for the Council and CCURV in the first six months of
CCURV’s existence and in its early years of operation. The key challenges are:
Establishing the Governance Structures: It is one thing having robust
governance arrangements written into the partnership documents however, the
governance arrangements need implementing and embedded into the operation
and culture of the working partnership. The following are just a selection of
• LLP Partnership Board: The key decision making body for CCURV
which meets monthly. Three Board Representatives from each
shareholder though one vote for each shareholder. Issue for the
individuals is that when acting in this capacity their overriding interests are
that of CCURV. Tone of early meetings will set the tone of the partnership
• Client-side Team: Establishment of the client-side team is critical to the
success of the partnership and to ensure that Council objective from the
partnership are met. As this is a pathfinding scheme in the local authority
sector means that the ability to retain the core team with their experience
and knowledge of the project going forward will be very important.
However, that core team needs widening with important links into the
Corporate Finance function and the Service Transformation team in
particular. This is set against a background of major restructuring of the
Planning, Regeneration and Conservation directorate.
• Commercial: The Council needs to implement governance structures to
safeguard its commercial and financial interests. CCURV has a complex
commercial structure which should not be underestimated.
• User Manual: A comprehensive User Manual will be developed to
support the client team and those who later may replace existing team
members. Some key sections where drafted prior to Commercial Close
but further work required before a full suite of documents will be
Economic Uncertainty: Commercial Close took place at a time of economic
uncertainty. Proposals for each of the development sites as set out in the
business plans will need to be reviewed and amended if necessary. This is likely
to apply more to the first phase of College Green with a planning application
proposed for late 2009/early 2010.
On a positive side the early land assembly of Davis House has been a success
securing senior debt funding and the investment is being actively managed.
Case Study – CCURV Procurement
Version: Draft 4 25 18 March 2009
Public Services Delivery Hub: This is potentially an early win for the
partnership. However, 2009 will be a very active year for both parties with the
aim of achieving planning permission and de-commissioning of Fell Road before
the year end. This is particularly the case for the Council which has a major
programme of work to meet all its obligations working in parallel and jointly with
Public Sector Partners: The CCURV Partnership offers great opportunities for
the Council to engage and promote partnerships with our public and voluntary
sector partners. The vision of a Public Services Campus covering the current
Fell Road/ Mint Walk/ Davis House sites requires major buy-in from other public
sector partners whether the PCT, Police and/or Courts Services.
The College Green site is adjacent to both Croydon College and the Magistrates’
Courts. Land assembly of the College’s Barclay Road Annex is a key aim. Also
there are potential opportunities to engage with the Metropolitan University who
are exploring links with the College. Another opportunity is the Immigration and
Boarders Agency (Home Office) which is a big employer in the town and are
currently reviewing there office requirements.
Future Sites: The Partnership was set up to allow further assets to be
transferred in. The Council has a provisional list of 8 to 10 sites some of which
can be easily taken forward as a development, while others are much more
complication. By moving these sites forward, the Council has the opportunity to
spread its commercial risk, in particular in the early years of the partnership.
March 2009

PDF Document reader online

This website is focused on providing document in readable format, online without need to install any type of software on your computer. If you are using thin client, or are not allowed to install document reader of particular type, this application may come in hand for you. Simply upload your document, and will transform it into readable format in a few seconds. Why choose

  1. Unlimited sharing - you can upload document of any size. If we are able to convert it into readable format, you have it here - saved for later or immediate reading
  2. Cross-platform - no compromised when reading your document. We support most of modern browers without the need of installing any of external plugins. If your device can oper a browser - then you can read any document on it
  3. Simple uploading - no need to register. Just enter your email, title of document and select the file, we do the rest. Once the document is ready for you, you will receive automatic email from us.

Previous 10

Next 10