1

Mr G

They should be given tents, it would be much cheaper.

Report abuse

3

Roy Gueno

I think we could offer five year licence’s the Airport is essential, and the contract may overrun.

Report abuse

5

Dave Jones

Stilleto this might help.

Dear States Member

Use of Cour du Parc to provide temporary accommodation for workers on the Airport pavements project

I refer to various e-mails asking me to clarify the Housing Department’s position with regard to the use of Cour du Parc as possible accommodation for the workers on the Airport pavements project.

As my memory of such matters is not always foolproof, and because the various discussions were conducted at staff level, the following is the chronology of events as recorded in our files:

•On the initiative of our Chief Officer, in July 2010 an approach was made to senior staff of the Public Services Department (PSD) to see whether they would be interested in using Cour du Parc to accommodate workers on this project, in order to alleviate the potential pressure on the housing stock and tourist accommodation, in the event that temporary housing could not be provided specifically for this purpose.
•The Airport Director was initially enthusiastic at this suggestion and therefore it was agreed to prepare a report for the Housing board raising this idea, before he drew it to the attention of potential contractors for the project.
•That report was considered by the Housing board at its meeting on 5 August 2011. It proposed that Cour du Parc be made available for a period of approximately two years, i.e. for the duration of the Airport contract which the Department had been advised was due to commence in early 2011.
•It was also suggested that the Education Department be approached to see whether there was any interest/need for workers on the Les Beaucamps Schoool redevelopment project to be accommodated there also.
•It is true to say that the Housing board had a number of reservations about these suggestions but nonetheless agreed, by a majority, that the finer details of these proposals should be explored before reaching a final conclusion.
•The Education Department immediately declined the offer, but the offer remained on the table with the Airport Director, with whom our senior staff met on 11 October 2011.
•At that meeting, the Airport Director advised that a site for temporary accommodation had been identified and it would up to the contractor whether they wanted to accommodate all the workers there or across two sites. It would be known who the preferred contractor was by the end of November 2010, and the contractor would thus be in a position to advise of their accommodation preferences by the end of January 2011.
•In parallel with this – and as notified to PSD – detailed discussions and financial modelling were undertaken with the staff of Health and Social Services Department (HSSD) and States Property Services about the alternative possibility of using Cour du Parc to provide temporary accommodation for staff employed by HSSD. However, at the beginning of November 2010, it was concluded that it would not be cost-effective to use the building for this purpose.
•Early in January 2011, the Airport Director notified us that the ‘preferred’ contractor had shown some interest in Cour du Parc; was it still available and could a site visit be arranged?
He was advised, by return, that the building was still available, but that it was possible that some development proposals for Cour du Parc could come forward at some point during 2011. Hence there was the possibility of the Airport contractor using Cour du Parc for short-term lets during 2011, although it was understood that this was probably of limited use.
•The Airport Director responded on 1 February 2011 that, having discussed the matter with the preferred contractor, they were not interested in pursuing the Cour du Parc option on the basis of a short-term let and therefore the matter was closed.

You will, therefore, note from the above that the offer of accommodation was first made to PSD last summer and remained open until it was declined at the beginning of February.

I would also like to take the opportunity to answer other questions than have been raised about the physical condition of Cour du Parc, which have become narrowly focused on the lift in the building.

Although the building has been well-maintained, its problems extend well beyond the difficulties with the lift. To be fit for habitation in the long-term it would need extensive upgrading. The flats need to be rewired, new kitchens and bathrooms are required in the majority of flats, balconies need to be enclosed for Health and Safety reasons, external cladding is needed, the central heating system requires replacement, and the communal areas require complete renovation.

Excluding the lift replacement, in December 2009, the costs of carrying out these refurbishment works was estimated at £1.25 million. Hence the decision to carry out an options appraisal regarding its future use. Regrettably, that options appraisal has been delayed – in the main because of the continuing heavy demands placed upon the Department’s resources to progress the extra care housing proposals recently discussed by the States. (It should also be noted that the pressure to complete this options appraisal arises from the Housing board having taken the decision to relocate the Cour du Parc tenants well ahead of the date planned, for the reasons previously notified to States Members.)

So, to draw all these various threads together: even at this late juncture, as a corporate player, the Housing Department will be prepared to consider Cour du Parc being used to accommodate workers for the Airport, if an assessment shows that this is the best strategic use of this asset at this time and a suitable agreement can be reached with the contractor for its use. However, in reaching such a decision, it will need to be understood that the majority of the building services have been disconnected and will need to be reactivated; plus, more importantly, if the decision is made to use Cour du Parc for this purpose, any redevelopment of the building to met housing needs – which may, or may not be for key workers – will be delayed by a minimum of three years.

Yours sincerely

D Jones
Minister

Report abuse