Agenda item

To consider the tender process undertaken and the implementation procedure and monitoring process for the preferred bidder.

Should confidential information be discussed the Committee will need to pass a resolution to go into exempt session. Confidential information may well be despatched to Members in advance of the meeting.

The Executive Director, Regeneration and Development introduced a report regarding Keele Golf Course. The Committee were being asked to scrutinise the tender process undertaken and the implementation procedure and monitoring process for the preferred bidder.

There would be a special meeting of the Active and Cohesive Communities Scrutiny Committee on 3 October 2013 to consider the golf development and course maintenance aspects of the tender process that had been undertaken, and a special meeting of the Transformation and Resources Scrutiny Committee on 9 October 2013 to consider the procurement and financial aspects of the tender process. It was noted that unlike a normal commercial lease, the lease for Keele Golf Course included extensive operational detail which the Active and Cohesive Communities Scrutiny Committee would consider at its special meeting.

There had been a two stage process to identify a preferred bidder. Stage one was to attract expressions of interest, which involved setting out initial information with broad heads of terms, advertisements being placed in professional journals and known operators of golf courses being approached. This resulted in three initial expressions of interest which were evaluated and basic financial and health checks for the companies undertaken. Stage two saw a documentation pack issued to the companies who had expressed an interest, inviting them to submit an offer.

The draft cabinet report provided information about the multi-disciplinary officer evaluation panel that had been set up to receive the bids from the final two companies to tender. The evaluation panel had identified points of clarification or inconsistency with the bids that had needed to be addressed. When this had been done the bids were then scored against the evaluation criteria. Moderated scores from the panel were evaluated by the Executive Director, Resources and Support Services for a further check of the scores to take place. To encourage the market to respond, companies were given the opportunity to bid on 10, 20 or 25 year leases, and to submit a bid for a fixed annual sum or a percentage of annual turnover as a rental return to the Council. The preferred operator was prepared to offer a fixed rental sum every year and a percentage of fixed turnover each year.

A Member questioned who held the lease for the Golfers Inn, which formed part of the golf course. The company who took over the golf course lease would need to apply to the Council for a licence and although the Licensing Committee decision could not be predetermined, it was not anticipated that there would be difficulty in obtaining a licence.

Members questioned the two houses that sat adjacent to the golf course and whether they would be used by golf course staff. There were two cottages, with one occupied on a secure tenancy with the former green keeper at the course.  It was intended that the other house would be incorporated as part of the new lease. The fact that the semi-detached property was not listed in the report of remedial works was noted by Members, who questioned if it had been ascertained whether any repairs were required to the house. The house was understood to be in a better standard of repair than the operational buildings associated with the golf course and believed to only require modest cosmetic work, although it was understood that the property had not been inspected internally. A Member of the Committee was concerned by this and felt that significant costs could be incurred as a result. The Executive Director, Regeneration and Development advised that any operator would be required to carry out statutory work in the first three months of taking on the lease, particularly to address matters such as boiler servicing. Health and safety aspects were the main concern of the Council, with decoration a matter for the new operator.

Members further noted that sub-leases were not mentioned in the documentation and asked whether sub-leasing of the property would be permitted. The Executive Director, Regeneration and Development advised that sub-leasing was dependent upon the nature of the operator and any reasons that might be given for sub-leasing. It was probable that both of the bidders would wish to operate the overall business activity themselves. Nevertheless it was likely that the Borough Council would be prepared to consider sub-leasing with its approval and subject to appropriate provisions to protect the Council’s interests.

The Chair noted that works to improve the course’s buildings would need to be monitored as there could be disparity if one building was improved and another was not. It was the remit of the Council’s Facilities Manager to review the buildings on the course, and the residential properties had not stood out as requiring substantial work when he had visited the estate.

RESOLVED:              (a) That the comments of Committee Members be noted by Officers.

(b) That the Committee are satisfied with the tender process that has been undertaken, the implementation procedure and the monitoring process for the preferred bidder.