A9 Leadership Team Decision Report

Decision maker and Leadership Team – 6 June 2018 date of Leadership Forward Plan reference: 05251/18/K/AB Team meeting, and the earliest date the Portfolio: Lead Member for Finance and decision will be Modernisation (Cllr Mary Weale) and taken Lead Member for Healthy City Living (Cllr

David Lindsay)

Report title EXTENSION AND ALTERATIONS TO SHARED CORONER’S COURT, 65 HORSEFERRY ROAD, SW1

Reporting officer Richard Egan, Director of Corporate Property

Key decision Yes

Access to Public (Part A) with Confidential/Exempt (Part B) Appendix information [Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any classification particular person (including the authority holding that information)]

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 This report seeks the Leadership Team’s approval to the Council’s contribution toward the cost of an extension to and refurbishment of the Westminster City Council Coroners Court building which supports the Coroners Court function for the Inner West Coroners Court District. The District comprises 4 different including RBKC.

2 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 Confidential/exempt information is contained in the exempt part B appendix as it details information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

2.2 The Leadership Team is recommended to approve the contribution of the appropriate capital sum as set out in part B of this report so that the Coroners Court building can be extended and refurbished as required.

3 REASONS FOR DECISION

3.1 This decision is required so that the Council may comply with its obligations under both the existing consortium agreement and the Coroners and Justice

Act 2009 (to provide suitable accommodation for the provision of Coroners services).

4 BACKGROUND

4.1 The jurisdiction of the Coroner for the Inner West London coronial district covers four London Boroughs – Wandsworth, Merton, the and Kensington and Chelsea.

4.2 All four authorities are required to contribute toward the cost of this service.

Costs Include

 Appointing and remunerating the Coroner  Meeting all the costs of the Coroner service, including body removal, post mortems and toxicology reports  Indemnifying the Coroner against legal challenge.  Providing the Coroner with suitable premises and office accommodation  Providing the Coroner with sufficient Coroners Officers and staff to enable him to fulfil his statutory duties.

4.3 The Coroners Court is based at 65 Horseferry Road in Westminster. The site is owned by Westminster City Council.

4.4 This is not a Council owned site.

4.5 Westminster City Council is the Council appointed by statutory instrument to manage the service.

4.6 The Coroner’s Court building currently provides outmoded and cramped office space that impedes rather than facilitates collaboration and joint working. It provides a number of small, cramped offices, most of which cannot support more than two members of staff at a time. The Court itself is small and isn’t able to provide adequate facilities for bereaved families, members of the press and legal profession

4.7 The Inner West London Coroner’s area is arguably the highest profile Coroner’s jurisdiction area in the United Kingdom with the seat of Government and other nationally important sites and institutions located within it.

4.8 The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 places a legal obligation on the Councils to provide suitable accommodation for the provision of the Coroner’s Services.

4.9 The introduction of recent legislation has increased the complexity of and demands on the Coroners Service. The pertinent legislation is the Human Rights Act 1988, The Coroners’ Charter 2012 and The Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

5 PROPOSAL AND ISSUES

5.1 Westminster City Council have worked up a proposal to extend and refurbish the Coroners Court and Offices so that the facility can be made fit for purpose.

5.2 Under the terms of the agreement, the Council are required to contribute a fixed percentage of the overall cost as set out in Part B of this report

5.3 In expectation of the above, a successful bid was made for inclusion within the Council’s 2018/19 Capital Programme.

5.4 The associated business case, prepared by Westminster City Council has concluded that the ‘do nothing’ option is not viable and that the only suitable way forward is to progress the proposed extension and refurbishment.

5.5 Two of the three other partners have confirmed their agreement to this proposal and have confirmed funding for the same. Merton are yet to confirm their contribution.

5.6 If approved, Westminster City Council will manage and deliver this project. RBKC will have representation on the project board.

6 OPTIONS AND ANALYSIS

6.1 The Council could choose not to agree to this proposal and withhold the required funding. This option is not recommended as it would represent a breach of the consortium agreement and could potentially be argued as a failure by the Council to meet its legal obligations. A failure to agree may also provide a reputational risk to the Council.

6.2 The Council could choose to support the proposal and approve the required funding. This option is recommended as it will ensure that the Coroner is provided with fit and proper accommodation from which the service can be provided.

7 CONSULTATION AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

7.1 LINK for Tri-borough Facilities Management has been consulted and have no comments to make.

8 HUMAN RESOURCES AND EQUALITY IMPLICATIONS

8.1 There are no such implications.

9 PROCUREMENT PROCESS

9.1 The Corporate Property Procurement Officer has been consulted and has no further comments.

10 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

10.1 The Director of Law has been consulted and comments that the Council has to contribute a fixed proportion of the cost of the Coroner service. This includes the provision of offices and other resources.

David Walker: Principal Solicitor, 0207 361 2211, [email protected]

11 FINANCIAL, PROPERTY AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

11.1 Corporate Finance has been consulted and comments that the Council’s required contribution towards the total budget cost for this project is in line with the budget provision of £495,000 in the 2018/19 Capital Programme. RBKC will have a responsibility to contribute towards any increased costs, if arising, on the scheme at the same fixed percentage of the overall cost as set out in Part B of this report. Any additional scheme costs that maybe required to be met by the Council would represent growth to the existing 2018/19 Capital Programme.

11.2 The Head of Finance (Environment & Communities), has been consulted and comments that RBKC’s share of the proposed capital works are to be fully funded from capital budgets already included in the Council’s capital programme. As such, there are no expected ongoing revenue implications for the Coroners service budget as a result of the proposed capital improvement works. If the proposed works are not carried out, there is a risk that this could add pressure to the revenue budget through increased repair and maintenance charges. RBKC contributes 17.2% to the total service costs, based on population.

11.3 Property implications are set out in the report.

Richard Egan Director of Corporate Property

Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) – Background papers used in the preparation of this report: none

Contact officer: Paul McCarthy, Head of Asset Management, The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, (E) [email protected] (T) 0207 361 3936

Formal clearance requirements for all key decision reports Cleared by Finance (officer’s initials) PM Cleared by Director of Law (officer’s initials) DW Cleared by Communications & Community Engagement (officer’s initials) NT