Decision details

The Hammersmith Grove Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and Public Realm Improvements scheme sets out a phased delivery approach to enhance flood resilience, accessibility, and placemaking along a key corridor in Hammersmith. Developed in collaboration with local residents and aligned with the Council’s Climate and Ecological Strategy, the scheme will commence with gateway improvements and mobilisation of works funded through Tranche 4 of the Green Investment Fund. Approval is sought to award the works contract to the Preferred Supplier and initiate Phase 1. Further funding will be pursued to enable full delivery of Phases 2 and 3, which aim to deliver long-term environmental, social, and economic benefits for the local community.

1.     To note that Appendices 1, and 2 are not for publication on the basis that they contain information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) as set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

2.     To approve the proposed Procurement strategy for Hammersmith Grove Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and Public Realm Improvements Works. To approve a contract award for these works to the Preferred Supplier for the contract award value included in Exempt Appendix 1.

1.     The Council has committed to delivering public realm and flood resilience improvements in Hammersmith Grove, following extensive engagement with local residents and endorsement from Council leadership.

2.     This is a transformative opportunity for Hammersmith Grove, one that will enhance the public realm, promote active travel, and build resilience against future flooding.

3.     It also aligns directly with the Council’s Climate and Ecological Strategy and reflects the Council’s commitment to creating a more sustainable, inclusive and vibrant borough.

Option 1: Decommission the service or requirement – Not recommended

1.     The proposed works respond directly to community engagement and Council priorities, including flood resilience, active travel and public realm improvements. Failing to proceed would undermine the Council’s commitment to residents and delay essential infrastructure upgrades.

2.     The scheme supports strategic objectives outlined in the Climate and Ecological Strategy and has received strong support from both residents and Council leadership. Decommissioning or inaction would risk reputational damage and missed opportunities for environmental and social benefit.

Option 2: Deliver the supplies, services, and/or works in-house (make/buy decision) – Not recommended

3.     The Council does not have the in-house capacity or resources to deliver a scheme of this scale, which involves complex infrastructure and time sensitive delivery requirements.

Option 3: Use an existing contract, established by the Council, to provide the supplies, services, and/or works – Recommended

4.     The Council’s existing Highways Term Contract provides a compliant and efficient route to deliver the required works. Awarding the contract through this route enables timely mobilisation and appointment of the Preferred Supplier.

Option 4: Undertake a fully regulated competitive and compliant procurement process, advertised to the market – Not recommended

5.     While a procurement advertised to the market could introduce competitive dynamics, the time intensive nature of a regulated process is misaligned with the project’s delivery schedule. With key milestones set for completion in quarter 3 of 2025, the advertising, evaluation and award stages would likely exceed the available timeframe, placing pressure on programme agility and risking significant delay.

Option 5: Procure using a compliant framework, Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS), or Dynamic Market – Not recommended

6.     Although frameworks and DPSs offer compliant access to suppliers and potential value for money, they lack the strategic alignment and continuity required for this scheme. The procurement process, including mini competitions, could take between 6 to 12 months, which is misaligned with the project’s delivery schedule and key milestones. In contrast, the Council’s existing Highways Term Contract offers a faster, already compliant route that supports consistent standards and long-term efficiencies.