Westminster City Council King Street Low Carbon Trial - Client Report

ANALYSIS OF ADDITIONAL COSTS Within the total bill of circa £94,000, nearly half (£45,000) can be attributed to extraordinary cost. These are essentially costs attributed to this scheme that we would not usually expect to see, and it is hoped they would not be so significant in future. They fall under the below categories:

• Provision of power

• Changes to the specification

• Replacement of diesel with HVO

• Marketing costs

• Monitoring costs

• Lost time costs

One of the biggest barriers to an easy rollout of this working model is how the machinery can be powered. There were no existing EV Chargers within the footprint of the works and no generators were allowed on site, which meant that a feeder pillar needed to be installed to charge all the electric equipment on site. At the end of the scheme this was converted into two EV Charging points for residents. Typically paving will fall under the schedule of rates, but to ensure the thinner slabs were able to withstand the usage of the street, primer and grout was applied. Going forward if this specification is to be used more frequently a scheduled rate will be agreed to bring it into line with existing rates. As this low carbon scheme was managed as a stand-alone, the cost of the HVO fuel was also treated separately. At present market rates it is about 40% higher than diesel. However, if this is to become the accepted substitute for diesel it will also become incorporated within the rates. The marketing costs were for the bespoke banners and signage highlighting the benefits of the scheme for passers-by and also the public liaison delivered for the local businesses and residents. In addition to this, noise monitoring was carried out to understand the noise difference in the equipment, this exercise will not need to be done again. Finally, the largest contributor to the extraordinary costs were the stand down charges, which were due to events outside the control of the site team. An emergency scaffold was erected adjacent to the site compound, making it unsafe to use. Under normal circumstances the Welfare Unit could have been moved with minimal disruption but the fact that it was plugged in to the feeder pillar meant this option was not viable. A second event where the mini excavator needed the hydraulics to be repaired also resulted in lost time. Again, under usual circumstances the machine could have been swapped for another one, however, in this case a lack of supply of back-up excavators meant the job had to be halted.

35