Decision Maker: Cabinet Member Signing

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: January 5, 2026

Purpose:

Content: DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST MADE FOR THIS ITEM:   None   RESOLVED:   That the Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning (Deputy Leader):   1.    Approved the correction of the contractor’s name in the Cabinet reports and approved minutes dated 29 October 2024 and 06 October 2025.   2.    The contractor’s name had previously been recorded as “Equans”; however, approval was required to amend the records to reflect the contractor’s full name as stated in the contract award letter dated 31 December 2024. The contractor’s full name was recorded as: “Equans Regeneration Limited.”   Reasons for decision   On 25 March 2024, the Council had received tenders from fifteen bidders for the Major Works Programme at Stellar House. Following a comprehensive evaluation process, the contract was formally awarded to Equans Regeneration Limited. This was confirmed in the contract award letter dated 31 December 2024. The contract award letter was attached at Appendix A of the report.   The Cabinet report and approved minutes dated 29 October 2024 had recorded the contractor’s name as “Equans.” This had been identified as an error that required correction to ensure Council records were accurate and reflected the contractor’s full legal name. A subsequent Cabinet report and approved minutes dated 06 October 2025 had also referred to “Equans” as the named contractor. This was likewise noted as an error requiring correction, as the full name of the contractor had not been stated in the report.   The contractor’s full name was recorded as: “Equans Regeneration Limited.” Following discussions with Legal and Democratic Services, it had been confirmed that the correction of the contractor’s name did not nullify or materially impact the decisions made by Cabinet. The report referred to the same contractor, with the same scope and value of works as detailed in the original cabinet reports. The error in the recorded name was therefore regarded as a misnomer, which could be rectified by way of a non?key decision.