Decision Maker: Cabinet

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: February 10, 2026

Purpose:

Content: DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST MADE FOR THIS ITEM:   None   RESOLVED:   That Cabinet:   1.    Approved, pursuant to Contract Standing Orders 2.01(b), the commencement of a tendering process for a construction works contractor to deliver the Phase 2a new hub building within Down Lane Park. Reasons for decision: The appointment of a Principal Contractor to take over the design and build of the project from RIBA Stage 4 was required for Phase 2a, the construction of a new community hub building as part of the Down Lane Park Improvement Scheme, which was being delivered as part of the wider Tottenham Hale regeneration programme.   This project would comprehensively upgrade Down Lane Park as a core component of the broader Tottenham Hale regeneration programme, while also addressing current challenges and issues such as anti?social behaviour. It would deliver a new vision for the park, providing a high?quality central green space at Tottenham Hale that catered for the future requirements of all residents and visitors.   Phase 2a, as part of the wider scheme, would replace the existing Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) offer currently housed in the Pavilion building, which was being demolished to make way for new sports courts in Phase 3. A purpose?built new community hub and parks depot building would be located on the former Parks Depot site and would also include a new entrance into the hub from Park View Road.   It was proposed to procure a contractor on a single?stage design?and?build form of contract using the London Construction Programme General Framework or DPS. Soft?market engagement had been undertaken to gauge interest and availability within the market, and positive feedback had been received regarding the proposed approach.   Alternative options considered:   Do nothing – The Council could have chosen not to tender the scheme. However, part of the works was funded by Section 106 contributions from surrounding developments, and not progressing would have placed this funding at risk.   In?house delivery – This was not feasible as the Council did not have the capacity, specialist expertise or qualifications required to deliver this service. Invite open tenders via Contracts Finder – This option would have resulted in a protracted tender period and delayed project delivery.   Use an alternative public?sector DPS – This would not have complied with Contract Standing Order 8.02, given that the LCP Framework or DPS had already been deemed suitable for the requirements.