Council draws veil on information about cost of new town hall and why a third of its major building stands unused and effectively derelict
OTHER than issuing a contested rundown of costs, Thurrock Council has thrown a veil of silence over the cost of the building of the borough's controversial Town Hall.
It has also declined to reveal the cost of maintaining the now unused part of the civic offices, known as CO1 - saying it would cost too much to put the information together. CO1 has been empty since early 2022.
The new town hall building, which was dogged by a series of issues during its construction, including creating a council chamber for 35 councillors when there are 49, was repeatedly described as 'an unnecessary vanity' project by Labour members when they were in opposition.
The ruling Conservative group declared the new building would be a civic asset and its costs would be more than covered by selling off half of then then existing civic offices.
That plan foundered when no commercial bidder or developer came forward and the council is still the owner and manager of an empty fourth floor building – with no apparent plans to do anything with it.
When the project was first announced the Conservatives estimated the acquisition, design and build costs would be around the £10 million mark – and that is what a Thurrock Nub News Freedom of Information request was told when a response was received on 31 January this year that its recorded cost, including buying buildings that were demolished, the demolition cost, legal fees, design costs, planning costs and construction costs totalled £10,903.437.36.
In real teams, when VAT is removed as it is offsetable, the 'official cost' is around £9 million – a figure which has been questioned by experts consulted by Nub News – and even the leader of Thurrock Council, who told Nub News: "I remain unconvinced the published costs for this project are accurate - that is a reflection of the chaos of the council, at that time."
Those further cost concerns have been put to the council's communications team, but no response has been received.
The council, which is supposed to publish FOI requests on its website, has not done so since a last update in November 2024.
Today (Monday, 28 April) Nub News has decided to publish a story as it appears futile to continue to wait after our challenge over the accuracy of the council's figures has been repeatedly ignored
Cllr John Kent, the authority's leader who announced he was standing down today, has responded and he shares those concerns. It seems possible that the continued reluctance of the government-commissioner administration to honour pledges of openness and transparency at the council has played a part in his decision to stand down.
Today, he spoke of the recent 'backdrop' of recent council activity and plans for reorganisation and governance being a part of his decision.
That backdrop will likely mean Thurrock being 'swallowed up' within the creation of a new authority – leaving many governance and financial questions, including identifying those responsible for the council's billion-pound financial failure.
Speaking about the FOI information gleaned by Thurrock Nub News and the real cost and ramifications of the Conservatives' town hall project – which was supposed to be at minimal cost and bring as many as new 120 homes to the town centre - Cllr Kent said: "I remain convinced the new Town Hall should never have been built.
"As far back as June 2019, Thurrock Council voted by 26 - 16 that the Town Hall shouldn't be built. Despite that, Thurrock Tories pushed ahead with the with the building.
"The Best Value Inspection report made it clear no formal decision to proceed with the scheme was ever taken.
"The financing and cost of the scheme remain unclear. The original plan was to sell CO1, as housing land, for £2.8 million, to offset the estimated costs of £8 million.
"It was later accepted that the land is not suitable for housing leaving a hole in financing the building.
"I remain unconvinced the published costs for this project are accurate - that is a reflection of the chaos of the council, at that time."
The long and controversial plan to build a new town hall can be tracked back through a succession of stories.
March 2022: Councillors finally set to hear details of proposed £26 million council offices apartment block development
January 2020: Two sides are miles apart as demolition of Grays town centre buildings begins and the future remains debatable
Nub News editor Neil Speight said today: "It is disappointing the council has not responded to my request for a formal comment on this matter.
"I found it interesting at full council to learn that the authority recently stumped up a further £2.5 million for additional compensation costs relating to the A13 widening. The financial accounting on this seems very 'loose'.
"My personal belief is that somewhere along the way the council has either wilfully or through total inefficiency, mixed and matched invoices to Kier - see my comment in the original request.
"One really does have to wonder what amount of knowledge and diligence the council has about its finances and its project management.
"I find it quite unbelievable that the entire cost of the civic offices/town hall project is £9 million.
"Most people, including professionals in their respective fields, that I have spoken to about the CO3 project in its entirety, find these costings to be remarkably low.
"And there are obvious questions around the fact that the FOI statement conveniently matches the figure quoted by politicians at the time.
"Given TBC's record on infrastructure management, while it would be welcome if it is true, please understand why I am incredibly cynical about the process.
"Cllr Kent has been a frequent critic of the project and has previously also queried the attributed costs. As he indicates he is sceptical about these figures too.
"One thing that has occurred to me is that this project was carried out concurrently with the A13 project which was carried out by Kier.
"Can the public be assured there was no cross-accounting on both projects and that Kier did not produce CO3 cost estimates below the market rate because they were being compensated via the A13 project? I think that is a very legitimate question, which – sadly – has not produced an answer."
Mr Speight added: "It is unfortunate the council appears to be hiding the information requested."
The FOI request submitted to Thurrock Council was: "Can Thurrock Council supply a detailed breakdown of costs, which are all now historic and of no commercial value, related to the planning, design, build and associated costs related to the civic offices extension on New Road, Grays?
"I requested a detailed breakdown of all preparatory costs associated with the preparation of Planning application 19/00617/FUL. To summarise this application was for:-
"Demolition of existing buildings and external wall on the corner of High Street and New Road and refurbishment and extension of Council offices comprising a 3 storey building with raised parapet to the west of existing building (CO2), to provide 147 sq m (GIA) of Class B1 (a) office space on the ground floor as a registry office and 2,163 sq m of Sui Generis floor space on part of the ground floor providing new public service points, meeting rooms and an ancillary cafe and on the upper floors providing a Council Chamber, Committee Rooms and Members Services, together with cycle parking, roof plant and plant enclosure, hard and soft landscaping, seating areas and benches, infrastructure and associated works)
"The application was approved and a decision issued on Friday, 20 September 2019.
"In addition to the design and legal costs associated with the original application, please include the legal costs incurred with the subsequent 18 different applications submitted in relation to planning approval.
"Aside from planning, can you also detail the legal costs in acquiring properties within the boundaries of the application a " including any compensation and payments to owners of those freehold properties and businesses that were associated with them?
"Once those properties had been acquired, can you detail the costs of demolition of them ahead of the site redevelopment?
"Can the council then supply complete build and design costs of the building now known as CO3, including all subsequent a ˜snagging costs'' which will include failures of lift construction, damp and flooding and general failures of connectivity with the existing building to which it was adjoined.
"Further to that, once the building known as CO3 was completed, can the council give a breakdown of all costs associated with the maintenance since 1 January 2021 of the building known as CO1, which has stood empty for several years. This should including running repairs to maintain the integrity of the structure as well as all legal costs and payment in terms of property tax on the building.
"I appreciate that most recent costs may not be available, hence I would say all of the above relates to costs incurred before 1 May 2024."
The council's response was:-
"In relation to CO3, I can confirm the total expenses to the external law firm equates to £35,174.40p (excluding VAT).
"Please find the breakdown for CO3 costs below:
- Pre-construction costs (land acquisition, demolition, design etc.)
- £1,023,438.00
- Construction costs
- £9,321,625.00
- Fixtures & fittings
- £168,918.28
- Chamber re-modelling (NB. This cost was recovered during final cost negotiations with Kier)
- £137,559.00
- IT/Audio-visual live streaming (equipment & service) for Chamber, Committee Rooms and Registrars
- £251,897.08
"Total: £10,903.437.36
"Regarding the maintenance of CO1, the council have applied S12 of the Freedom of Information Act.
"This means that the council does not have to comply with your request if the cost of doing so exceeds the 'appropriate limit', which for local authorities is 18 hours. This applies to the time taken spent locating and collating the requested information.
"We cannot advise on the separate costs of maintaining CO1 in isolation as all costs are categorised in the finance system as Civic Offices (as one building)."
Freedom of Information Officer, Thurrock Council
Share:
