“The Inconvenient Truth about Knowle Move”
East Devon District
Council, (EDDC), have an "ambition" to move from the Knowle, because
they say the existing buildings are "unfit for purpose". They want a
new building elsewhere which is more economic to run and just over half the
size of the existing Knowle buildings.
EDDC's reasons for
the move are:
> A reduction in
operating costs of some £240,000 per year over 20 years , (£4.8m)
> More flexible,
open plan offices, with efficient modern working practices.
> A reduction in
CO2 of 5200 tonnes of carbon over 20
years.
Earlier this year
they applied for Planning Permission to develop much of the Knowle, including Parkland , Car Parks and Gardens, in the face of much
public opposition.
EDDC admitted that the effects on Sidmouth would be;-
> Loss of over 90
jobs to Sidmouth
> Possible loss of
£3.5m pa in contracts awarded to firms in the town
> Loss of nearly
£1m in income to Sidmouth provided by the 380+ employees.
> Transfer of
nearly 80 Sidmouth based jobs elsewhere
Due to errors in the planning
application, they had to submit it four times. They spent over £300,000 on this
exercise plus the cost of technical employees’ time, which they assert they
cannot cost. We estimate the total cost of that exercise as being well over
£500,000.... of public money
Fortunately, the
strength of feeling in the town, our opposition, and EDDC's own Planning
Committee led to the rejection of the proposal.
But EDDC still
believe that they need to move and have prepared further reports and papers to justify
it. Much of the earlier work, costing over £500,000 has not been reused. As a result they decided at a meeting in July, to vacate the Knowle, and will use the
remainder of the year to determine where and when to relocate.
To fund the move, EDDC
proposes that a Developer be appointed to build the new office and develop the
Knowle buildings and the Manstone depot
for 70 houses. Despite earlier assurances that the move would be "
cost neutral" to the Taxpayers, ( but not to Sidmouth), EDDC say they may
now borrow up to £4.8m to fund it, (the costs to be recovered over 20 years of
savings from the move!).
We believe that;-
> the move is unnecessary
as they could renovate the newer buildings on the site, the area of which is
nearly the area they require. They could
fund this by selling off the old Victorian buildings for housing.
> they have both selectively
used and interpreted data which supports their case, and have repeatedly
ignored factual data which counters their argument.
> they have based their case on fundamentally flawed
information.
> They use opinion
and emotion when facts and statistics are needed.
The major flaws are;-
> They have made a
mistake in calculating the size of their existing "newer" offices at
the Knowle, (built by themselves in the 1970s/1980s), leading to the view that
it is not large enough for their needs. In fact it is nearly sufficient for the size they say
they need in a new location.
> Their estimate
of the costs needed to bring the Knowle up to reasonable standards is over
£15.2m, but this includes the large old Victorian building which is 60% of the
total and which is not needed. (It should be noted that in July last year the
estimate was £12.96m!... so much for
EDDC cost estimating!)
> They have never
costed in detail the work needed to bring these "newer" offices up to
modern standards.
> They estimate
that they would need to spend some £1.5m to rectify deficiencies in all the
existing buildings but this is only needed now because as EDDC admit THEY HAVE NOT CARRIED OUT PLANNED MAINTENANCE FOR YEARS.
> They justify
their estimate of savings of operating costs by comparing those of a new office
against the operating costs of the whole
of the existing Knowle buildings. If they were to refurbish the "newer"
buildings at the Knowle to modern standards, these "savings" would
largely disappear.
> Carbon savings
have been assessed on only the new building's operation. A Government paper
states that it will take 50 years for a new building to recover the costs in
carbon release of a new build. EDDC have ignored this inconvenient truth.
> They have
ignored the costs of staff time and the planning and implementation of the
move.
> Many of the
risks EDDC say are associated with the relocation, they list as HIGH.. but most
importantly, they have omitted one of the major risks, that of increased
unforeseen construction costs; a significant risk
> There is no evidence
of any cost-benefit analysis that assesses the impacts on their employees, Sidmouth
residents and businesses and more widely on all of East Devon
> None of the possible
locations for a new building are as central to the population of the District as
is Sidmouth
ALL these flaws and omissions
point to the preparation of a project which is founded in emotion rather than reality
and facts. We agree that the existing Victorian office is outmoded and not as
efficient as is needed, but we do not believe that EDDC have examined in any detail the
retention, refurbishment and modest expansion of the newer parts of their offices, which we believe is a viable option.
EDDC are still pursuing
this move with a single-minded enthusiasm seldom seen in projects of more
general benefit to taxpayers. They show a determination to win the argument
regardless of the many facts which undermine it.
In this time of
economic difficulty , how can EDDC even contemplate borrowing over £4m to spend
on a new office, whose recovery rate, even if ALL their predictions are correct,
will be over the next 20 years?
We do hope that the project,
if it does unfortunately go ahead against all rationality, does not become the disaster
we fear. We, the residents of East Devon , would
pay for it for years to come.
Richard Thurlow
Chair
Save Our Sidmouth
Home - Sidmouth Herald
Save Our Sidmouth
See also the original research from Robin Fuller:
Cost of making Knowle offices fit for purpose…EDDC’s figures challenged | Save Our Sidmouth
.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment