BACKGOUND
Here is a summary of the questions I have asked about the redevelopment of Fairfield Halls over the last 3 years – a project being managed by Brick by Brick. My notes of the questions and answers from each meeting are below.
Meeting Date Question subject Answer 1 Council February 2020 Fairfield Halls overspend No 2 Cabinet February 2020 Fairfield Halls overspend Said they would get back to me. Didn’t get back to me. 3 Written Question February 2020 Brick by Brick cost of the work on No Fairfield Halls 4 Scrutiny February 2020 Source of Fairfield Halls development Partially funding 5 Council December 2019 Poor reviews following Fairfield Halls No reopening when the work was unfinished 6 Scrutiny December 2019 Council funding for Fairfield Halls No redevelopment 7 Council October 2019 Fairfield Halls overspend 3 weeks later 8 Council March 2019 Fairfield Halls overspend No 9 Scrutiny November 2018 Delay in Fairfield Halls project. No Cllr Ward asked about financial contingencies for the Fairfield project
Extract from a speech in the February 2020 Council meeting: The Council seems to have lost control over the Fairfield Halls budget. Somewhere in the Brick By Brick black hole, even more millions have been spent on a project that looks like the overall cost will double to £60m. So where does the unexpected spend of £2,185,000 fit in? Is this in addition to the £60m spend. How many more additional costs are we going to see?
Question at the February 2020 Cabinet meeting Secondly, In Appendix 2 on Page 142 in the Capital budget, Can you explain the line about Fairfield Halls which shows an original budget of £0 but the 2019/20 outturn forecast is £2.185m? What is this for? Answer - Will get back to me. (I’m still waiting for a response)
Written Question February 2020
CQ005-20 from Councillor H. Pollard
Councillor Butler
“Please provide a breakdown of the ‘Land and Constructions costs’ for Brick By Brick projects as included in the Brick By Brick Business Plan at Croydon Cabinet on 24th February 2020. The aggregate figure of £431.91m should be broken down to make clear how much has been spent/due to be spent on each housing project, each major scheme (including Fairfield Halls) and other projects.
Extract from the report is below
Projected Development Costs
”
Reply
The figures attached are from the Brick By Brick Business Plan. Brick By Brick operates independently from the council and the council does not hold the information requested.
Brick By Brick have provided the following information in response to this query: “The information requested is commercially sensitive information and the release of such information would prejudice the commercial interests of Brick By Brick.
Notes from Scrutiny February 2020
Question: What exactly is a concessions contract? Is it a lease. Is there a contract in place? Neil: assumes it is a lease. There is a lease in place for 10 years.
Question: Scope of works in the appendix includes works directly on Fairfield Halls. The fabric of the building and redevelopment of parts of it. There is no mention of the car park, new seats or the landscaping around the venue. Is this why the cost has escalated from £30m to £42.6m and then to a figure nearer £60m? If so, where will this additional funding come from?
Has Coast to Capital funding been included within the £42.6m
Colm says: Figure could rise. Works still underway. Final negotiations with the contractor. Council contributed £12m of capital budget. Freed up more resources during the development. Additional costs: • Sprinklers • Unforeseens • Asbestos in ceiling of Ashcroft £46.2 includes works completed on Fairfield Halls. Anticipate on going investment work. £42.6m is covered by the development value from the site. No longer require the £12m from the Council. Changed the planning application to generate more value from the site.
Neil says: As the operator we expect the building to be ready for us to operate.
Oliver Lewis: There may well be further works as part of the investment in Fairfield, but not covered by this sum. Nothing known to be in the pipeline for expenditure.
Colm: £42.6m doesn’t include public realm or car park. Coast to Capital went to things within the £42.6m including demolition and public realm.
Robert: How were decisions made:
Colm: Car parking not part of Fairfield Halls work. 2016 Cabinet made decision to transfer to Brick By Brick. They developed the design and this changed over time. Ownership of land was by BxB and they made decisions about changes to plans. 208 parking spaces part of original plans for Fairfield Halls, Changes to Colleges affect the plans. BXB responsible for delivering the car parking spaces. Subcontractor commissioned to deliver the spaces. Fall out from the College was a change in design, e.g. gallery, car park. To free up value from the scheme. Car parking available for patrons in about 8-10 weeks i.e. 200 spaces. All spaces available end of this year for the rest of the spaces. Council responsible for the main public realm scheme, not BXB.
Shifa: Permanent public realm work is probably 2 years away.
Question: Welcome the refurbishment and reopening of Fairfield Halls. Also welcome the residencies of the various theatre and music companies. Visitor numbers are roughly half the level set in the business plan. What do you think are the reasons for this and what is being done to build up visitor numbers? Reaching beyond Croydon? Ticket prices for school visits?
Current Challenges
Neil: Lack of trust from the public. No database to start with. Got growing database. 90k tickets Sep to Jan. Occupancy lower than expected. Realistic chance of getting back on to business plan. Delays wouldn't have helped. No car park. Works not completed in time, and still being finished after it opened. Sold 104k tickets in last year open. Fewer events, and better quality now. Also need to add community workshops and conferences. 50% from CR postcodes.
Robert: How is performance monitored?
Neil: Within lease there are KPIs. Audience nos, community engagement, community hires (up to 50% off for Croydon-based charities, ticket pricing and general trading conditions. I imagine it will be made public.
Shifa: As a partnership, KPIs will be in contract. Agree a set of outcomes as part of this partnership agreement. No reason why we wouldn't publish this info, but would need to get a year's date to start with.
Sean: Phone booking difficult. Council needs to make the case that the £42.6m is money well spent.
Neil: Online sales - we need to keep moving forward. Being addressed by BH Live Group. Often get asked where did the money go and where are the car parking spaces. Most of the work was behind the scenes. Might have an exhibition on the subject. Concert Hall is air conditioned.
Shifa: £42.6m is regeneration. About more than the building itself. Has also helped culture and reputation of Croydon. Culture is at the heart of regeneration.
Oliver Lewis: Shortlisted for London Borough of Culture. Wouldn't have been shortlisted if hadn't invested in Fairfield Halls.
Leila: Cost of membership is high. Need to articulate the benefits a bit better.
Neil: Have about 300 members. 50 came to a new member's evening.
OLIVER LEWIS PRESENTATION ON PORTFOLIO
Question: Can the Cabinet Member tell me why the £270k s106 money that was allocated to be spent on three parks in January 2019 has still not been spent on the parks? Supplementary: Assurances were given to park users throughout 2019 that the work was due to be completed in September 2019. You keep complaining that there isn't enough money, and yet, when money is actually available, you still fail to invest in our parks. Can you tell me when this project is finally going to be delivered?
Thank you for that overview. Thank Paula for all her work on culture in Croydon and look forward to seeing her back again soon. Welcome the upgrade to the library in my ward of Selsdon.
Thinking about the parks challenges. What is happening to the £270k that was set aside for investment in three parks, one of which is closed because it's dangerous. The money was set aside in January 2019, but no work has taken place yet. How do you set priorities for parks investment?
Lewis: Selsdon library doesn't have a café. Norbury will have a café. Will see if works. Delay in cricket pitch development incl at Norbury. Open Plus will allow libraries to be open out of hours. Monitored and trialled in Selsdon as it is close to Sainsbury. Playspaces. Working through procurement process. Austere times, impacted on staffing numbers. 128 parks. Sometimes programmes can't progress at pace they would have done previously. Procurement process. Engagement events planned in next few months. New playspaces in all three parks by end of the Summer. £1.35m if we get borough of culture award.
Sean: Asked for a review of bylaws and is disappointed with lack of progress on this. Riesco sold off. That £12m was for cultural projects at Fairfield. Now heard it's not needed for Fairfield. You talk about the future of the ClockTower. Isn't there a moral case that the £12m should be spent on cultural improvements to the borough.
Lewis: Selling off this was a disgrace. Still stuck in a storm cloud of this across the sector. My understanding that the £12m wasn't set aside, it just went into the general pot. If was ring-fenced, it should be spent on culture.
Simon Hall: The money was not ring-fenced, just went into the pot and went into the general capital programme before the current administration took over.
Lewis: Public art. Working to create the Croydon Collection of public art. Play strategy. Limited budget. Active lifestyle service identified most needy sites. 10 sites identified as most in need. WHAT AT THESE 10 SITES?
December 2019 Council Meeting I asked about Fairfield’s poor customer reviews following its opening without the work being completed.
December 2019 Scrutiny Meeting Cllr Lewis, the Cabinet Member responsible for the area did not attend so Cllr Butler answered the questions. What does the Cabinet Member have to say to these residents? https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review-g504167-d4093688-Reviews-Fairfield_Halls-Croydon_Greater_London_England.html
‘Of the 104 comments on TripAdvisor alone, 47 said their experience of Fairfield Halls was Terrible, Poor or Average. Let me read out some of the reviews:
- Graham - fire alarm went off during a concert, lack of fire alarm action by management. https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g504167- d4093688-r721331051-Fairfield_Halls-Croydon_Greater_London_England.html - Ruth - terrible, worse than before the refurb: avoid, avoid, avoid. https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g504167-d4093688-r721027335- Fairfield_Halls-Croydon_Greater_London_England.html - David - where did all the money go? https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g504167-d4093688-r713169732-Fairfield_Halls- Croydon_Greater_London_England.html - https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g504167-d4093688-r330107766-Fairfield_Halls-Croydon_Greater_London_England.html’
The public have made detailed criticisms of not just the inefficiently spent money, but serious health and safety concerns. This isn’t opposition stirring, this is the public.
How much of the £42m for the refurbishment of Fairfield Halls is coming from the redevelopment of College Green and how much has been provided by funds from the Council?
COUNCIL MEETING 7th OCTOBER 2019
At the recent opening of Fairfield Halls, Cllr Butler was introduced as the driving force behind the project. As the main driving force, can the Cabinet Member tell me who authorised the increase in budget from £30m to £42m? The reason for asking is that in a scrutiny meeting the Council Leader seemed not to know the answer to this. To me £12m is a lot of money. Money that I know the current administration treat as their own, but in fact it is money that comes from the earnings of the hard-pressed taxpayer. I would have thought there would be rigorous processes for agreeing to fund this level of overspend, so can Cllr explain to me what these processes are?
Supplementary
So if won't answer my question in this meeting, will you undertake to provide a written response giving details of: • Who authorised the additional £12m spend • When it was authorised • What justification was given for the overspend • What additional elements were delivered as a result of this overspend • Whether we should expect to hear that the cost of the project will exceed the already inflated cost of £42m
QUESTION ASKED ON 7th OCTOBER 2019. CLLR BUTLER PROMISED A WRITTEN RESPONSE. See below
ANSWERS FROM ALISON BUTLER 1/11/19
From: Butler, Alison
Hi Helen Apologies for the delay on this – all sorts of things have been happening!
Please see below - · Who authorised the additional £12m spend The costs of the works to Fairfield Halls are predominantly funded by the value created by the development of the surrounding site by Brick By Brick. As such it is not funded by the councils capital or revenue budgets and is not processed as such. The £30m budget figure quoted in the media for FFH is based on the figure used in the viability report of the original hybrid planning application for the wider site. Brick By Brick have since revised that planning application, creating more value to pay for agreed additional items such as unforeseen asbestos removal and specific scope changes required for operation.
· When it was authorised See above.
· What justification was given for the overspend See above - Following planning consent, Brick By Brick agreed a number of critical changes to address unforeseen issues on site and operator requirements, including: - significant additional unforeseen asbestos removal - redesign of internal scaffold due to new structural constraints - new walls to risers required following asbestos removal - additional door replacements required following fire survey and approval of fire strategy - additional plaster repairs following intrusive surveys- sprinkler replacement required to meet revised building insurance requirements - design development of structural works, façade works and ventilation following detailed intrusive surveys - additional fire protection required to meet regulations - change to methodology for lead paint - costs to cover ECSO funding for energy centre plant - diversion of the existing fire hydrant was required - changes to the refurbishment scope to meet operator requirements
· What additional elements were delivered as a result of this overspend See above.
•Whether we should expect to hear that the cost of the project will exceed the already inflated cost of £42m Final accounts are currently being finalised by Brick by Brick with the contractor. Brick By Brick will ensure the FAQ section of their website is updated with any new information on an ongoing basis.
Hope this helps Alison
Cllr Alison Butler Labour Councillor for Bensham Manor Cabinet Member for Homes & Gateway Services Deputy Leader – Croydon Council
Rm F8, The Town Hall X 62620
From: Cllr Helen Pollard [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 07 October 2019 21:05 To: Butler, Alison
Hi Alison,
Further to the Council Meeting today, Here is a copy of the question I raised.
“Will you undertake to provide a written response giving details of: • Who authorised the additional £12m spend • When it was authorised • What justification was given for the overspend • What additional elements were delivered as a result of this overspend • Whether we should expect to hear that the cost of the project will exceed the already inflated cost of £42m”
I look forward to receiving a response.
Thanks
Helen
Cllr Helen Pollard Selsdon & Addington Village Shadow Cabinet Member for Culture, Leisure and Sport London Borough of Croydon
March 2019 Council meeting Question: I am looking forward to the reopening of Fairfield Halls and the town finally getting its premier entertainment complex back. It, however, is regrettable that the council taxpayer is now going to have to pay an additional £11m to fund this hugely delayed project. So far, there has been no satisfactory explanation about why there has been such a long delay, and why it is costing a third more to complete the project. This Labour administration seems to think it is enough to talk vaguely about asbestos.
Tonight we have finally found out it will cost £4m to deal with the asbestos.
Now I'm no mathematician, but according to my calculations that leaves £7m still unaccounted for. How does the Cabinet member account for this £7m overspend?
No answer
Scrutiny Committee November 2018
Question: Why the delay in Fairfield Halls?
Answer from Cllr Lewis: More complex building than envisaged. More asbestos than aticipated. That's why delayed. Has gone over budget due to amount of asbestos. Don't need another art gallery.
From: Ward, Robert Sent: 13 November 2018 10:40 To: Trevaskis, Simon
Hello Simon, Regarding the section on the Fairfield Halls update, I am interested in the following:- • Under an already delayed schedule the Fairfield Halls were supposed to open this month. I would like to know what the contingencies were under that plan, specifically the cost and time contingencies, and what level of risk was assumed in the plan. What was the chance of success expected for this plan? Was it 50%, 90% or some other? • What scope changes have there been since the original contracts were let? • What are the safety targets for the development? How has performance been against those targets? Have there been any breaches of safety and environmental standards, if so what were they? • What are the time and cost contingencies under the new plan? • What is the estimate of the chance of achieving the new plan? • Have the costs changed for the Fairfield Halls refurbishment since the plan to deliver in November 2018? If so, by how much? • Presumably more money will be being borrowed, or the same amount of money for longer, so costs will have increased. By how much? • When will the entire Fairfield Halls be fully open for business under the current plan? Regards.
Robert.