|
Letter to Gillian Norton, Chief Executive, LBRuT
24/2/03
To Gillian Norton
Chief Executive
LBRuT
Civic Centre Twickenham
Dear Ms Norton
Twickenham Riverside
On behalf of The Twickenham Riverside Terrace Committee I wish to
raise the following matters pertaining to the Report for Cabinet February
25 2003. In this Report the Twickenham Riverside Terrace Group has
been treated unfairly, its proposals misrepresented correspondence
has not been answered and its offers of consultation and reconciliation
of costs ignored.
(1) The Report to Cabinet Dec 10 2002
The decision to proceed with the Council's Option B and the Twickenham
Challenge were made based on The Report for the Cabinet of 10 Dec
2002.
The Report for the Cabinet of Dec 2002 contained a letter from the
Council's advisors claiming the TTRG scheme costs were not correct.
This letter dated 27 November 2002 was not shown to us, discussed
or reconciled with us before it appeared as an Addendum to the papers
of Dec 10 at the time of the meeting.
The TTTRG replied to this letter on the 15 Jan 2003 with a point by
point analysis, answering the assertions made and offering to discuss
and compare with the Council's advisors.(Letter 15 Jan TTRG in Appendix
A)
We have received no reply to this letter.
(2) The Report to Cabinet 25 Feb 2003 has the following matters we
wish to dispute, as follows:-.
3.2.2 The TRTG has not expressed forceful support for the Councils
long term scheme. Reference to appendix A will not reveal any supportive
letter. With regard to length of time, the TRTG scheme is flexible
it can either be short or long term. It was designed to be incremental.
This fact has not been reported on. The benefits of the TRTG scheme
as a short term proposal in comparison with Option B the Council's
short term proposal have not been addressed. No cost benefit analysis
has been provided for each scheme.
(a) The written submissions referred to, in the absence of any cross
reference is taken to mean TRTG letters 15 Jan 2003. These have not
been answered discussed or considered.
3.2.3 Claims that the costs of the TRTG scheme are £302,000 more than
those advised by TRTG. The TRTG costs are for the whole site we replied
to this assertion.(Letter 15 Jan TTRG in Appendix A) since there was
no answer it was reasonably assumed there was no quarrel with our
costs.
£471,000 more than Option B of the Council: The costs of the TRTG
scheme are for the whole site Option B is for part of the site see
.(Letter 15 Jan TTRG in Appendix A) since there was no answer it was
reasonably assumed there was no quarrel with our costs.
There is apparent ambiguity since the report states that full demolition
is less economical than part then goes on to claims that TRTG demolition
costs should be
(b) 50% more for part of the building than for the full building.
(c) Demolition costs for TRTG are claimed to be £50,000 more than
Option B.. The report claims that no provision has been made for flood
defences This is not correct and suggests a selective and inadequate
reading of our costing. Reference to our documentation reveals that
adequate flood prevention measures have been included in our costing.
No costs for the Councils Option B with regard to the existing building
or its demolition costs are given. Therefore no conclusion can be
drawn except that TRTG stands by its costs and is willing to resolve
this matter. TRTG has allowed for the necessary protection work with
part demolition which may be the substance of (b) Resurfacing is also
allowed for in the TRTG scheme which may not be required. In addition
Councils Option B will need to allow for costs for the stability of
the retaining wall.
4.3 Refers to renovation and soft landscaping to the pool footprint
Costs have apparently been allowed for this area which will be closed
to the public.
Letters 3.2.7, 3.2.11 The summary of these letters is misleading,
results in selective quoting when compared with the full letters which
appears to be designed to support the Councils Option B scheme. The
letters are in Appendix A but no reference is made to this fact.
Conclusion The benefits of the TRTG scheme as a short term proposal
in comparison with Option B the Councils short term proposal have
not been addressed. No cost benefit analysis has been provided for
each scheme. The fact that the TRTG costs are for the whole site has
not been acknowledged in the report.
The disputed costs have been answered in our letter (15 Jan TTRG in
Appendix A) This has not been answered, discussed or acknowledged.
In this letter we offered to discuss costing with your advisors, the
normal accepted method of clarification, and reconciliation. There
is apparently no willingness to discuss, clarify or reach agreement
on matters of dispute which is contrary to normal professional behaviour
and good practice. Refusal to inform in advance and reach a consensus
before a report to Cabinet would appear to be undemocratic behaviour
of Officers.
Unanswered letters can either be taken to mean there is no dispute
and the contents of the letter has been accepted. This is apparently
not the case but an arrogant what our advisors say is correct attitude.
A reluctance to consult reflects a lack of confidence in the Councils
figures. The TRTG group contains many professional people experienced
in the building industry who have contributed to the scheme who take
exception to this cavalier treatment.
The Council is not being presented with a balanced factual report.
This does not serve the interests of the community and raises doubts
as to the Councils real intentions as well as a warning to future
community participation. We would draw your attention to 3.2.20 which
is particularly relevant to the foregoing. As Chief Executive of the
Council we request that you investigate the procedures that have been
followed by the Council in this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Ron Chappell C.Eng.F.I.Struct.E.
cc GOL
T Arbour
Audit Commission
Tom McKevitt
Cabinet members
^top
|