CRAMLINGTON TOWN
COUNCIL LABOUR GROUP - Press Release 20th August 2014
NEW COUNCIL OFFICES
LABOUR DEMAND APOLOGY
OVER TORY DISABILTY SLUR
Tories accused of ‘playing politics
with disability’ after it emerges that proposal for new council HQ ‘includes
equal access changes’
Labour councillors on Cramlington Town Council have accused
local Tories, Councillor Wayne Daley and Barry Flux of ‘playing politics with
disability’ over a proposal to purchase the so called ‘Surveyor’s House’ in
Cramlington which would see a new HQ for the Town Council. The council’s
current base needs to be vacated by the autumn ahead of the refurbishment of
Concordia and the Town Council have been searching for a new site.
Now there’s anger as it has emerged that Tory claims that the
council hadn’t considered equal access were false and Councillors Daley and
Flux have been accused of ‘plumbing the depths’ as they sought to use the
Equality Act as a ‘party political football’. Labour are accusing the two
Tories of ‘playing the disability card’ because the loan included provision for
disability access.
In a further blow to the Tory claims, Labour have highlighted
that a stipulation in the loan terms was it would not impact on the Town
precept. The potential cost would be £350,000 which would include modifications
to meet Equality legislation and the loan would be secured through the Public
Works Loan Board at a marginal rate of interest. That would be offset as the
value of the property as an asset for the Town and future generations
appreciated over the 30 year loan term.
Labour group leader
Councillor Allan Hepple said
‘It’s an outrageous attempt by the local Tories to play
politics with a simple reality. We’ve got to vacate the current premises by the
autumn and we need a new base. Councillor Daley and Flux have put narrow party
political considerations ahead of the town. It’s unforgiveable that they have
sought to use issues of equal access to create a soundbite when a simple
question to the town clerk would have confirmed that the council had already
thought about this important issue. They need to apologise. They claim to be
looking after the public purse yet they’ve been silent as their coalition
government has cut services to Cramlington to the tune of £259 per household.
We’re confident that the purchase of the Surveyor’s House would save the tax payer
money which is why a Conservative Secretary of State has approved the
loan’.
NOTES FOR EDITORS
POPULATION OF CRAMLINGTON IS 29,413
THE DURATION OF PROPOSED LOAN IS 30 YEARS
THE PROPOSED LOAN WOULD BE £350,000
THE COST OF COMPLYING WITH EQUALITY ACT 2010 IS BUILT INTO
LOAN
THE LOAN WOULD BE SECURED THROUGH PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BOARD
WHICH IS A GOVERNMENT BACKED FORM OF FINANCING FOR ‘WORKS OF PUBLIC BENEFIT’.
IT IS THE SAME TYPE OF LOAN WHICH HAS FUNDED THE NEW CRAMLINGTON SPECIALIST
HOSPITAL.
The reality is quite
different from the messages being put out by the Conservative Group:
·
The
Town Council is required to vacate its current premises in Concordia this
autumn; this is to allow for the refurbishment of the sports centre.
·
The
Town Council agreed that a town centre location for its offices was a key
factor to ensure easy access for the public. An extensive search was undertaken
with the support of the County Council but it became clear that rental levels
in suitable locations were very high and consequently the search was extended
to include the possible purchase of a property with potential for conversion to
offices.
·
The
Surveyor’s House then came onto the market. This property was seen to have
excellent potential as a long term administrative base for the Council. On the
Town Clerk’s advice councillors agreed that we should pursue the possible
purchase subject to gaining planning consent for change of use and structural
survey being undertaken. Councillors further required professional advice on adaptations
required to ensure compliance with the Equality Act 2010
·
Owing
to the levels of interest in the property the owners agreed to allow the
Council to rent for a period of up to 12 months with an option to buy during
the rental period at a pre-agreed price.
The current position
on these matters is as follows:
·
An
application planning consent for change of use has been submitted and a
decision is expected in December
·
The
Secretary of State has granted borrowing approval for funds to purchase the
property and a low interest public sector loan has been negotiated but has
still to be taken up. This is recognition by the Conservative Government that
the Council is acting prudently.
·
Results
from a structural survey are satisfactory
·
Advice
on works required to achieve DDA compliance has been received and is being
incorporated into conversion plans which will be subject to Building Control
inspection.
The purchase of the
Surveyor’s House represents a long term prudent investment for Cramlington.
Current office rental values in the town centre would commit the Council to
costs in excess of £40,000 a year and these rents will invariably increase. The
cost of the public sector loan will be significantly less than renting in the
town centre and the Council will have acquired an asset which will increase in
value. And, of course, at the end of the loan period the Council will own
offices which will be free of charge in perpetuity. This must represent the
best deal for local council tax payers rather than forever paying the high
rents demanded by London based property developers.
The Conservative Group
have proposed that the Council acquire offices on an industrial estate. This
would make the Council’s offices inaccessible for many and particularly those
without private transport. Other than this they have not made any realistic
suggestion as the future base for the Town Council.
It is not envisaged
that public meetings will not be held in the Surveyor’s House but at locations within
and around the town. This matter is in hand and locations of all meetings will
be widely publicised.
This site is unlikely to meet requirements of Equality Act
2010 which raises the question why are the Tories falsely criticising a
proposal on Equality grounds yet putting forward an alternative that doesn’t
comply with the Equality Act 2010?
