CRAMLINGTON TOWN COUNCIL LABOUR GROUP - Press Release 20^th 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?