News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


Colchester Council is told: Hand over Vaf info - or else

8:00pm Tuesday 8th June 2010 in News By Helen Orrell

COLCHESTER Council has been ordered – on pain of prosecution – to release secret papers about the building of the town’s controversial new arts facility.

The Government’s official information watchdog has severely criticised the council for trying to keep private information about the unfinished and hugely over-budget Visual Arts Facility.

An investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office has ruled the council was wrong to withhold details in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. The request was lodged by an undisclosed person on March 10, 2008.

The request was for details of progress on the building – including how much it might cost the taxpayer if it all went wrong. It released some information, including selected details from health and safety reports, project timetables and a list of defects found in the building.

But a report showed other important details were withheld.

The council is currently suing its original builders and feared publication of the details might threaten its court action.

It claimed the information it withheld was commercially and legally sensitive, breached data protection laws and could discredit those involved.

But the Information Commissioner’s report dismisses the council’s arguments as invalid – and demands the rest of the information be made public within the next few days.

The commissioner also ruled the council was wrong to withhold the information and failed to respond properly to the request.

His report orders the council to release the missing information by June 16 – including details of builders and other project officers involved in the project, but not previously revealed. Failure to do so could lead to a prosecution.

Andrew Weavers, the council’s legal services manager, said it would now release the information.

Paul Smith, councillor responsible for the project, added: “I’m grateful to the Information Commissioner for clarifying exactly what the correct legal position is.

“We obviously didn’t want to prejudice the legal action, but if the commissioner says ‘do it’ that’s absolutely fine by me.”

Neither the council, nor the commissioner’s office has disclosed the identity of the person who requested the information in the first place.

Work to complete the outer shell of the building, off the High Street, should have finished two years ago and cost £16.3million. The latest estimate is £19million.

Last month, the council agreed to earmark another £1.1million for work on the interior. It is hoping to claim back £1.4million through legal action against former builder, Banner Holdings.

Essex County Council and the Arts Council have confirmed they are also considering requests to chip in £1.5million apiece to get the arts complex finished.

Comments(34)

Council Man says...
8:11pm Tue 8 Jun 10

I am just lost for words!!!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Sparkfilms says...
10:33pm Tue 8 Jun 10

I hope The Gazette will publish the content from these 'secret papers' as soon as they are available, or at least inform the public where they can be viewed.

It would be interesting to know what the 'or else' in the headline refers to.

Either way the public have been conned by the council and those responsible for withholding this information should be moved from office.

These 'secret papers' are probably just the tip of the iceberg.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Feisty CBC says...
11:11pm Tue 8 Jun 10

Poxy place....we all hate it even before it's complete.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

SteveExPat says...
11:14pm Tue 8 Jun 10

Will the infomation provided be that good, as it is two years out of date?

The same request should be made today, citing the recent ruling and asking for the upto date documents.

And yes, it would be good if the Gazette could produce a PDF for people to look at.


It however would be better if the council would do this.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Boris says...
12:01am Wed 9 Jun 10

To Sparkfilms. I believe "or else" refers to the sentence in the middle of the report: "Failure to do so could lead to a prosecution." This seems to have done the trick, as none of them wants to be in the dock and risk being surcharged or debarred from public office.
As for the statement that ECC and the Arts Council are "considering requests to chip in £1.5million apiece to get the arts complex finished", that may be true, but surely they won't be coughing up. How much spare cash will they be left with after the Osborne axe falls on public spending? We are going to be left with paying for this thing ourselves.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Andy Hamilton says...
12:46am Wed 9 Jun 10

The anonymous person is not me but the details of the request do suggest someone who has followed the saga in detail.
.
It is true I have asked the Local Government ombudsman to comment on the illegal 15, Queen Street sale. I have also denounced, to the new auditor, the illegal award of VAF contracts to favoured contractor without allowing competitive tenders.
.
I have obtained copies of the legal judgements between Banner and Colchester Council. The Council crowed over its victory but has misled the public over the judgement. I will be demanding, under FOI, copies of the notices submitted to Banner on 5/02/2009 and 22/03/2009 regarding the alleged workmanship defects and failures of Banner.
.
I look forward to the next Cabinet meeting where the actual decision maker an executive director will hopefully be present. You may remember councillors delegated all VAF decision making to this executive director providing a councillor was "consulted"!
.
Eventually our MP will have to ask the government to hold an enquiry into the incompetent and arrogant misuse of taxpayers money on the VAF. I look forward to the Chief executive and an executive director facing a humiliating exposure of their past behaviour. Really the shame should fall on every one of Colchester councillors as none voted against wasting more money on the VAF at the recent full Council meeting.
.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

AndyP335 says...
10:27am Wed 9 Jun 10

So sad. All that was envisaged originally was an 'architecturally-sig
nificant' hotel, offices and a shopping mall complex, perhaps modelled on the Roman Colosseum, to 'key' with the Castle and the (still neglected) Priory to rejuvenate the area. But the only body that would put up any money was The Arts Council. What a disaster. Public sector penny-pinching, committee management, petty politicking, luddite resistance, incompetent contractors - allegedly - it's got it all. God help us.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

totallyfootball says...
10:33am Wed 9 Jun 10

Maybe now we will see where all the fat backhanders went?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

love Dr says...
11:40am Wed 9 Jun 10

lets hope some council bosses will be named and shamed then sacked.Who supports the Vaf out there please

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Sparkfilms says...
11:41am Wed 9 Jun 10

Can we also get some clarification on the building materials that were stolen from the VAF site over the past 3 years by certain sub contractors as part payment?

( Gazette - this is a job for you ).

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Andy Hamilton says...
1:59pm Wed 9 Jun 10

The worst thing is the way those who should protect the public from misuse of public funds looked the other way. The last discredited auditor should have exposed this obscene waste of our money but he took his generous fee and has thankfully gone.
.
Yet Council meetings have no one prepared to denounce this folly. It is time the outraged public spoke out at the "Have your say" opportunity and made councillors realise the shame they have brought to Colchester.
.
The VAF has failed and a new use needs to be made of this tacky carbuncle. The only question is how long will people stand idly by as an unending stream of taxpayers' money supports the egotistical delusions of our councillors.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Andy Hamilton says...
1:59pm Wed 9 Jun 10

The worst thing is the way those who should protect the public from misuse of public funds looked the other way. The last discredited auditor should have exposed this obscene waste of our money but he took his generous fee and has thankfully gone.
.
Yet Council meetings have no one prepared to denounce this folly. It is time the outraged public spoke out at the "Have your say" opportunity and made councillors realise the shame they have brought to Colchester.
.
The VAF has failed and a new use needs to be made of this tacky carbuncle. The only question is how long will people stand idly by as an unending stream of taxpayers' money supports the egotistical delusions of our councillors.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

BlondeJo says...
2:02pm Wed 9 Jun 10

I will never support the VAF, never visit it, and if my child's school arranges a trip there, I will not let them go. Hopefully any revelations of big fat backhanders will silence those who say "That's impossible, don't be silly!" whenever an old, inconvinient house mysteriously burns down and eyebrows are raised in the council's direction.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

PROOFREADER says...
2:19pm Wed 9 Jun 10

I see the council is trying to save money on the outside of the VAF by using used gold sweet and chocolate bar wrappers. It looks terrible, judging by the lumps and bumps some of the sweets and chocoalte bars are still in some of the wrappers.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

totallyfootball says...
4:31pm Wed 9 Jun 10

Corruption is everywhere and Colchester is rife with it. Everything in life has a price and unfortunately those in power do nothing to deter the wrong doings and therefore other folk will milk the situation for all its worth. A historic house in Myland was destroyed by fire recently, the owners were allegedly devastated after all the hard work they had put in to restore it. So tell me why have they now applied for planning permission to knock it down and build flats and are not willing to comment on their new plans? Is that smoke I can smell or a rat. Any police officers on here that want to follow that up? Look out in the council offices for those with big bulges in their back pockets!!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

ToB Club says...
7:59pm Wed 9 Jun 10

It will be interesting to see if the information released contains the justification for the development, and therefore the basis for the spend. Whilst the clock can not be turned back, it is to be hoped that the existence of the information in the public domain will prove that those who took decision that it was not perhaps the best ever, and they can be held accountable. Saying sorry is a start.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Taj says...
8:05pm Wed 9 Jun 10

Was it an earth tremor I felt as this news came out ?
No, it was just a few Councillors and LA officers shaking in their shoes.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

crosby says...
8:28pm Wed 9 Jun 10

No, I think not, I expect you will all be very disappointed when all the titbits you hope for turn out to be stale bread. And I suspect Banners will be going bust quite soon.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Red Tape says...
9:04pm Wed 9 Jun 10

The only thing I'd like to see, but know will never happen, is the arrogant idiots who voted in favour of this white-elephant to be presented with the bill and made to pay for it personally!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Andy Hamilton says...
11:26pm Wed 9 Jun 10

I would like to know "crosby"s evidence that Banner "will be going bust soon". Nothing I have read in the construction news mentions this.
.
A lot of criticism of the contractor performance omits they were recruited despite admitting a lack of experience with the specialist work. The original design was too complex to be properly modelled on computers. One fault was the subsiding roof. Also some of the specified materials were inappropriate or untested. Hence the staining and pinholing of the "corrosion proof" roof.
.
Council staff failed to properly monitor the work but accepted whatever they were told. The inevitable problems causing water damage should have been resolved much earlier.
.
Even if the contractors reports are out of date they will show the Council was warned things were going badly from the start of building. The trail of emails will soon show which councillors and staff covered things up.
.
The money has gone and no recrimination will bring it back. What I cannot understand is who will be able to pay the council estimated VAF running costs of £1million/year plus the expensive maintenance needed.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Sdapeze says...
10:01am Thu 10 Jun 10

It is on the record who made the decision to choose the design and to commence building the VAF. They did what they thought was best and could not have known how it would turn out. All this sniping achieves nothing. We have the thing now and it is not going away. What is needed is for the people of Colchester and the handful of moaning minnies on this site to get behind the project and embrace the edifice building as our new arts building. I hated the thing from the start, but hope to grow to love it and support it - for the good of Colchester.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

love Dr says...
10:06am Thu 10 Jun 10

i agree to your post comment red tape

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

AndyP335 says...
10:15am Thu 10 Jun 10

Well said, Sdapeze, although it is a shame (and a testament) that those with a better understanding of economics, commerce and project management were not given charge from the outset. Why do people work in the public sector ? Because they do not have these skills.

In passing, I would further opine that corruption is nowadays rare because modern procedures make it very difficult. This is a a ****-up, not a conspiracy.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Andy Hamilton says...
10:18am Thu 10 Jun 10

Contrary to "sdapeze" comments. councillors were repeatedly informed from the start, in detail, of the majority public opposition, the inherently defective design and that lack of financial viability of this hideous carbuncle. I was repeatedly told that we were going to get the VAF whether we wanted it or not.
.
Even now councillors refuse to admit the whole concept of this free entry art gallery was unaffordable. The fact that the building is structurally deficient makes it a maintenance nightmare. Huge public funding cutbacks will ensure this aberration will be either closed or a more practical use made.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

crosby says...
4:04pm Thu 10 Jun 10

Please, please, please Andy let's have your absolute proof of 'majority public opposition' because you know there is none.

From what I've read there is no doubt the whole thing was a disaster from the start, but that was years ago and the people mostly responsible have surely long gone.

Even if the concept was unaffordable, which is very questionable, it is certainly unaffordable to stop building it and it surely can't be turned into something else as it is specifically designed as a visual arts facility.

So please stop banging on and divert your undoubted public spirited energies to something you CAN do something about. You have reported all and sundry to just about every legal arbitre in the whole world and got virtually no-where unless you're keeping it secret.

PS. Re Banners, keep your eyes on the papers and search the internet.

PPS. I don't want the **** thing either particularly.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Andy Hamilton says...
7:34pm Thu 10 Jun 10

As "crosby" says the VAF was a disaster from the start and still is. I am glad he finally states he does not want the VAF.
.
When the VAF was approved by councillors repeated requests for a referendum were made. Councillors refused it knowing they would lose. So few people gave money to the VAF public fundraising that it was a major humiliation for Firstsite. Most of the money for this white elephant was from outside public bodies who could ignore local opinions. Colchester Council publicly states that it continues to squander money on the VAF only because the Art Council insists. At no time has Colchester Council listened to the public and they will see the whole "Cultural quarter" concept destroyed by their egotistical delusions.
.
Most of the key players are still in power. Admittedly Councillor Davidson decided a few weeks before the election not to stand again but most councillors, the Chief Executive and executive directors are still in place.
.
"Crosby" has to face the reality that not one councillor voted against wasting more money on the VAF. They will all face the misery as the bones of this disaster are picked over in the glare of publicity. The continued refusal of an enquiry and despicable secrecy mean they deserve everthing they get.
.
When this monstrosity opens it will be unaffordable to run as a free entry art gallery. Only 18% of the space inside is suitable for displaying art. You try fixing artwork to sloping walls. You end up hanging it from the ceiling.
.
The VAF concept has failed. If Colchester Council wish to destroy themselves over it, then it is their choice. Eventually the council auditor and the government will have to take action.
.
Colchester Council has lost support from public funders. Not one organisation helped finance the recent legal actions. By the way the claims of victory over Banner are somewhat exaggerated. (And yes I do have the court judgements to hand!)
.
Contrary to Colchester Council optimistic statements neither the Arts Council or Essex County Council have yet agreed the extra funding. The Arts Council has already had a 25% cut in funding and today Essex County Council had its government funding cut. Times are tough and in a recession pointless luxuries such as the VAF have to be put to the back of the funding queue.
.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Sparkfilms says...
11:07pm Thu 10 Jun 10

For Crosby re. 'Majority public opposition'.

Were were involved in public opinion feedback on the VAF in November 2007 and again in June 2008.

85% of those Colchester residents questioned in 2007 were opposed to the Visual Arts Facility. By 2008 the figure was 87% opposed.

Andy Hamilton has nothing to prove to you in this respect - go out and do your own survey and I'm sure you will find similar results.

Our stats are available in PDF format should you doubt them and are with a national newspaper via their Colchester based deputy editor.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

AndyP335 says...
8:30am Fri 11 Jun 10

By 2007 the VAF was already a disaster, plain for all to see. However, when it all started, in the early 90's, the opposition was a minority, mainly concerned about the bus station. That said, there was also opposition from commercial interests in the town against a new shopping mall. This was IMHO misguided and should not have been heeded. The way Colchester has been forced to expand, we needed, and continue to need high-quality modern shopping facilitities with good transport links. All of this was feasible with proper planning.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Red Tape says...
7:49pm Fri 11 Jun 10

As I've said all along, who was the VAF aimed at and how would it ever pay it's way? If the VAF plans had been put in front of The Dragon's Den panel it would have been laughed out of the door!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

seco2 says...
8:52pm Fri 11 Jun 10

Does anyone know whether the proposed shopping mall and wider Cultural Quarter have been formally scrapped? The Council's website is about 4-5 years out of date; suggesting it should already have been built. The plans seem to suggest almost everything around St Botolph's would have been flattened and rebuilt - thank God (!) - but I get the impression it's all been quietly shelved..? Andy, do you know where/how things stand with the other proposals?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

crosby says...
9:26pm Fri 11 Jun 10

Sparkfilms - interesting stats. I would like to see the full survey published, the questions asked and how many were included. I wasn't, for instance either time.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Checkout says...
10:56am Sat 12 Jun 10

Crosby: Excellent intelligence on Banner.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

crosby says...
12:34pm Sat 12 Jun 10

It wasn't too difficult to work out once I read that their lawyers had walked out on them presumably because a) they had no case and b) they had no money to pay them

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

jim_bo says...
8:40am Tue 15 Jun 10

Today is the day !

Whens your VAF freedom of information request day ?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

More News stories

Local Businesses

Most popular