Bath spa project compensation figure revealed at last
The total figure for the compensation paid over the Bath Spa fiasco is just short of £7 million, the Bath Chronicle can reveal.
The building firm and architect which did most of the work on the much-delayed £45 million project both agreed to settle out of court with Bath and North East Somerset Council last year.
-
But the payment to compensate the authority for the delays and extra costs of the controversial scheme was subject to a confidentiality agreement, with the figures emerging only in official accounts.
The council’s accounts for the 2008/09 financial year showed a £4.177 million compensation payment.
Now the authority has issued its statement of accounts for the 2009/10 year, which shows an additional payment of £2.785 million - making the total £6.962 million.
The compensation has been paid by builder Carillion and architect Nicholas Grimshaw and Partners.
The authority had sued Carillion for £21.366 million after a formal claim for £2.382 million from the contractor which had been removed from the project ahead of the building’s opening in 2006.
That was five years after its original scheduled opening date, with the final cost more than three times the initial budget.
The council had set aside £6 million in a reserve fund for the cost of a court case which had been due to start at the start of this year.
The compensation payments have freed up this money to allow the Tory cabinet running B&NES to put one-off cash injections into road maintenance and affordable housing work.
Carillion’s predecessor Mowlem had originally made claims of around £10 million but this sum had been reduced through what council chiefs call “constructive discussion and negotiation.”
The council reached an out-of-court settlement with the two firms last November with all parties keen to avoid the huge costs of a formal case before a judge.
Council deputy leader Councillor Malcolm Hanney said: “The council believes it was fully justified in defending the claims made by Carillion, and counterclaiming against Carillion and NGP. The settlement amounts received exceed the costs of so doing.”
The council has stressed that the extra money freed up by the settlement has been spent on what are called non-recurring items - and not to plug temporary budget gaps.
The council has significantly increased spending on road maintenance work in the current financial year, to £6.5 million.
24 Comments
View all
by Gary P, Bath
Tuesday, July 06 2010, 10:02AM
“Thank you Mr Hanney, for providing an opportunity to reply to your answers to both my comments and Tony's, because what you have written is as lifeless and well-rooted as tumbleweed.
Thank you, for confirming my point about lack of honesty in listing the consultation exercises to reveal either an aversion to achieve understanding or dismissal of the truth; that the BTP now passed by the DCC bears little resemblance to the scheme that was being considered when they took place in 2005-6.
Thank you, for confirming that it was the Conservative Administration (2007) who changed the parameters of the BTP as supported cross-party, going on to present Bath with what Tony described as the (very different) fait accomplis of Bathampton Meadows, Newbridge P&R extension on Green Belt land and the proposed BRT route, for which I know you must know as council cabinet member for resources there was no public consultation.
Thank you, for providing some illumination on the subject by not in any way answering my question on specifically how you might envisage a flawed public transport scheme aiding the future commercial investments and developments in the city you referred to earlier.
Thank you, for effectively saying nothing of any worth by suggesting everything might be distilled to a 'difference of opinion' in a style that might be better recognised in the alternative phrasing: "You may say that, but I couldn't possibly comment." In a fictional script uttered by the character Francis Urquhart such statements are artful. In real life they only bring to mind an artful dodger.
Thanks a bunch.”
by Malcolm, Guildhall
Monday, July 05 2010, 8:09PM
“Gary
I am afraid I don't accept that the Bath Transport Package is a flawed scheme and nor does the Department of Transport and other key players.
Tony
On an earlier thread late last year or early this year I gave a list of all the consultation that had taken place while noting that the BTP wasn't directly in my portfolio. The matter had been raised as it has on this thread from an original article either on Spa or on Council budget.
I will just quote the first five bullet points of the 25 bullet points just to make it clear the BTP was not a fait accompli and indeed was supported cross party before there was a Conservative Administration (2007)
¿ July 2005 ¿ Council meeting ¿ provisional Joint Local Transport Plan, including initial plans for Bath Transport Package debated and agreed.
¿ March 2006 ¿ Council Executive ¿ Bath Package Major Scheme Bid
¿ March 2006 ¿ Council meeting ¿ Joint Local Transport Plan approval debate, including the Bath Transport Package and a map of the BRT route in the JLTP document.
¿ September 2006 ¿ Council Executive ¿ Bath Package Major Scheme Business Case (alterations agreed)
* October 2006 ¿ Council meeting ¿ Local Plan Inspector¿s report ¿ Council agreed amendment to Inspector¿s Report into the B&NES Local Plan, referring to BRT route and enclosing map of route
On your other points, I try and engage in a thread when it directly affects my portfolio and not tread on toes of my fellow Cabinet Members' portfolios. As the full list of consultation attests there were many many opportunities for community engagement. Cabinet Members also do their best to respond to direct correspondence and meeting requests (within reason) and personally I am not aware of any criticism levelled at me while I have been a Councillor for not responding promptly and with appropriate information. I think Cllr. Gerrish, who gets a lot more correspondence than me given his portfolio, is also pretty good at getting back to residents on issues raised.
I will have to leave it for somebody else to answer your Tumbleweed thread.”
by Tony, Bath
Monday, July 05 2010, 4:56PM
“Cue tumbleweed.”
by Tony, Bath
Monday, July 05 2010, 12:03PM
“Firstly, thanks to the Chron for making this forum available.
However isn't it a little bit ridiculous that the only way that a two way discourse between concerned residents, and those at B&NES that are responsible for major decisions, is done in this way ?
The whole BTP issue is highly contentious, and of great concern to many tax-payers who are able to string a proper line of reasoning together.
I suggest that the reason for this, and contrary to what I'm sure Cllr Hanney would say, is that the public consultation has been an absolute disgrace ........ it has therfore polarised opinion deeply and led to a completely unnecessarily comfrontational situation ..... add to this the track record of this council (whatever colour) ie Thermae Baths, and there you go.
Cllr Hanney - you are putting yourself in the position where you are having to talk in vague soundbites - if you had properly explained how this whole grand scheme was to hang together, to bring benefits to Bath, you might have avoided the debate over the last two years having degenerated into a slanging match.
The BTP has demonstrably been a fiasco from day one due to your policy of presenting Bath residents with unpopular fait-accomplis.
I hope you're learning”
by Tony, Bath
Monday, July 05 2010, 11:59AM
“Firstly, thanks to the Chron for making this forum available.
However isn't it a little bit ridiculous that the only way that a two way discourse between concerned residents, and those at B&NES that are responsible for major decisions, is done in this way ?
The whole BTP issue is highly contentious, and of great concern to many tax-payers who are able to string a proper line of reasoning together.
I suggest that the reason for this, and contrary to what I'm sure Cllr Hanney would say, is that the public consultation has been an absolute disgrace ........ it has therfore polarised opinion deeply and led to a completely unnecessarily comfrontational situation ..... add to this the track record of this council (whatever colour) ie Thermae Baths, and there you go.
Cllr Hanney - you are putting yourself in the position where you are having to talk in vague soundbites - if you had properly explained how this whole grand scheme was to hang together, to bring benefits to Bath, you might have avoided the debate over the last two years having degenerated into a slanging match.
The BTP has demonstrably been a fiasco from day one due to your policy of presenting Bath residents with unpopular fait-accomplis.
I hope you're learning”