The Festival Hall has now reopened....
The entrance to the Festival Hall, the Hall itself and the Bar are now open. I'm pleased to say that they have already attracted many positive comments. The Bar provides a spacious, modern facility – equipping the Hall well to serve large functions, including corporate events and weddings.
...but it is not complete
Lack of funds (see Finances below) has meant that we cannot complete the work, in particular creating the additional meeting rooms we need. These would provide further facilities for local clubs and community groups.
Medical Centre on schedule
The Medical Centre build is progressing well, with a target completion date of end February 2016, which will allow one month for final inspection by the doctors and NHS England. So, after many years' gestation, we remain optimistic that the doctors will finally be able to move in from April 2016, with Cedrics' Pharmacy alongside.
A project of this kind requires massive attention to detail. Over the last 6 months we have been working very hard to get this project back on track and to keep it there. This has proved to be very time-consuming and demanding.
I have previously reported that the Parish Council has had to borrow an additional £500,000 over and above the previously claimed maximum of £2m. (Full details for the reasons behind this were reported on alderleyedge.com).
Fundraising for the Festival Hall
We face a similar shortfall on funding to complete additional works on the Festival Hall. Budgeted by our predecessors at £540,000, the actual costs (without any change of specification) will be £840,000. As we are at the limits of our borrowing capacity we cannot borrow any more.
So we are now actively seeking donors, sponsors and individuals who are willing to help us bring this project to fruition for the benefit of the community. I am delighted to report that we have already made good progress on plugging this £300,000 gap, with funding and pledges totaling £160,000 – leaving us 'just' £140,000 to find.
If you are able to help us in any way with this fundraising effort we shall be very grateful. We are particularly keen to get the help of individuals with current or recent legal, commercial or financial expertise. If you do feel you may be able to help please email me or call me on 01625 581321.
Geoff Hall, Chairman, Alderley Edge Parish Council.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
The show programme will be available at the end of January.
Frankly, I am pleased that the responsibility for such large amounts of Council Taxpayers hard-earned cash has been wrested from their hands.
mostly I stay away from costings arguements as I was not a close party to it BUT:
it is impossible to compare like with like at the moment SO:
the' last lot' produced a list of 59 intended works for the F. Hall. All 59 were costed by Emersons. It was drawn up by early last May I believe.
This document is at the P.C. I do have a copy but I won't put it on here in case I am accused of breaking confidentiality; though as the public will have to pay for all this, why can't the public see the costings?
I assume that there is a similar document of F. Hallworks already carried out by the P.C.
I assume that there is a similar document for the proposed further F. Hall works.
I assume that the 'new lot's' costings were also produced by Emersons? so a like for like is easier.
May I suggest that the P.C. publish all three accounts, with the itemised costings and then the public can judge for itself. Are the two lists of works the same or not? Have extra works been added to the original specification? Where/why have costings increased?
Can we have costings please where the cost of the new side entrance is seperate from the other F. Hall works costings, as the 'last lot' put that in with the Medical Centre costs and not the F. Hall costs.
Hopefully then an end to 'you said', 'no we didn't',' oh yes you did' etc. etc.
Come on Alan, will you back me in these reasonable requests? At the very least, it won't hurt.
They were free to do what they wanted as a PC but we had figures ( I don't have them now) of the payback for spend and revenue. Not sure they have done it.
It looks nice but will it be recovered in revenue and if so what is the time table for it to be.
Your statement is at odds with the very straightforward sentence contained within the piece above that caught my eye.......
"Budgeted by our predecessors at £540,000, the actual costs (without any change of specification) will be £840,000."
Since there is clearly a disagreement re. costings etc. may I repeat that which I wrote above?
Let the P.C. release ALL the figures.
Who could possibly object to such clarity & openess ? Not you surely ?
How lovely to see you back and posting on alderleyedge.com, I have missed you. Am I to assume that you got a new computer for Xmas fitted with that new software, 'AutoDefendMyPast'. The thing is that the whole of AE got a new PC last May as they realised that the previous one had a few bugs.
I certainly look forward to your Frank posts. Duncan has started to speak very Frankly recently too.
Is there really a disagreement about costings? All I see is you, and now Melanie Conner, trying to defend the fact that the previous PC got it wrong. Frankly I am impressed that you have such faith.
..... at explaining the good works that they had done in getting the new medical center off the drawing board.
I chair a small national sporting body and this is a complaint that we get regularly - you can do the work or spend time promoting the work that may or may not be done.
So, let's not bicker about who did what and when - because that will become apparent in the fullness of time ....
Let's focus on what the new facility will provide and how it is to be paid for - then we can judge the old guard and the new !
I (personally) have lived either in Alderley Edge, or the immediate area surrounding it for over fifty years. My family have lived in Alderley Edge for over three hundred years.
But none of that really matters
I like the place, I like it's history and heritage, I like the many subtle ways in which it is a unique and special place to live and I support those who recognise this and are prepared to work to preserve the critical balance that ensures that Alderley Edge will remain "special"
Frankly, I don't believe that some of the former PC members acted in the best interests of Alderley Edge. I consider that some of them treated the people of Alderley Edge with arrogance and contempt and some of their plans were ill-conceived and (in some cases) plain wrong - the discussion has taken place on this forum over past months and years.
Ultimately the people of Alderley Edge voted emphatically to remove all nine members of the previous PC, so whilst I may (in your view) be an outsider, I reckon I'm pretty much in step with popular thinking.
I think the new guys are a decent bunch. They have in their ranks some very talented people with a wealth of experience across a variety of fields. Most importantly they are bound by an obvious desire to do the right thing for Alderley Edge.
I hope that answers your question.
Paul. Best to ignore the Australopithecines, as I do !
We have 9 Parish Councilors; why do they not engage with the public here on this site? Where is the promised clarity, transparency and consultation? Just silence by and large ! Such a shame ?
Every household in Alderley Edge will have by now received a newsletter from the PC providing information on their work to date and their intended course of action on some key issues. The newsletter also contains personal contact details for the PC members assigned to each task and an invitation to contact them for more information.
Instead of spinning your tired and beaten old politics on alderleyedge.com, why not make direct contact with the people that might have the information you seek and then we can get away from (as you call it) the "he says, she says" nonsense on this forum and get behind the PC to help bring about whatever change it is that we collectively desire?
Yes, there will be disagreement on some issues but we have a starting point and we should move forward from there - not backwards.
I have posed many questrions here on alderleyedge.com over the last few months; alas they mostly don't get answered or even acknowledged.
If I have a question that concerns the village then why would I ask it of a parish councilor and thus only I would have the answer whereas the answer should be out in the public domain shouldn't it?
I can sort of understand that the Councilors are too busy to deal with my (possibly seen as impertinent) questions; though if that's the reason for no answers, isn't it a tad high-handed?
However since the P.C. chose to put out their information on alderleyedge.com then should they not now respond to the questions and views and comments put forth by several people on alderleyedge.com?
I have chosen not to believe the two sources who told me that there was a 'three-line-whip' on the Parish Councilors, forbidding them to engage on alderleyedge.com. But why oh why do the nine elected people not respond to the public who elected them, here on alderleyedge.com?
If by 'tired and beaten old politics' you include my going on about elected Councilors not responding to the people who elected them and not releasing figures, then your view of 'tired and beaten' is different to mine !
By the way, are you trying to avoid my question to you as to whether or not you agree with me and several others that the P.C. should publish the two lists of comparable F.Hall jobs and costings? I too want to know why there is a claimed difference of £300k between the two sets of costings. Its probably worse than you think, since the total cost for the original list of 59 F.Hall proposed works was circa £260k; thus the increase is nigh on 100%; and both were costed by Emersons, only a few months apart?
The report suggests there are no changes to the specification, but as many will know there are can be issues of interpretation and costs will of course depend on the nature of the contract , for example fixed price or say time and materials. I don't know the details of the contract but the implication of the report is that the contractor has somehowincreased the price by £300,000 for no identifiable change in specification. This is not a minor increase of a few percent but more like 60% and is not acceptable without explanation.
There is no suggestion that the contractor has increased prices in relation to this contract, they have been exemplary in their efforts to contain costs.
In May we found the specification of works for the Festival Hall was well over the £540K budget. £36K of work had been carried out and was due for payment.
Additional costs since then are for items required by law, eg a platform lift at the rear of the hall to the council offices and lettable spaces - and those that crop up in reality, eg windows that must be fire-rated.
As for responses on here, the idea of a 3-line whip is laughable; we are not subject to instructions from a political party, thank goodness. If you'd like to ask us questions you are welcome to join us at our monthly Parish Council meetings.
Having said all that - I'd like to wish everyone a happy, healthy and prosperous year in 2016.
All the best.
Thanks for your clear answer and I look forward to the January meeting with further discussion.
May I also take this opportunity to thank you, Mike and Craig for giving your precious time on New Year's Eve to plant up the village tubs, troughs and tree bases with an assortment of cheerful pansies etc. They certainly look good as I walked down London Rd. this morning. Hope you found time to enjoy your family.
Happy New Year to you and ALL the A/E residents and beyond.
Thanks for the clarifications , they help a bit .... but I remain confused .....
- sounds like the specification has changed because it was incomplete and non compliant with regulations ( who was responsible )
- you talk of a budget of £540K ... was this based on information from potential contractors or someone's guess
- what was the agreed cost when the work was started or did it just start ?
- is the new number of £840K another budgeted number or is it some sort of agreed price for the work
thanks
Vin
Vin, apologies again for a brief reply. Yes the specification wasn't perfect, but this happens. You might have guessed that we're not that interested in pointing fingers. We took on what we got and are doing the best to make it work as well as possible. The £540K was the available money. £840K is where the spec has landed up - as a result of which we can't complete the works as yet, but we're working on it. We do think the Festival Hall looks good in its new clothes but we really need it to work in terms of revenue - it's an ace public facility and the more it's used the better.
Talking of which - back to the first post on this thread - I am absolutely delighted, more than words can say, that the AE Village Show will be held at the Festival Hall this year. Thanks Fen, you've cheered me up no end! Happy New Year
Ruth
Alas still no lists of works and costings appearing, despite requests from a number of people.
As Sherlock might say, 'the plot thickens and the game is afoot' (first weak joke of the year!).
May I make a suggestion?
Alderley Edge has a plentiful supply of ptofessionals. Including accountants.
Would one of them be so kind as to volunteer their services (i.e. free) to examine ALL lists of works and costings and end up with a concise, clear and definitive document, which would satisfy everyone?
S/he would need to be someone with no active connections to any major political party, or to ae.1st, or to the P.C., or to any previous P.C. or to Emersons.
Then we could stop argueing about what has or has not been done and by whom and get on with the future?
Could it happen?
Thanks for the update- that does help a bit more. I am not interested in so called "finger pointing" but I am interested in responsibility and knowing if the appropriate processes to protect public money spend have/are being followed. There seems to be a lot of money spent on various advisors , agents etc , but we still end up with a enormous overspend. At some point I hope you can be clear about what has happened.
@Duncan
I am very uneasy about the use of unpaid for expertise in such circumstances, despite the talents of the individuals. With payment comes responsibility etc etc under appropriate terms , so if things go wrong .....
On Monday 13th April 2015 you were both present at a meeting of the Finance Committee where, according to the minutes, the following was voted on.
""To agree costs for the refurbishment of the hall up to a guaranteed maximum price of £540,000
Cllr Keegan proposed removing the word ‘guaranteed’ from the request. If there is a change in price then the amended request can be brought back to the council at a later date for approval.
Cllr Keegan proposed, Cllr Williamson seconded and all were agreed that the word ‘guaranteed’ be removed.""
Lisa Reeves wrote an article on this meeting http://bit.ly/1mZHcRe in which she wrote:
""The builders have produced a quote for £540,000 for the renovations to the hall and the extension, which is not a guaranteed price, and the councillors voted unanimously to approve this sum of money at the Finance Meeting on Monday 13th April.
Cllr Frank Keegan commented "What we are doing is approving a sum of money which can later be adjusted but the adjustment comes back to the Council for ratification."
He added "We are working on that figure now and if there is a change to that we come back just justify the change or not later." """
It seems clear that Frank Keegan and the council at the time knew that the £540,000 was not a guaranteed figure and was likely to increase. Now we see that they were indeed correct. So in the end there is really no mystery here. As Sherlock might say "Elementary, my dear Mr Herald"
Sheesh!
All costs incurred since May have been added by the PC as the contracts were signed and of course that would have happened with the old PC as well. So why they keep moaning about is I do not know. The word on the street is that there is a 3 line whip on the PC now. !! Did make me laugh, as for everything they accused ex councillors of is being re-enacted now.
Meanwhile while all this goes on the village is dirty and needs a good litter pick- there are jobs that need to be kept on top of by the PC but as I hardly ever see any in the village I'm not surprised.
If you are told that a project is guaranteed to cost a maximum of £2m and on your first day in office you find that Article 2 of the contract states that it is actually £2.162m, (and that that figure does not include all costs, nor any contingency allowance), then we are obliged to report it.
We realise that this will have been uncomfortable for some, but our first obligation is to report the situation as accurately as we can to our fellow residents. By being very specific I hoped that we would give former Councillors an opportunity to provide us with further information if they had it. (That has not happened to date).
As for the Festival Hall, we have again simply reported the facts. We have managed the project as tightly as possible, but refurbishing the whole building and adding the hospitality suite (which was also in the previous PC's plans) will take the cost to £840,000. That is simply how it is. I do not know how the original £540,000 estimate was constructed because that is before our time and we started from where we were.
Our main focus is on raising the necessary funds, keeping our fellow residents informed and getting the projects completed.
As I said in the earlier article, although we have a lot of business experience between us (for myself I have a Masters degree in Business, was a director of a division of Shell and later raised venture capital to grow an international software company) none of us makes any claims to infallibility. So, if anyone from the old PC can bring us evidence that shows we have missed something, we will be delighted to revise our figures accordingly and publicly acknowledge it.
In that regard we have an urgent need to see the independent feasibility study carried out by our predecessors that shows that the 140 space car park at Heyes Lane can be built for £280,000, since our own independent advice indicates a minimum of £630,000 - quite possibly a lot more, given the presence of a culvert in the centre of the allotment site.
As for responding to questions, all are very welcome to email us, write to us, or to attend Parish Council meetings and pose questions to Councillors. We have also set out a lot of information in our newsletter and will do more at the forthcoming public meetings.
If Councillors do not generally contribute to the wide-ranging debate in the Comments section on this site then that is an individual choice. No offence is intended to those who do use it regularly.
I have never made any great secret of not living in the village. I am not sure who you think the other one is.
When I subscribed to alderleyedge.com I was not asked if I lived in the village. I do however visit this village and I really like it. I think I am allowed an opinion. As far as I know it is not yet a gated community and I think the local businesses rely on people like me.
How about instead of coming up with reasons why you don't think I can post, why not come up with an argument to prove that what I do say is incorrect. I wish you luck.
Anyone is allowed an opinion but its somewhat easier to post an opinion when the outcome will not affect you. For example the parking issue. Whatever happens it will not affect you (apart from making it easier to park, when you visit) but no doubt it will affect people living in the vicinity of CHL and the allotments. Then there's the medical centre - you will not use it, (you may visit the festival hall) you do not contribute payment toward it, so why the interest in the financials? If I were a first time visitor to this site and read your posts I would assume you had a personal vendetta against someone.
I appreciate your comment. Could you tell me who the other none resident is and why I am incorrect in what I say?
Alan is the other. I have never said you are incorrect in what you say, however how do you know you are correct? As I posted earlier, i simply find it bizarre that most posts that relate to important issues in the village (particularly when Duncan makes comment) come from 2 individuals who do not live here?
the figures you quote may or may not be 100% correct (that's is in no way a comment on anyone's honesty) but as long as there is no publication of detailed works and costings, it is not possible for we of the general public to make up our own minds; why not simply publish everything you can lay your hands on, that might in any way, be germane to the matter?