Council claims transparency on HQ project but withold key details
EXCLUSIVE
By Gareth Davies
A WEEK after censoring key details of its flagship regeneration project, the council has declared – "we have been absolutely transparent about the process" .
But it has refused to release figures key to its claim the town-centre scheme, worth £450 million, will cost taxpayers nothing.
Nathan Elvery, director of resources, declined to reveal the individual valuation of the main sites involved – Taberner House, Tamworth Annex and College Green.
Mr Elvery believes the sale or development of these assets will offset the building costs of the council's new headquarters, but he witheld how much each is worth because of "commercial sensitivity".
But the council did confirm the three sites combined are valued at £65 million.
The Advertiser can reveal further details of the Urban Regeneration Vehicle (URV) which aims to transform central Croydon. These include:
- Developer John Laing has been given first refusal on any council owned building or land for the next 25 years.
- The URV may buy and develop Croydon Magistrates' Court.
- The council purchased land and flats on Mint Walk, since demolished, to make way for the new HQ, with £1.47m of public money.
Mr Elvery defended the URV following criticism of the decision to redact key figures from contracts obtained via an Advertiser Freedom of Information request.
Since it was signed in 2008, the partnership between the council and John Laing has caused controversy, principally around how much it will cost.
Mr Elvery said: "The building cost [of the HQ] will be fully offset from the sale and development of redundant, high maintenance and inefficient council buildings.
"Their associated value and the 50 per cent profit share with Laing on future development will cover the cost of building the public sector delivery hub.
"We set out to ensure this project doesn't cost residents money and it's enormously frustrating when people claim otherwise."
Critics of this business plan say it relies heavily on future projections about the state of economy and property market, though Mr Elvery says the flexible 25-year agreement means the URV's assets can be used when conditions are ripe.
The scheme, which has won national awards, is not just limited to three sites.
As well as building a leisure centre and houses in Waddon, John Laing has been given first refusal on any building or land the council wants to sell.
Mr Elvery explained: "With some exceptions, all sites that the council declares surplus must first be offered to the URV.
"Critically, if the URV wants to develop them the council must first show it can sell the property to them at the accepted market value. This means we don't waste money by seeking out new buyers for every site in the borough."
Potential sites which could be transferred to the URV include Lion Green car park, in Coulsdon, and former care homes Brigstock Manor, Cheriton House, Coleby Court, Stroud Green Lodge and Croydon Magistrates' Court could be one of the properties purchased by the URV in the future.
The building, which is owned by the HMRC, is on College Green, where the URV plans a "cultural and learning" area, featuring affordable homes alongside shops and offices.
WE CHALLENGED finance director Nathan Elvery after key figures and facts were redacted from contracts relating to its headquarters and regeneration project.
This is what he said:
Would you describe the way in which the Urban Regeneration Vehicle (URV) was formed and operates as being transparent?
"We have been absolutely transparent about the process.
"The project has been considered at public cabinet meetings, where it has been questioned by councillors from both political parties.
"The independently-minded scrutiny committee has also carried out an extensive review.
"Reports and meeting minutes, together with the URV's annual financial report, are all available freely on our website."
Do you think it's in the public's interest to know the exact financial details?
"We have placed every detail we can into the public domain at the earliest opportunity.
"However, in any commercial arrangement there are always some sensitive financial details that have to be kept confidential in order to ensure competitiveness within the private sector."
Gabriel MacGregor, head of legal services, ruled the interests of a private company outweigh those of Croydon's taxpayers. Do you agree?
"Taken out of context, of course we can understand how such a legally phrased argument may cause disquiet.
"This is why we are pleased to have the opportunity to provide further reassurance that in the interests of taxpayers we have placed everything we are able to in the public domain."
Do you think the public have had sufficient chance to scrutinise the URV?
"Yes. The issue has rarely been out of the public eye since the council first told the media of its intentions.
"In addition to regular media coverage there have been numerous public meetings, debates, published documents and opportunities for the press and public to pore over the entire project."
FACTFILE: The Urban Regeneration Vehicle (URV)
- The URV is a partnership between Croydon Council and developer John Laing
- The council provided publicly owned land and assets, including current home at Taberner House, a former school in Tamworth Road and College Green.
- Laing offered funding and building expertise for the council's new headquarters.
- This is a departure from the traditional model of local authority building, as it allows the council a 50 per cent share of development profits.
- The council will receive an income, rather than selling its assets and only seeing the initial return, which is what occurred when the then Labour council sold its multi-storey car parks in 2005.
- The HQ will not cost £450 million. This figure relates to the value of the entire URV portfolio.
- The council has not been clear about how much the HQ will cost to build because it says this amount will be offset by selling or developing other properties









3 Comments
by ALIVEnKICKING
Wednesday, June 08 2011, 9:30AM
“Well, well. So according to its website, the Council CAN in fact disclose further information about the CCURV contract, without compromising 'competitiveness within the private sector'. Still not clear though about exactly what 'legal exemptions' the Council and its partners have waived here.
Perhaps though the Council might now disclose information about its monthly payments that has previously been withheld because of similar claims about private sector 'competitiveness'. Perhaps, to echo Cllr Pollard's quoted views, this extra information will now be disclosed so that the public can better understand why these payments are all 'good news' for our town.”
by Time2Shout, South Croydon
Wednesday, March 30 2011, 11:58PM
“Mr Elvery is quoted as saying "We have placed every detail we can into the public domain at the earliest opportunity ... " as well as " ... in the interests of taxpayers we have placed everything we are able to in the public domain".
It would appear then, that Mr Elvery is doubly sure that the Council is in some way prohibited from disclosing certain 'sensitive financial details ... in order to ensure competitiveness within the private sector'.
So what exactly is it that so prohibits the Council? Would it be 'illegal' to disclose this information? And how exactly would proper disclosure (ie full transparency) restrict private sector competitiveness?
Without substantive and sustainable answers to the above questions, the Council would appear to have no grounds at all to withhold this information. Without those answers the Council could be seen to be withholding the information not because it was 'unable' to disclose it, but rather that it didn't want to disclose it. If that was the case, what the public would need to know now is, who made the related/relevant decisions ... and why?
Perhaps Mr Elvery (or Mr Rouse ?) could/should be asked to further elucidate.”
by Guy, Sanderstead
Wednesday, March 30 2011, 6:50PM
“Having researched the original URV proposal for the £450M new council offices it appears that only Davies House, Taberner House and Mint Walk buildings were to be use to fund the scheme. Now is Mr. Elvery saying other assets have been included presumably to cover shortfalls in funding. If so then the cost to Croydon's taxpayers is not nothing but £multi-millions instead by the additional inclusion of these assets beyond the original proposal. I am sure Mr. Elvery will explain in the interest of continued transparency.”