Why is the council still spending money evaluating the `New
Build'
option?

In a draft letter from Colin Brow (property consultants) to Paul Ely,
Leisure Services, Tower Hamlets Council (21-8-03) P Walker, Associate
Director, lists the 4 options under discussion: -

* Do nothing
* Refurbishment
* New build with enabling development
* Phased Refurbishment

NB : Surprisingly the option identified as preferred by residents
through public consultation - Phased refurbishment - is the last on
the list.


The letter is a response to the council's request to "provide
property consultancy advice in respect of a new build"

The letter goes on to develop the 3rd option above "New build with
enabling development". The council wants to identify a single 'New
build' proposal.

The 3 options for the new build are: -

1. Redeveloping Mayfield House as a Stand Alone Development
2. Retain YH existing facade and build new residential and sports
facilities. Mayfield house not considered. Also know as"YH Option 3"
3. Full redevelopment of YH and Mayfield House site to provide
residential and sports facilities. Also know as "YH Option 5a"

In the summary the report points out :

1. Redeveloping Mayfield House as a Stand Alone Development

There is no 'capital receipt' (payback) in the standalone Mayfield
House option.

2. Retain YH existing facade

"...the hall is replaced with a much smaller facility". Low-level
residential accommodation would be provided and a 1 million pound
subsidy would be required.

3. Full redevelopment of YH and Mayfield House

"Again the hall is replaced by a much smaller facility" A profit
after sports facility costs of 0.5 million could be realised.

WHY WAS THIS REPORT NEEDED AT ALL ?

The council's initial proposal to demolish the building was met
with
a clear "No" from users. This was confirmed through a structured
process of consultation with users and residents. The consultation
cost money and delayed long overdue action being taken. It's outcome
must be recognised as the wishes of the council's customers and
rate
payers.

It would appear from this report that the council has NOT accepted
that its own consultative process has already clearly identified the
goals of the YH project.

The fact that the 4 options are still being discussed bares witness
to this.

This is a step backwards and a waste of ratepayers money. "Phased
Refurbishment" is the option selected through public consultation.

Based on the outcome of public consultation money has already been
spent estimating the cost of doing this at 13.5 million off set by
the 2.8M potentially available from external sources. These costs
appear to be inflated and should be challenged.

Is there a way of asking publicly at a council meeting why money was
wasted and request assurances that the way forward is to invest in
the Phased Refurbishment option ?

Best Regards

Mark