COUNCIL CHIEF HITS BACK IN LIBRARY COSTS ROW

26-10-2007

Birmingham City Council's Chief Executive Stephen Hughes has hit back at The Stirrer's column in last night's Birmingham Mail which argued that the merits of retaining the existing Central Library had been overlooked.

The article questioned the £193 million figure routinely quoted for the new building, pointing out that an additional £22 million contingency has already been set aside - not to mention the interest payments on the £99 million the Council is borrowing (see link here).

In this context, shouldn't "retain and refurbish" option be more vigorously pursued, we wondered? Not according to Hughes who disputes the £20 million figure quoted for updating the existing library, and says that making it fit for purpose would actually cost £124 million.

Here's his full response: "Firstly, we all seem to have forgotten that Cabinet has already taken decisions about the library.

"The Scrutiny report to Cabinet on 24th October 2005 was a commentary on the option appraisal report prepared for Cabinet in July of that year.

" Although there were still some issues to resolve some decisions were made following the work done by Invigour's report of 14 February 2006. Hopefully we don't have to go back to square one every time we take a report on the Library.

"So, if you read the Scrutiny report it says in paragraph 3.2.2 ‘While there are some [arguments] ... for the retention, refurbishment and extension of the existing library we (Scrutiny) have come to the same conclusion as that within the Cabinet report of 25th July 2005. This option would not allow for the introduction of innovative learning facilities; would attract little outside funding and would frustrate the ambitions to develop the Paradise Circus complex and its negative image for the City.'

"Now, if we turn to the cost, you will see from the same report that the cost of retention, refurbishment and extension of the existing Library is not the £20m that you quote but £124.5m. The source for this is the Gleeds report with some adjustment for inflation.

"Yes, it is cheaper than the new Library - but only by £68.5m. As we would find it difficult to get significant external finance for refurbishment, would lose any potential for capital receipts from Paradise Circus or any S106 from its redevelopment, the actual reduction in costs met by the Council could be as little as £4.5m.

"Put another way then (as we must have a library and house its archives) we can get a state of the art knowledge hub, a cultural marriage with the Rep, significant regeneration and additional jobs from redevelopment of Paradise Circus and improve the image of the City for an opportunity cost of £4.5m.

"The £20m figure is I believe, the cost of the backlog in maintenance, and would not address any of the fundamental problems with the current configuration and capacity of the existing Library and would see the City losing its archives of national importance. If we keep the central library on the current site the additional costs quoted above are largely unavoidable.

"The point is that keeping the existing Library is not a cheap alternative to developing a new one.""

Are you convinced by Stephen's arguments?

Leave a comment on the Message Board.

Click here to read The Stirrer column in last night's Birmingham Mail which argued that the merits of retaining the existing the Central Library had been overlooked.