£950k bill to demolish two well-known Scunthorpe town centre buildings
DEMOLITION of Scunthorpe Leisure Centre and the adjacent Carlton Street multi-storey car park cost taxpayers more than £950,000 it has been revealed.
The two structures were pulled down between September 2011 and January last year.
-
Demolition work on Scunthorpe Leisure Centre in 2011
Contractor GBM Demolition carried out the work on behalf of North Lincolnshire Council.
Figures released by the council show knocking down the leisure centre cost £167,000, while the car park demolition cost £787,000.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Sunday, June 30 2013
The leisure centre demolition cost had previously been estimated at £150,000 and was covered in the £20 million-plus budget for The Pods leisure centre. The car park then had to be demolished after a structural report suggested a potential risk of it collapsing.
Council bosses have defended the high cost of the project, saying it represented the market value for a scheme of its kind.
Councillor Liz Redfern, leader of the council, said: "We would always get three quotes, so that would have been the market competitive rate.
"The benefit is the University Technical College (UTC) is set to be down there.
"We would not have been able to get the new college in without the demolition."
Mrs Redfern said the car park cost significantly more to demolish because of the complex nature of the project.
She said: "The car park was certainly more expensive and the reason is it was built on an electricity sub-station.
"We looked at all sorts of ways of doing it but if we had just taken it down, we could not guarantee the electricity for some of the town would not go off."
Councillor Mark Kirk, leader of the opposition Labour group on the council, said he was surprised at the cost of the project.
He said: "I am somewhat shocked at the colossal amount of money spent on demolition costs for these two sites.
"I will be seeking assurances that all the correct procurement procedures were adhered to before this spend was agreed. We need to ensure that whatever replacement takes place is a sound investment, more than compensates for this financial outlay and is of benefit to the residents of North Lincolnshire."
The car park was built by British Lift Slab Ltd in the 1960s. The leisure centre then followed in 1984, at a cost of £3.5 million. An extra 88 temporary car parking spaces were created on the leisure centre site after its demolition.
Details of the project were revealed by GBM Demolition. The firm said: "Both structures were demolished following the clearance of all asbestos-containing materials."
Comments
by englander61
Sunday, January 13 2013, 3:02PM
“The car park was designed to stand in place for nearly 100 years , Did the council claim back cash as most company's would have done was it builders fault or design fault insurance claim should have been made surly , claim back building cost and demolition cost , some one was clearly at fault and should be made to pay all company's take out cover so why is council paying out again .”
by dellboy1959
Sunday, January 13 2013, 12:22PM
“@ crickfan,
I know it's nothing to do with building regs,i was just using that as an example as i couldn't remember which catagory it came under.
I was merely stating that the fact there is nothing wrong with the building is irrelevant because if they want it demolished they will find a way around it and that includes listed buildings.
I know,I've seen it done.”
by TFiLive
Sunday, January 13 2013, 11:07AM
“The Telegraph really is quite lax when it comes to sums. In the space of a sentence £950,000 becomes £700,000 ... a bit like the Baths numbers really. £14 million, becomes £15.9 million becomes no where near the real cost of £24 million. Maybe it's just a typo”
by crickfan
Sunday, January 13 2013, 9:48AM
“@ dellboy1959 - building regs have nothing to do with this and it's not that easy to get round any regulations on a high profile project these days. The HSE have no afilliation to Councils or anyone else and could well have been all over this like a rash.
@ JohnJohn2011 - Agreed on the apparent cloak and dagger approach to all of this. I was actually wrong about the condition being irrelevant as it can take longer to demolish a dangerous structure as more care needs to be taken. It would be interesting to see the surveyors reports to see what the actual condition was though...”
by haroldramp66
Sunday, January 13 2013, 4:31AM
“Should have done the rest of the place whilst they were at it.”
by dellboy1959
Saturday, January 12 2013, 9:53PM
“Let's face it,there are ways around building regs and all the rest of it.
If a re- developer want's to knock down a listed building he will do one of several things.
Make it unsafe,
Torch it,
pay a back hander.
It's been going on for years,same as trees with preservation orders on them, they just poison them or,well you get the picture.it's all a big scam.”
by JohnJohn2011
Saturday, January 12 2013, 9:38PM
“@ crickfan
Agree with some of your points, health & safety and the demolition processes and procedures involved. However the condition of the structure was all important prior to demolition, the community was told by the local authority that the structure was unsafe and it was inferred that the structure could collapse without warning. All some people would like to know is that if the area was wanted for a new development whatever it was why does things seem to be shrouded in secrecy especially when our tax payers money is been spent.”
by crickfan
Saturday, January 12 2013, 8:24PM
“@ JohnJohn2011 - I'm no defender of the Council, but demoltion of a structure such as that is not simple. It's condition is irrelevant, it is not a speedy procedure in this current H&S obsessed world. You may be right about it all being a bit dodgy but your logic is flawed.”
by ArthurLast
Saturday, January 12 2013, 6:57PM
“Someone, somewhere, is spinning a yarn or two over this.
http://tinyurl.com/b9phcw9”
by DFlated
Saturday, January 12 2013, 5:47PM
“700k or 950k which is it???
Make your mind up ST”