Daming report exposes full extent of Sutton High Street debacle

SHAMBLES: Full extent of Sutton High Street debacle exposed SHAMBLES: Full extent of Sutton High Street debacle exposed

A damning report into the shambolic £3m Sutton High Street redevelopment reveals a litany of errors, oversights and mismanagement resulting in a minimum £300,000 bill for taxpayers.

The internal report exposes how Sutton Council failed to oversee the project, lost records including £202,000 worth of consultancy work and ignored access concerns from disability groups.

Taxpayers will be left to foot a bill of at least £300,000 after Sutton Council’s report recognised it could have been paid by project funders Transport for London (TfL) if overspends had been spotted in time.

Senior council officers face the sack and calls have been made for the councillors who oversaw the fiasco to resign.

The council’s new chief executive, Niall Bolger, has been ordered to review the authority’s arrangements for delivering major projects.

Conservative opposition spokesman on developments, Tony Shields, said the findings of the review proved all the concerns over the project were valid.

He said the executive member responsible for overseeing the development, executive member for planning and economic development Jayne McCoy, should consider her position for failing to properly oversee the project.

He said: “The way this has been run is a travesty. We could all see it was going wrong but no one stepped in in time to fix it. Now taxpayers will have to pay for an overspend on a High Street no one is happy with.”

Sutton and Croydon London Assembly member Steve O’Connell said: “There has been an appalling standard of control during the project.”

He said he would raise concerns over the project’s management with London Mayor Boris Johnson, and expected the situation to harm Sutton’s hopes of securing funding from TfL and City Hall in future.

The internal review was ordered after the project was beset with problems, including delays, concerns about overspends and the quality of work, and a string of accidents leading to least five residents to suing the council.

It showed more than £200,000 was paid to a consultant Roseveare Projects, for project management and preparatory work, but auditors found no record of what the consultant actually did.

It also revealed how the council employed a member of staff to monitor the quality fworks on a daily basis but his reports could not be located during the audit. He resigned in January 2011.

Auditors discovered work was carried out without legally-binding contracts, including main contractor Skanska, that only signed its contract in September 2010, a year after it started work.

They also revealed officers could not provide evidence that tenders were carried out correctly and the design was rushed through because of fears of losing TfL funding.

Coun McCoy said: “I requested this review to give residents transparency and accountability. Although we are pleased with the overall results of the town centre revamp, it is clear mistakes were made.

“Residents expect and deserve the highest standards and, although this organisation usually gets it right, in this case some of those standards were woefully underachieved. Now we have ascertained what went wrong, my responsibility is to ensure these mistakes are not repeated and to take the kind of direct leadership action the taxpayer will expect.”

It is understood Coun McCoy will not resign because she only took responsibility for the redevelopment after May 2010, when many of the problems already existed.

Comments(2)

David7 says...
5:57pm Tue 26 Apr 11

I’m rather annoyed that it has taken the best part of a week to open this story up for comment, once it’s off the front page.

So if Cllr McCoy won’t resign, who will? She has been at the forefront of stating how wonderful the redevelopment is, and the job was completed on her watch (inasmuch as it has been completed – it hasn’t, in fact).

Has ex-Cllr Lyn Gleeson been questioned about her role in this? According to the council’s own published records, the owner of Roseveare Projects seems to have worked closely with the council leader and very senior councillors, so I’m amazed that documentation has gone missing and nobody can say what work was done for £200k.

A lot more questions need to be asked, such as why important paperwork surrounding the tenders has gone missing.

This is scandalous, and smells of cover up and misfeasance in office. No doubt council employees will get the blame and councillors will avoid the consequences. The Audit Commission should be called in.

If it had not been for the pressure placed on the council by the depleted Conservative opposition, I doubt this report would have seen the light of day.

Dig deeper, Guardian. This is a rotten borough, and you should be working to uncover the cancer at its heart.

David7 says...
2:48pm Wed 27 Apr 11

Out of interest, here’s a comment I posted in mid-December when the inquiry was announced:

>>>>>>
The whitewash has started already! In investigating itself, Sutton Council is already diverting blame.

The parameters of the inquiry include:

"the perceived failure of the project to deliver its initial vision"
– so the 80% of Guardian readers who hate the new High Street have a wrong perception, do they? How about addressing the fact hat it may actually be rubbish?

"concerns regarding project governance from consultation through design to implementation"
– a classic opportunity to blame council officers and contractors rather than Councillors

"reputational risk" to the council
– sod the facts, let’s use the PR department to make sure Councillors don’t get the blame. In other words, this will be a damage limitation exercise. It’s not about reputational risk to the council, but about reputational risk to the LibDems.

Sounds like the report has already been written.
>>>>>>

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree