Council begin to firm up FOLCA plan, but contract issues with building abound.
The former Debenhams building which has been been renamed as the FOLCA building, was up for discussion at the Overview & Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday 27 June, 2023. There was no formal report presented to the committee, but there was an outline of where the Council have got to, and were wanting to hear the views and opinions of the committee before moving forward.
Before moving on, we need to make clear there are two parts to the FOLCA building, and they are classified as FOLCA 1 and FOLCA 2.
FOLCA 1 is the Edwardian part of the building in Orange. This part of the building, is the part the New Folkestone Society wish to save. The FOLCA 2, is the Art Deco part of the building marked in purple.
FOLCA (previously Debenhams) – Google My Maps
FOLCA 1 Edwardian = Orange FOLCA 2 Art Deco = Purple
To date, five contracts relating to the FOLCA building as a whole, have been awarded by the Council, as can be seen below. The net value of the five combined contracts is £79,101.
However, what will not surprise regular readers of our blog is, there are some “irregularities” relating to these contracts.
Starting with the Structures Lab Ltd contract, who undertook a structural survey on FOLCA 2 (purple) for the awarded net sum of £12,200, the Council’s published purchase order data and payments to suppliers data tells its own story.
The purchase order data, which is the net amount, so excludes VAT, shows a purchase order for Structures Lab Ltd has been raised to the sum of £8,600.
And the Council’s payment data; which is the net amount so excludes VAT, shows Structures Lab has been paid £10,320.
Ever since the first Transparency Code was introduced in 2014, it has been mandatory for all Local Authorities, to show all payment to suppliers, all purchase orders and contract values as net (without VAT) in their published data.
Moving on, there is the Pellings contract for FOLCA 2 (purple); which was directly referenced by the Council officer during the discussion. The awarded net sum for this contract was £41,965.
The purchase order data, which is the net amount, shows a raised purchase order for the sum of £20,050 for Pellings LLP.
The Council’s payment to suppliers data shows to April 2023, Pellings LLP had been paid £12,030.
Then we turn to the Robert Winstanley contract for the windows in the FOLCA building. The contract award value was £5,346 net. According to the Council’s published purchase order data, no purchase order has been raised. Yet the payment data for this contract shows they’ve been paid £7,392 (net) for the FOLCA contract.
Next is the Colliers International contract which was awarded with a value of £12,500 net. The Purchase Order data shows a PO was raised for £12,500.
Yet the payment data shows the amount paid to Colliers was 20% more than the contract award value of £12,500.
The final contract awarded to Blitz Scaffolding for £7,000 net, was for the erection of scaffolding for a sheltered queueing system at the FOLCA Covid-19 vaccination centre. The purchase order data shows no PO raised. However, the Council’s published payment data shows they were paid £7,000.
So as you can see, from the evidence, there are a number of irregularities with each of these contracts. But why are we not surprised by this.
Now moving on to the conversation which can be watched & listened to below, there were some revealing moments.
The officer at the beginning of the video makes it clear the Council purchased the building to prevent a “scrupulous developer who would then develop it out and do something, not so pleasant and not so useful to the town centre“. We think the officer meant to say “unscrupulous developer”. Developers – Unscrupulous, who would have thought it!
The net floor space of the whole building [FOLCA 1 & 2] is 4,500 square metres, so a large space indeed, and it has a roof terrace, from which one can see the sea.
Colliers International looked at the viability of the building, in particular the following options, Flats on the first floor, a mixed used development, build to rent, sell the building and refurbishment. No of the options were viable and the least worse option was for 80 units (flats), but the maths didn’t add up and the financial gap for these units (flats) was £30m. So that idea has fallen by the wayside.
The best option for the building is refurbishment, which is the option the Council is “going for” and has a £2m funding gap; which the Council will pay for, and will not come from the £20m levelling up fund. So they are looking to protect the envelope, or rather the shell of the building; which makes sense.
They’ll be a changing places toilet in FOLCA. These toilets are for people with complex needs and this should be ready, but not open by Jan 2024.
Then the Council officer mentions the relocation of the Council offices to Otterpool, but after the Truss fiasco and the cost of living crisis kicked in, the Council refocused their efforts onto potentially relocating to the FOLCA building. The building will not be totally filled by the Council if they do move into it; which is looking increasingly likely. They also wish to use it for commercial purposes as well, hence the refurb option being the preffered option, as this will bring in rents to help their deficit filled coffers later on down the line.
There will be further consultation with the community regarding the building, but when exactly that will happen has not yet been made clear.
Oh and the staircase will stay in situ and not be moved.
A report will eventually come before the committee once the Council have a clear idea of what they exactly plan to do with the building and when. The ideas spoken of by the officers will be firmed up
There is much more in the video and you can listen to it at your leisure.
The Shepway Vox Team
Dissent is NOT a Crime
I reckon some of these discrepancies are the VAT. Commercial quotes are often + VAT, so no doubt the officer concerned has inserted the headline pre-VAT figure rather than adding VAT, which is what (I think) they’re meant to do.
Doesn’t explain some of the other issues though.
@Paul
1 Monthly lists of all payments to suppliers of £250 or more are net, so exclude VAT.
Source: https://www.folkestone-hythe.gov.uk/council-payments-procurements/payments-suppliers-2023
2 Monthly lists of purchase orders of £5,000 and over, also exclude VAT
Source: https://www.folkestone-hythe.gov.uk/council-payments-procurements/purchase-orders-2023
As such, the issues you raise, have no bearing on either the payments or purchase orders.
The differences for Structures Labs Ltd, Robert Winstanley and Colliers International can all be explained by VAT. The Purchase Order is Net of VAT whilst the Payment data is inclusive of VAT. This is confirmed by looking at the payment data supplied by the council. They list the payments inclusive of VAT, not Net as you are showing.
@Roy
Payment to suppliers 2023
Monthly lists of all payments of £250 and over (excluding VAT) to external bodies and suppliers. For data protection reasons, payments to individuals have been redacted.
Source: https://www.folkestone-hythe.gov.uk/council-payments-procurements/payments-suppliers-2023
Then there is the Transparency Code 2015 – which is Statutory – makes it very clear all payments MUST be NET.
So whichever way you look at this, the Council are doing it wrong. They’re producing incorrect data and the auditors (internal & external) both agree with the Shepway Vox Team.
On a different point I think the car park at the peer near Good Yard should be removed. In the summer that area is far too packed and needs more space. The youth project could be moved closer to peer and place the car park near Marine Parade. There is not enough seating area at peak times. I went there a week ago but couldn’t find spare seating.This what quadruple the space for people. Though from my understanding it will be for luxury apartments when it should be commercial at Marine Parade.
I should also say that I almost got hit by a car there so it could be a liability especially when people have consumed a lot of alcohol.
Definitely VAT.
The Transparency Code 2015 – which is Statutory – DOES NOT state that all payments MUST be NET. It says the amount ‘should be’ and provides suggestions for reporting when it is not possible to publish the amounts net of VAT.
“Net amount (mandatory)”
“The amount disclosed is the amount recorded on the finance system for each individual transaction. The
amount SHOULD BE the net amount in Sterling excluding recoverable VAT.
Where VAT cannot be recovered – or the source of the data being used cannot separate out recoverable
VAT – then the gross amount should be used instead. If you cannot publish amounts net of VAT, we
suggest that you state this on one of the following:
the web page where you publish the data
the accompanying metadata text file
the narrative (purpose), if this applies to single transactions only.”
If as the Council’s webpage say, they do not include VAT, how can it be VAT. Also consider this. The Council’s POs are without VAT. And there procurement card data, splits out the amount, net and in another column adds the VAT if its charged. So to say the Council cannot separate out the VAT from the total amount is a mockery. They can but just choose to ignore the CODE. We think it is simply called laziness.
On the other hand. You’re interpretation of the code as: “makes it very clear all payments MUST be NET” does make me question the validity of the article.
Then there’s the auditors; am I expected to believe that the internal and external auditors are laising with a group of lads that write about local politics in a blog.
The auditors have been informed. They are NOT liaising with us. As for the NET issue
Contracts are NET. Procurement Cards have both NET and VAT columns
What this shows is the Council CAN separate out the NET and the VAT, but choose not to.
I think they should use the building as the main library and maybe information centre.