Kent County Council HQ U-Turn: County Hall Basement Contract Casts Doubt on Invicta House “Savings”

Reform UK promised a cheaper headquarters plan: ditch the Invicta House  refurbishment, bring staff back into Sessions House, and spend “a relatively small amount” fixing immediate problems. But an award notice now circulating puts a £19.19m price tag on “Sessions House Basement Strengthening” — a figure that, on its face, dwarfs the savings claim and raises an unavoidable question: have the “savings” simply been moved, renamed, and re-billed?

By The Shepway Vox Team

Reform UK’s pitch on Kent County Council’s headquarters was simple enough to fit on a mug. The previous administration, we were told, had been preparing to sell Sessions House (County Hall) and refurbish Invicta House. Reform’s new leadership would reverse course, bring the County Hall space back into use, and — crucially — save £14m of projected borrowing on Invicta House (pictured) refurbishment.

In July 2025, the council’s own news site put the message in plain language: instead of borrowing for Invicta House, KCC would spend “a relatively small amount of money” to fix “the immediate issues” at Sessions House and make it functional for staff and members.

That was the “what they said”. Now we have the “what they signed”.

An award notice published in January 2026 lists a “Sessions House Basement Strengthening works Main Contract”, awarded by Kent County Council to GTCI Ltd, with a stated contract value of £19,194,208. The description is not decorative: it refers to replacing temporary adjustable propping with structural steel supports to hold up precast concrete rib beams in the basement. The notice also gives a signature date in June 2025 and a works window running July to September 2025.

Sessions House

If those numbers and descriptions are what they appear to be, then Reform’s “small fix” narrative runs into the kind of immovable object normally found — fittingly — in basements.

The baseline KCC already set for the public

Before Reform’s change of direction, KCC under the Tory administration, had already published a detailed decision report setting out the “preferred option” at the time: dispose of Sessions House and consolidate headquarters functions into Invicta House, with a full refurbishment and upgrades.

That report put the total project cost at £18.27m. It broke down the build-up in a way that matters here: Invicta House works were put at £13.16m, with temporary works at Sessions House to facilitate a decant at £0.90m, and “basement propping & rooflight works” at Sessions House at £0.85m, plus contingency. The claimed prize for doing all this was an ongoing annual revenue saving of £1.67m once the consolidation was complete.

Those figures are not a minor footnote. They are the yardstick KCC itself gave the public for what “the plan” cost, what it included at County Hall, and what it was supposed to save each year.

So when Reform later said “we can avoid borrowing on Invicta and do small fixes at Sessions House”, the obvious test was whether the “small fixes” stayed remotely in the same postcode as that earlier £0.85m allowance for basement propping.

A £19.2m contract does not.

The new plan: “minimal capital”, but with an explicit warning label

When KCC formally pivoted strategy under Reform UK (Decision 25/00057), the new report chose an option described as requiring “minimal capital investment” while keeping Sessions House as headquarters until local government reorganisation in Kent (the report points to an April 2028 endpoint for the current authority).

On the face of it, the new option is sold as the cheapest short-term capital choice. In the report’s comparative table, the “retain Sessions / dispose of Invicta (min capital investment)” option shows net capital expenditure of £3,946,605 — and it is ranked first for lowest short-term capital spend. The report also repeats the political headline: it “could save up to £12m in capital expenditure”.

But the same report adds two admissions that matter more than the headline.

First, it says plainly that the option “introduces a revenue pressure”. Elsewhere, it estimates that pressure at around £0.3m (and notes abortive costs as an in-year hit). In other words: even in KCC’s own chosen storyline, this is not “save money and everything is cheaper”; it is “spend less capital now, accept higher revenue cost (and risks)”.

Second, it carries a blunt risk statement: the option “permits minimal further capital expenditure”; however, there “remains a risk of building failure” which could exceed available budgets and cause operational disruption — in which case KCC would need to revisit the decision and allocate more capital or move people again.

That is the council writing, in effect: this plan is cheap only if the building allows it to be cheap.

The committee decision that makes the contract question unavoidable

Then there is the Policy & Resources Cabinet Committee pack from September 2025. It is unusually direct. It says the new proposal is to keep Sessions House as headquarters for up to four years, cancel the sale, stop spending on Invicta House, and put Invicta on the market to minimise costs.

And it includes the line that should be read next to any claim about “spending a relatively small amount” at County Hall: the report asks members to allocate £4m from the approved capital budget for “essential and urgent backlog maintenance works” at Sessions House.

£4m is not trivial — but it is still in the realm of “small-to-medium” when you are talking about a civic estate.

£19.2m is something else entirely.

The GTCI contract: what it says — and what it doesn’t

The award notice does not read like a routine lick of paint. “Basement strengthening” is not a euphemism, and neither is the description of replacing temporary propping with structural steel supports. That is the language of a building being held up and then being made safe in a more permanent way.

The figure is also presented in a way that raises eyebrows even before you get to politics: the notice lists the same number excluding VAT and including VAT, while also stating “below the relevant threshold”. Again, that does not prove the value is wrong — but it does mean it should not be waved through as “obviously fine”.

The most important point is timing. The notice gives a signature date of 18 June 2025 and contract dates 14 July 2025 to 19 September 2025. That places the commitment in the same period as Reform’s early “saving” messaging — and well before the September 2025 committee pack that framed Sessions House works as “essential and urgent backlog maintenance” funded at £4m. It also sits uncomfortably against the earlier KCC decision report that budgeted only £0.85m for basement propping and rooflight works at Sessions House as part of the Invicta-led plan.

Put plainly: KCC’s published baseline for Sessions House basement-related work was under £1m in the old plan — yet the award notice now points to a contract valued at £19.2m.

That is not a rounding error. It is an entirely different category of spend.

So are they saving money?

If the award notice figure is broadly representative of what KCC has committed to spend to keep Sessions House safe and operable, then the political claim that this strategy “saves money” becomes extremely hard to sustain without heavy qualifications.

At best, the argument becomes: we avoided borrowing for Invicta House refurbishment, but we are spending very large sums on Sessions House instead. In that world, the “saving” is not a saving — it is a rerouting.

At worst, you end up with the nightmare scenario for any “spend-to-save” story: abortive costs on the discarded plan, plus higher running costs on the retained building, plus major capital works required anyway — leaving taxpayers paying for both the U-turn and the road it turned onto.

And crucially, KCC’s own accommodation strategy report already acknowledges that the chosen option brings a revenue pressure and a risk of building failure that could force more capital later. That is not the language of a settled, long-term saving. It is the language of buying time — and hoping the building behaves.

The questions KCC now needs to answer, in public, in one reconciled note

This is the point where a serious council stops relying on slogans and publishes a reconciliation.

1. What exactly does the £19,194,208 represent — a firm contract sum, a ceiling, a framework call-off value, or something else?

2. How much has actually been paid, and what remains committed?

3. Was this work unavoidable regardless of whether KCC refurbished Invicta House — or is it a direct consequence of keeping County Hall as HQ?

4. How does this contract relate to the £4m allocation for “essential and urgent backlog maintenance” at Sessions House? Is it inside that £4m, alongside it, or separate?

5. How does it relate to the earlier published allowance of £0.85m for Sessions House basement propping/rooflight works under the prior strategy?

6. What is the updated, year-by-year revenue position: running costs, borrowing costs avoided, abortive costs incurred, and any additional maintenance liabilities?

Until KCC answers those questions in one clear, auditable explanation, the safest conclusion is the simplest one: the public has been sold a “saving” headline that the paperwork does not yet justify.

The Shepway Vox Team

Discernibly Different Dissent