Unfinished Croft School sees costs soaring

9:00am Saturday 8th September 2012 in News By David Wiles

Croft School development and Croft sports centre Croft School development and Croft sports centre

THE CROFT School saga has taken another twist after it emerged that the construction work is forecast to cost Swindon Council £700,000 more than originally hoped.
The project, which is already behind schedule and set to remain a building site until Christmas despite welcoming its first intake of reception pupils on Monday, has prompted one councillor to say it is a good job the town did not host the Olympics.
The primary school for up to 420 children next to Croft Sports Centre, off Marlborough Lane, opened at the beginning of the week, but parts of the building which are not needed by the pupils, are still under construction. The council blames this on delays in getting planning approval.
Swindon Council originally aimed for a cost of £4.5m, but it has been forced to dip into a £500,000 contingency which was budgeted for unforeseen work and expects to use an extra £200,000 from the capital budget as well.
A council spokesman said most of this additional cost was attributable to groundworks problems caused by the wet summer, although some has occurred by costs associated with the partial opening of the school, such as fencing to separate staff and pupils from the building site.
He said the costs would have occurred with any building, and were nothing to do with the school’s design.
Croft School is the latest in a series of projects to be dogged by delays in recent times – and not the first to be blamed on the weather.
The station forecourt, work on the Link Centre pool and the demolition of the Swindon College site have all been delayed for numerous reasons.
Coun Stan Pajak, the Lib Dem group leader, said Swindon was no worse than other towns at construction but was poor at estimating completion dates.
He said: “The work on the station forecourt had dates and, blow me, they found new cables underground and everything else has run into problems.
“And we’re terribly bad at giving reasonable answers when things should be completed so we make ourselves look bad.
“It does seem to be a Swindon habit to underestimate the time it’s going to take and, blow me, get the time wrong.
“It’s just as well we didn’t run the Olympics.”
Croft School is the first school to be built under the council’s own modular Class Solutions design, which the council is trying to sell to other authorities on the basis it is one third cheaper to build than a traditional school, quicker to construct and cheaper to run and maintain.
A Swindon Council spokesman said: “The total cost of the Croft School is still not known because some areas of the building, which are not needed by the pupils are not yet finished.
“However, our current forecast spend on the project is £5.2m. The £700,000 figure quoted in the Cabinet report is made up of £500,000 which was taken from the original estimate of £5m to pay for unforeseen work, and the remaining £200,000 takes it to the £5.2m total.
Coun Nadine Watts (Lab, Old Town) said: “I think the Labour group has always believed the cost of groundworks should be adequately taken into account.
“It’s interesting how they’re using the ‘weather was bad’ excuse a lot at the moment, whether it’s to do with the green waste collection or the delays in the railway forecourt improvements.”

Comments(32)

Morsey says...
9:39am Sat 8 Sep 12

So now we know why services, like repairing street light failures are not a priority as the kitty is becoming so bare? We have had four vital street lights out since JUNE 15th! I doubt they have paid up with Scottish and Southern Electricity contracts, so they won't do the work, or it can't be financed for some reason in a budget, or do we, as residents blame the wet summer ... utter nonsense, as hundreds of new homes seem to have gone up in the same period??

How come they can summon up extra cash for this fiasco and the Link Centre unpredictables and so on, yet CANNOT DO SERVICE we should all expect as Council Tax payers?

This school construction is a farce from start to finish and the Tory Council should be ashamed, but what should we expect, those who voted them in would always vot for a hatstand wearing a blue rosette!

Report this post »

Nostim says...
9:51am Sat 8 Sep 12

More rubbish from this council.

I would like to bet that the link centre swimming pool never re-opens in its present form.

Shame on this tory council.
GET EM OUT

Report this post »

OldTown90 says...
10:28am Sat 8 Sep 12

Lets not forget the £1,000,000 spent on the construction and adminstration of a 60 pupil temporary school sited at the Croft which opened with 11 pupils closed with 15. And sat empty on site for almost 8months.

The temporary school was not needed but went ahead purely as a trojan horse to ensure that planning permission would be granted for the 420 pupil Croft School based on the premise that the temporary school on site now deemed the Croft as 'previously developed land'.

Underhand green space land grab.

Report this post »

Oliver_Donachie says...
1:21pm Sat 8 Sep 12

So...

The project was estimated at 5 with a .5 contingency and it came in at 5.2?

Using the contingency value its an overspend of 4%

Using the original base value of 4.5 (ignoring contingency) its 15.5%

So given someones particular predisposition to the argument the overspend is between 4 - 15.5% wildly under typical project delivery costs by government.

For instance:

NHS national IT programme

Budget £2.3bn
Current cost £12.6bn
Percentage overspent 450%

2012 Olympics

Budget £2.4bn
Current cost £9.3bn
Percentage overspent 289%

Astute Class submarine

Budget £2.5bn
Current cost £3.8bn
Percentage overspent 48%

Pensions Transformation programme for DWP

Budget £429m
Current cost £598m
Percentage overspent 39%

A46 Improvement

Budget £157m
Current cost £220m
Percentage overspent 40.1%

All of the above was signed off by Coun Nadine Watts Labour party.

Personally, I consider that given the contingency was in the original proposal this is 4% overspend.

Is my calculator broken? Can someone prove my maths to be wrong?

Report this post »

OldTown90 says...
2:12pm Sat 8 Sep 12

Oliver,

Note that £5.2M is a forecast. Given that all other forecasts relating to the Croft have been wildly out - temporary school pupil numbers 400% variance - then I would expect to see the £5.2M increase.

Indeed SBC are already on record as not knowing how much has been spent.

Shambles

Report this post »

No axe to grind says...
3:49pm Sat 8 Sep 12

Why, oh why, oh why are these incompetent project planners still working for SBC. I worked for years as a project engineer and this level of sustained incompetence just would not have been tolerated. As for Olivers mathematial prowess, I wouldn't trust anyone who used figures expressed as a percentage in excess of 100%.

Report this post »

PJC says...
4:07pm Sat 8 Sep 12

'Unforeseen'? So that could be translated as, 'Didn't think it through properly in the first place'?

Report this post »

Oliver_Donachie says...
4:22pm Sat 8 Sep 12

OldTown90:

I think the project should be judged on the data we have, currently its 4% if that changes then its safe to determine if its a shambles or not.

No axe to grind :

Oh how embarrassing for you.

The above numbers apart from my own calculation are taken from the Independents money section, you are free to ignore the entirely mathematically valid use of fractional expression or you can educate yourself.

Plucking this from my 8 year olds maths book:

"Percentage Greater than 100
If percentage is given more than 100 then we still use same method.
Example: if we have to find 120% of 50 then it will be equal to $\frac{50\times120}{
100}$ = 60"

It appears they teach the concept of relational fractions in junior school nowadays, so with all respect I think if anyone's maths is to be ignored, its yours.

Anyway, as someone who claims to have worked as a project engineer, can you tell us what is "sustained incompetence" about a 4% differential on project delivery?

Report this post »

Peter Mallinson says...
8:04pm Sat 8 Sep 12

Why is it that the anti-Croft School Lobby think that the Labour Party are in some way not part of the council when it comes to Croft School.

The Labour councillorsth had their chance to bring up any issues at the various planning committees but they failed to do so.

If any blame is due then the Labour party should have the guts to put their hands up.

One final question is " what is the lobbyists end game", is it to close the school or just to continue moaning.

For the sake of everyone else in Swindon, give it a rest.

Report this post »

1 2 Could B says...
9:18am Sun 9 Sep 12

Really Mr Mallinson.
Why is it that yourself and Oliver insist that observant civilians must all be members of the Labour party.

Why do you insist that public/lobbyists should be muted?

Why does Oliver Donachie think that suddenly using his real name gives him more credibility over somebody just because they wish to remain anonymous?

Why would repeatedly calling someone Jason make him feel superior

It's high time the administration learnt to respect the citizens of Swindon above playing Westminster style politics

Report this post »

Peter Mallinson says...
11:17am Sun 9 Sep 12

I don't insist on anything I 2 could B.

All I ask is that the minority Anti-Croft School Lobby accept that all political parties were involved in the planning process. It was not a Conservative stitch up but a full democratic decision.

As for your other questions why are you asking me ?

Report this post »

Robh says...
11:19am Sun 9 Sep 12

Perhaps the Croft residents should pay a levy for causing the increase in costs.

Report this post »

Oliver_Donachie says...
11:44am Sun 9 Sep 12

1 2 Could B, I have never accused you of being a Labour supported, not that it would make a difference, I find you individually very odd.

What Peter Mallinson said is accurate, planning committees try to have an equal number of lab / con and libdem by ratio, my point is Coun Nadine Watts speaks of "they" instead of saying "my fellow Labour Councillors who voted this through."

Which is hypocritical, but that's defacto Labour process.

I have never said using my real name makes me any more credible then you, I have merely said that you call names from a (false) sense of anonymity and that makes you a coward.

Finally, I agree that the croft residence may wish to be a little introspective on the fact this building will shortly be populated with the patter of small feet from the pupils and perhaps its time to leave them to get on with it, after all, is investment in our children not one of the best things we as a society can do even if its 4% over budget?

Report this post »

1 2 Could B says...
3:41pm Sun 9 Sep 12

Oliver,
You know full well that you also use Psuedonyms.
Everyone else knows it too.
You're fooling nobody.

Attempting to appear threatening, by issuing personal data that has never been offered by the individual is both cowardly and illegal regardless of which of your many logins you use.

You HAVE insisted that myself and many others are "Labour Luddites" just because they are disappointed by the actions of your mentors

There is nothing cowardly about using a psuedonym.
That is my personal choice.

Need I visit my solicitor to clarify this situation?

Report this post »

Oliver_Donachie says...
4:56pm Sun 9 Sep 12

OK, one more ticket on the merry go round then you need to go to bed.

"Everybody" would be the current population of the planet standing around 7.038 billion, so lets not make any silly assertions we cannot substantiate.

Yes I have pseudonyms, or gamer tags and ever emails not in my name, but unlike you I am 100% happy to make my position clear in person with my name stamped on it, I don't hide, why would I?

You are free to visit a solicitor, a priest or a grocer if you makes you feel more clarified, lord knows your thought process needs it.

In the interim, I and other posters here will probably carry on discussion regarding the issue at hand, which is Croft school and its costs, in case you have forgotten in your enthusiasm to snipe from the sidelines rather than take part in grown up discussion.

Up the wooden hill with you...

Report this post »

Oliver_Donachie says...
5:13pm Sun 9 Sep 12

Its worth noting on the wider picture of school places that it seems the provision was delivered in good time as demand for places throughout Swindon may have outstripped supply if the school had not been built.

Report this post »

1 2 Could B says...
7:05pm Sun 9 Sep 12

Places throughout Swindon, not Old Town / The Croft.

Report this post »

LordAshOfTheBrake says...
7:37pm Sun 9 Sep 12

@Oliver,

However the demand is prominent in the North of Swindon, from which croft school is virtually inaccessible from for the start of the school day.

There is another story in which someone has looked into the placements.

So provision delivered in good time may be true, however its in the wrong place!

Report this post »

Oliver_Donachie says...
9:31pm Sun 9 Sep 12

LordAshOfTheBrake you are entirely correct.

I am not privy to any information other than some general documents available to governors but that shows the requirement is in north Swindon not Croft in 2012, but I must stress that's part of the story, as you move through 2014 - 2017 the picture changes and you definitely need the provision in central, I know this is a bit crystal ball, but we do know the birth rates trend and the average number of people that stay in the area with children.

In my humble opinion it would have been better to deliver a school in north for 2013 and a school in central moving towards 2015, the problem is Croft already had (I presume) permission to be developed and was therefore the best place *now* with the budget on offer.

I have read with empathy the concerns of the Croft residents and I think their concerns could have been better mitigated and hopefully will be in the future.

But with relation to this article I just want to refresh my two key points:

1: 4% overspend is not "costs soaring"

2: I believe (I will be corrected if I am wrong) that all the Labour Councillors voted to award the planning permission, this is not a "Tory" thing.

Report this post »

Davey Gravey says...
9:44pm Sun 9 Sep 12

As this has become about political parties I have to say it think the tories are a bunch of ****.

Report this post »

house on the hill says...
8:23am Mon 10 Sep 12

I think it just sums up what we all know that all politicians of whatever colour are pretty useless, but then if you have a selection process that doesnt require any training, ability, knowledge, experience or people skills to be elected it is hardly suprising. how many of them know how to run a business of the size of SBC and make it efficient, value for money and somethnig for the town to be proud of? So far the number seems to be very small indeed.

Report this post »

mariusgoring says...
10:32am Mon 10 Sep 12

OldTown90 wrote:
Oliver,

Note that £5.2M is a forecast. Given that all other forecasts relating to the Croft have been wildly out - temporary school pupil numbers 400% variance - then I would expect to see the £5.2M increase.

Indeed SBC are already on record as not knowing how much has been spent.

Shambles
Where is the written estimate of cost?

A 700K overspens on a 4million estimate seems like MASSIVE to me but then I live in the real world

Report this post »

mariusgoring says...
10:41am Mon 10 Sep 12

SBC Officer G Cheal provided a request to and response from the DfE in Dec 2009 showing that £6,374,000 had been awarded to SBC on the basis of a need in North Swindon (295) Town Centre(173) and Old Town (13).

Given that SBC Officers had already decided in September 2009 to build a school at Croft why did Bluh and Renard agree to build a school in Old Town? It makes no sense, Does it?

So Bluh must take the blame for allowing the Officers of Swindon Borough Council to build a school with money that was obtained by deception.

This is not a POLITICAL issue. It is just an illustration of just how incompetent our politicians are in controlling their Officers. Talk about tails wagging dogs. It beggars belief that Swindon's politicians have allowed the Croft school to be built.

Report this post »

Disco20 says...
12:23pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Davey Gravey wrote:
As this has become about political parties I have to say it think the tories are a bunch of ****.
All political parties are c***s - The only politician i have an ounce of respect for is Boris. The reason for that is because he is a bit of a baffoon but that makes him human.

All other politicians are only in it for the money - not for the reasons we would want them there. Positive changes for the country/region/town they represent.

Report this post »

1 2 Could B says...
6:05pm Mon 10 Sep 12

*All other politicians are only in it for the money - not for the reasons we would want them there. Positive changes for the country/region/town they represent.*

That's not strictly true.

Wannabe politicians ( like Oliver ) are in it for their egos

Report this post »

Localboy86 says...
7:15pm Mon 10 Sep 12

1 2 Could B wrote:
*All other politicians are only in it for the money - not for the reasons we would want them there. Positive changes for the country/region/town they represent.*

That's not strictly true.

Wannabe politicians ( like Oliver ) are in it for their egos
From an outsider looking in I would say that Oli has conducted himself rather well on this site and made you moany old men look rather stupid

Report this post »

LordAshOfTheBrake says...
8:03am Tue 11 Sep 12

@Disco20

Feel free to get up off from your arm chair and do something about it then.

Report this post »

mariusgoring says...
8:24am Tue 11 Sep 12

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
@Disco20

Feel free to get up off from your arm chair and do something about it then.
I do not know about @Disco20 but I did!!

Bluh and Renard just ignore people like me i.e. the electorate.

I then wrote to Cameron, Pickles and Gove. All ignored me. I complained to the Audit Commission and they referred me to the Local Government Ombudsman. The LGO said that as the wasting of over £5million did not affect me personally they could not deal with the matter.

Any other suggestions LordAshOfTheBrake?

Report this post »

Disco20 says...
10:20am Tue 11 Sep 12

mariusgoring wrote:
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote: @Disco20 Feel free to get up off from your arm chair and do something about it then.
I do not know about @Disco20 but I did!! Bluh and Renard just ignore people like me i.e. the electorate. I then wrote to Cameron, Pickles and Gove. All ignored me. I complained to the Audit Commission and they referred me to the Local Government Ombudsman. The LGO said that as the wasting of over £5million did not affect me personally they could not deal with the matter. Any other suggestions LordAshOfTheBrake?
Exactly, no matter what we do or say, the same morons stay in power due to the majority of this country being completely oblivious to the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

Greed will be the demise of us all (just to add a bit more drama)

Report this post »

LordAshOfTheBrake says...
12:51pm Tue 11 Sep 12

You mean you did get up and stand for election? Or are you referring to the writing of a few letters complaining about something.....

Without having much more detail, its impossible to know whether you went about things in appropriate ways or not.

Report this post »

mariusgoring says...
1:05pm Tue 11 Sep 12

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
You mean you did get up and stand for election? Or are you referring to the writing of a few letters complaining about something.....

Without having much more detail, its impossible to know whether you went about things in appropriate ways or not.
Why would I need to stand for election!!!!!!????? I do not regard myself as dishonest or self seeking enough to stand in an election.

Everything that I did was "appropriate". The problem is that the Law does not protect the electorate from useless Councillors. If you were Chairman of a very large organisation would you employ Councillors Bluh and Renard in any management capacity?

As a member of the public do I not have the right to complain to my elected Councillors? Or MP? Or Minister for Education? etc.........Do I not have the right to at least a response?

Surely it is the responsibility of elected Councillors to ensure that the Council employees maintain their role of servants and not our masters?

Report this post »

LordAshOfTheBrake says...
6:19pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Your first problem seems to be one of attitude.

Quote "Why would I need to stand for election!!!!!!????? I do not regard myself as dishonest or self seeking enough to stand in an election."

If you think that all councillors are so bad, then yes you should try to stand for election. Incidently my original comment was aimed at someone other than you

There are provisions in law, but they are not easily initiated or followed through.

http://www.cps.gov.u
k/legal/l_to_o/misco
nduct_in_public_offi
ce/

You have every right to a response, did you try and follow it up. Did you try to meet your specific council representatives (probably wouldn't do much good, but did you try); did you attend any surgeries held by councillors. There are lots of avenues but it takes a lot of time, effort and patients and yes, I'd agree with you it shouldn't be that way!

One of the biggest issues in local politics are councillors are only held accountable to other councillors or to the electorate at scheduled elections. Even the local newspapers never really follow stories up as we frequently see (or rather don't see) in the adver.

Report this post »

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