Leak of JLL Reports - Part 2

I am afraid this post is rather lengthy but,once again, it is important to get the facts "out there" since the reports have still not been made available to the people (despite the leak) and the mainstream media have limited their "investigations" to simply printing lurid headlines. As of a couple of hours ago I again checked with Councillor Mick Davies and he has still not seen the report despite a full Council meeting taking place last night. I assume that the other non-Labour councillors have also not seen the reports.

One has to wonder why Sandwell Council (SMBC) took The Public on. I referred in my post of 18th December - "The Public - Odds and Sods" - to the mystery tweets from the SMBC "leader", Cooper, which may or may not be related to the issue. Cooper, himself, has gone on record to say he was always against the project (well it didn't involve 22 men and a round ball) and some of his underlings appear to have shared his view. Most of the rest of the "Labour Group" seem prepared to do his bidding in any event (one shining exception being the currrent Mayor of Sandwell, Cllr Linda Horton, who was prepared to buck the party line.She graciously attended the closing-day events and gave a passionate address).

SMBC set up a charity, Sandwell Arts Trust (SAT), to operate The Public but certain councillors appear to have regretted this since it prevented them exercising the usual Pyongyang-style "control" that they so enjoy in other policy areas. The result of all this was an almost constant "review" process of The Public's operations culminating in the instructions to expensive top property firm Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL).

If I might digress here.Although we live in a time of almost unprecedented and rapid technological change, SMBC seem addicted to long-term contracts. Not only was the now defunct SAT given a 25-year deal but:

(a)  The fantastic "money-saving" Transform Sandwell deal with BT was for 15 years but has proved to be disastrous and will cost the taxpayer millions as SMBC attempts to extricate itself from its useless contract;

(b) "Socialist" SMBC are paying arch-capitalist company, Interserve, £50M over 25 years to provide facilities management for just three schools (plus the original building and other PFI costs). Presumably they are also paying similarly crazy amounts for the other two schools in the PFI scheme with Interserve;

(c) The press spin of the still secret deal with Sandwell College (not part of the Council) says the lease of The Public is for 25 years!

Back to The Public. I am sure that most readers will have been inside the fabulous interior of that purpose-built arts and community centre. I have had the benefit of a guided tour which included the "private" parts of the building but anyone who has been in can see immediately that the building is a "one-off" and patently not suitable as a standard commercial or retail facility. Nevertheless, "councillor" Hussain and, so we are told, his "cabinet" colleagues decided to throw money at JLL to "investigate options for the use of The Public that could result in the subsidy being significantly reduced, or preferably eliminated" ie find a way to shut "that darned place" down. This was in early, 2012 - over a year before the New Square development was due to open and when the brand-new £77M new college was still being built.

JLL stated the bleeding obvious, "the building as constructed is extremely bespoke and does not lend itself easily to accomodating a range of uses". What is vital to note here is that they were trying to find alternative uses to what the building was specifically designed for and for what SAT were providing. In their first attempt at a report they said "our conclusion was that the only potential avenue which was worthy of further consideration was the conversion of the ground floor into restaurant and retail units to capitalise (!) on the new Tesco development".

The JLL report was prepared by Philip Farrell and, despite his expertise, he does not seem to have appreciated that the building was not designed as an office block or supermarket but as a bespoke arts/community complex. He describes the design as "unusual" and "illogical" - so that "it prevents the effective occupation of the vast majority of users". BUT it wasn't designed for "the vast majority of users". I am sure that when the far-sighted Victorians had the Town Hall designed they did not do so with a view that it would be rapidly converted into a B&Q or such-like. It is a PUBLIC building - designed for the PUBLIC and paid for by the PUBLIC. It was, he said, in "a challenging location" and he bemoaned the parking difficulties. Of course The Public was initially at the arse-end of an arse-end, and then next to a major construction site, but still managed to provide an increasingly-popular service to a growing cohort of visitors. The situation improved dramatically with the opening of New Square but, by then, the death warrant had been signed.

Nevertheless, JLL went on to cost (at taxpayers' expense) what they, as property experts, considered to be the "only option" and even had architectural plans drawn up by Messrs Flannery & de la Pole. This was the idea of converting the ground floor to restaurants/retail whilst leaving "The Public" to operate on the upper floors. Constructions costs would be £2.3M with potential income of £208,000 pa. They envisaged SMBC then selling the ground floor "investment" for £1.9M approx which would mean a loss to the Council of , to give the precise figure £416,899. Clearly this is not an insignificant amount but one wonders how this compares with the costs involved in the still secret College "deal".

Having spent loads of money costing all this and getting architectural plans (at the request of Hussain and his "cabinet" colleagues) and given that they were also concerned how the (then unknown) opening of Tesco/New Square would pan out they concluded "bearing in mind this is the only development option which we believed had the ability to create a positive contribution to The Public, it can be considered that the concept of physically altering the building to attract occupiers has been shown to be unviable". Once again you, the reader, will note that no monetary value (nor indeed any other value) was placed on the use of the building as a facility for the public - who had paid for it - but that the whole report was based as a straight commercial property "deal" in respect of a unique building (which featured in the book "1,001 Buildings to See Before You Die"). It is also noteworthy that the magnificent facilities for the disabled provided by The Public are not worthy of a mention anywhere in the reports but then I suppose the disabled aren't "commercial".

We can only guess what the cost of the report as originally estimated was as this is still being kept secret by SMBC but Hussain and, so we are told in an FOI reply, his cabinet colleagues specifically asked JLL to consider a range of bizarre ideas for the building rather than let it continue for the benefit of the people of Sandwell and beyond. All this at taxpayers' expense, of course.

1.  Use by Council for Office Accomodation - ie could SMBC move some staff into the building. Apparently a Mr Fletcher of SMBC said that after "a very thorough review" all leases had been terminated where possible and that the vast majority of staff were now (early 2012) based at The Council House, Jack Judge House and the Training and Development Centre. Accordingly, JLL said, that Council did "not have a requirement for additional office space". Bearing in mind that SMBC has been sacking staff left, right and centre it seems surprising therefore, that SMBC should tweet on 14th November, 2013, "Environmental Health and private sector housing has today now moved to Court House,West Bromwich!" and also that they have reportedly leased THREE floors of Guardian House, West Brom (one of the most expensive office blocks in Sandwell and about 100 metres from The Public).

2.  Events/Asian Weddings - So anxious were the "cabinet" to pursue this curious option that an appointment were made for two businessmen to tour the building and in an effort to get best value for the taxpayer I am told that one councillor actually also turned up to facilitate the visit. JLL report that the two gentlemen were "very impressed" with the building but JLL listed a number of factors why the (massive) building was unsuitable including lack of parking, room and kitchen sizes, lack of sound-proofing and others.

3.  So desperate were SMBC to kick-out arts/community they also came up with the idea of  using the building for "IT Showcasing" a la the ill-fated Sega World in London. Quite what planet the councillors are on, I have no idea but at taxpayers' expense JLL pooh poohed the idea and stated; "We have made efforts to verify our deductions by contacting the estates and publicity departments of high technology firms that JLL has connections to. Although unwilling to have their comments recorded publicly the response has been that West Bromwich has two overwhelming obstacles - the socio-demographic of the local population and the areas lack or prominence REGIONALLY and nationally". Such a shame that Apple will not be moving from Silicon to Sandwell Valley among the pound shops, money lenders, lap dancing clubs and bookies! Surely it would have been a perfect fit!

4. It gets better! Councillors (at least recognising the strong links The Public had built with the local Asian community) asked JLL - at taxpayers' expense - to evaluate kicking arts etc out in favour of a cinema, "asian" concerts, Bollywood "attractions" and even "film-making" (whilst Sandwell Valley does have a burgeoning film industry this is, regretably, of the "Katy Goes Dogging Again" variety). For reasons that are too obvious to all but the "cabinet", JLL discounted this idea. In a classic put-down JLL said Bollywood locations "are in prestigious and well-known places such as palaces,landmark buildings,areas of outstanding beauty etc. We do not envisage interest in filming in West Bromwich". (Don't forget all this lot cost £39K!)

JLL then also considered a number of other possible uses but noted the difficulties in gauging "the Tesco effect" and continued to bemoan problems with cheap all-day parking which was damaging to The Public's lucrative conferencing and events market. (Incidentally, SMBC are trying to cook up yet another secret deal which will involve demolishing the adjacent Queen's Square car park and leasing the site to a secret "ice-rink developer"). The options JLL considered (some of them unbelivable and,yes, at taxpayers' expense) were:

1.  Conventional office use - inter alia, not an option as no shortage of cheap office space in Sandwell (please note Sandwell College). It also pointed out how weak the Sandwell economy is and that "the West Bromwich office market is so small". There are very cheap rents widely available (which begs the question why SMBC are allegedly about to lease 3 floors in one of the most expensive sites). Also, costs would be involved in conversion works;

2.  Serviced offices - basically as above plus already some in West Brom;

3.  Incubator Offices (sounds hot but really very boring). As above,but such companies also usually require a level of public subsidy;

4.  Council/Public Sector offices - would be large fitting-out costs plus public subsidy;

5.  Charity/Third Sector offices - SMBC already marketing Alberta House to this "market";

6.  Retail: JLL noted depressed market in West Brom with Queen's Square - at the time - having no less than 22 vacant units.Much depended in this market on the then unknown fortunes of New Square.

7.  Bulk Retail: ie turn a £70M beautiful architect-designed building into a furniture warehouse/electrical store (can you believe this?) Needless to say this was discounted because of the physical lay-out of the building and, again, parking difficulties.

8.   Public Service Facility eg Job Centre,Police Counter - problems included lack of demand and use "detrimental to the attractiveness of the building to other tenants";

9.  Licensed Leisure - ie a Wetherspoons-type pub! In classic style JLL said "We are aware of the political sensitivity of such a use being considered for a family arts centre" and that "this use may not sit comfortable (sic) with the community ethos inherent in The Public". (Strangely, Farrell does not seem to have considered a lap-dancing club - presumably for the same reasons!);

10.  Restaurant - this is Farrell at his finest and the undoubted highlight of the £39K reports. He said, "West Bromwich town centre does not currently (early 2012) have a significant presence from national or regional restaurant operators, Pizza Hut and McDonalds being obvious exceptions. This is due to a (sic) unattractive demographic profile of people currently frequenting the town centre and a lack of a quality scheme to occupy." Shame that ordinary folk in WB are poor and, therefore, unattractive but why bother about social issues when there are commercial property deals to be done? JLL could see an opportunity here depending on the success of New Square but noted that three major chains had signed up for New Square but then pulled out;

11.   Gym - the configuration of The Public did not lend itself to this plus existing gyms may have absorbed the market locally (an interesting comment given the costs of the new much-vaunted leisure centre). As ever, no on-site parking a problem;

12.  Paintball/Quasar/Bowling etc
13.  Soft Play (eg Wacky Warehouse) - both of these not suitable for a variety of obvious reasons;

14.  Conferencing/Events - already being done and could be expanded but problems with noise insulation/parking;

15. Adult Education - strange one this. Already a facility and extra demand could be catered for by new College (!). Building "not suitable" for all classes because of noise insulation problems;

16.  School - Apparently there were some discussions about the provision of an academy school (strange?) Farrell specifically states, "The Public is NOT suited in any way to use as a school....." Clearly Sandwell College know better.

17. Nursery/Creche - complete lack of secure outdoor space and lack of on-site parking;

18.  Library - would need to be additional fire protection plus only advantage would be freeing up old library site for possible use;

19.  Care Home - (you are either laughing or crying by now.....) - would require complete demolition of existing structure;

20.  Dr's Surgery (+ NHS Boots medical centre/dentists etc) - Building would have to be reconfigured plus lack of parking a problem;

21.  Residential/Affordable Housing - would require complete demolition but lack of demand (wonder whether Nando's would be keen on a mini-estate next door?);

22.  Workshops - Interestingly JLL spoke to the Custard Factory (privately-operated) but SMBC had already held discussions with them! All sorts of problems with the building - fire risk etc plus insufficient latent demand. Would need years of support and to be near a pool of skilled graduates. No-one apparently considered whether Tesco/New Square would react to such an operation on their doorstep!

23.  Demolition/Site Sale - would require planning permission (SMBC couldn't face that option because ordinary people would be able to have a say). JLL noted poor road access to site even if demolished. Wouldn't actually bring in much money and JLL "have not discussed this option with anyone outside the project team as we believe it to be very controversial"! Also the risk European Regional Development Fund millions (ie taxpayers' money) would have to be refunded.

Whilst there may be some embarrassing things to come out of all this tosh, it was clearly not envisaged that SMBC would spend millions on the building and give it on favourable terms to Sandwell College (the still secret "good news" which we eagerly await). Quite frankly, apart from some costings etc and reference to certain economic statistics (mostly available anyway) there is nothing that the ordinary man or woman in the street could not have figured out themselves and there is certainly nothing commercially confidential. In effect JLL were asked by Hussain and his "cabinet" colleagues to consider some preposterous options (Bollywood etc) and then thought up some daft ones of their own ("Wetherspoons etc) before discounting them all. Having said that they were unequivocal is stating that The Public was unsuitable for use as a school and yet SMBC say Sandwell College approached them with just such a scheme. As such this was £39K of public money straight down the drain in a time of "cuts".

Whilst "demolition" grabbed the headlines this was only part of the report and, as above, it all depended on whether an arts/community presence was to continue in the building. The actual conclusion reads:

"After the conclusion of our report it is our opinion that, subject to clarification of the ERDF clawback position, the Council has only two  that will allow it TO REMOVE OR SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE CURRENT SUBSIDY (my emphasis) paid to The Public:

  *  Remove all non-profitable activities from the building ie cease most cultural and community activies, significantly reduce the staffing costs and operate the building primarily as a events/conference venue with office space on the top floor and cafe on the ground floor;

  * Close The Public and consider the option of demolition.

The point is that Cooper and his merry men were already determined that arts/community had no value and could not be subsidised further so all this was a total waste of time and public money. How this is any way "vindicates" Cooper in his decision to do a dodgy deal with Interserve/Sandwell College which is to cost millions is beyond me but, of course, that deal is still a secret.

In Report 2 JLL say that in addition to the Council House etc referred to above "the only office space will be in three elderly town halls, Wednesbury (approx 10 people), Smethwick (approx 30-40 people and West Bromwich (10-20 people). Due to the nature of these properties it will be very difficult to end the Council's interest in them.....JLL would be pleased to assess the options to dispose of these sites...." Kerrching! In a time of cuts SMBC paid them £10,500 to provide (secret) reports on West Brom Town Hall. You could not make it up!

Philip Farrell is also contracted to the Homes and Communities Agency (not part of SMBC but in "partnership" with them) who are, ironically, disposing of the old college site in West Brom. His name is on the billboard in the High Street and those of an "unattractive demographic profile" frequenting the area may wish to symbolically pay their respects.

Although Farrell slags off the "illogical" building it is noteworthy that visitor numbers were ever-increasing, the office space was full and that none of the tenants voluntarily moved out (they were all forced out by SMBC).

SAT also recognised these austere times and prepared a subsidy reduction plan but SMBC refused to even discuss that - there was not one single discussion - informal or formal. The quality of the exhibitions was being recognised nationally and who is to say that, after initially running away under political pressure, the Arts Council (and other funders) would not have made further grants in the future (particularly as Sandwell is such a culturally, as well as economically, impoverished Borough). Five thousand two hundred people petitioned SMBC against closure and they, and the taxpayers generally, have been treated with utter contempt by Cooper & Co.

Contact: Vernon Grant, Box 374, 27 Colmore Row, Birmingham B3 2EW

Email:  thesandwellskidder@gmail.com