By John Baron
A proposal to close Pudsey Civic Hall has been debated by councillors in outer West Leeds today – with calls made for the council to ‘think again’ over the plan.
Members of the outer west community committee had asked senior councillors and council officers to the meeting to answer questions on the proposed closure as the council wrestles with a budget overspend of £39m. Almost £60m must be slashed from the overall budget this financial year.
Chief Officer, Culture and Economy, Eve Roodhouse, told the meeting that the venue, which was used by over 49,000 people in the last financial year, makes a ‘modest surplus’ but is consistently failing to meet income targets and is a “financial strain” on the council. She said revenue from the 300-capacity car park has also decreased due to the closure of Green Flag at Dawsons Corner in 2015 and changing working patterns following the Covid-19 pandemic.
She said finding an alternative operator to the Council would ‘not necessarily solve the issues because of the Government’s position in law is that to lease a building commercially it would need to meet EPC standards with a large investment needed to get the windows up to standard.’
Ms Roodhouse said the site needed short and long-term investment, with a short term investment of around £328,000 including work to the windows and the heating system.
“There has not been a decision taken at this stage,” Ms Roodhouse said. “The council’s budget is due to be decided on 21 February 2024. Any decision will be taken through a formal report which will include all the views from the public consultation and extra meetings like we are having today.”
Members of Outer West Community Committee – made up of nine councillors in Calcverley & Farsley, Farnley & Wortley and Pudsey wards – had requested a report to allow for a debate on the closure proposal.
Cllr Andrew Carter (Cons, Calverley & Farsley) said the report was ‘riddled with errors’ and cast doubt over the £7.25m refurbishment cost earmarked for the Civic Hall in 2029.
He said: “It seems to me that you have taken a decision and then tried to make what’s in the report to fit the decision you have already taken.
“It is pretty plain to everyone who has read the report and seen the coverage in the media. And that’s not acceptable because we are talking about a building here which has 50,000 users a year, that actually washes its face as a building.
“If you were to extrapolate that across the council you would be shutting everything we’ve got! You’ve moved from things that are costing an arm and a leg to things which aren’t costing anything at all. I accept that, in time, capital investment will be required. How many other buildings owned by Leeds City Council will need millions of pounds spending – you say by 2029? You know that’s not right. You know those buildings will have that addressed over a longer period.
“It draws me to the inevitable conclusion that you’ve made your mind up, you then produced a report when more people kicked off than you thought, you didn’t consult the ward members and now it seems it’s virtually a fait accompli. All you’re trying to do is make the narrative fit the decision.
“You have known the car park issue was going to arise for a number of years. I would suggest your department has done nothing about it. It needs looking at completely separately to Pudsey Civic Hall.
“I query the figures you are suggesting (£7.25m) if you applied that to every building in the city we would be in a hell of a state.
“This whole argument is full of holes. Lift the axe, take it away and having some meaningful discussions. You can talk to people who don’t want to take the whole building over but would generate events that would generate one heck of a lot of income. Come back with a straight and factual report of how we can move things forward.”
Deputy Leader of Council and Executive Member for Economy, Culture and Education, Cllr Jonathan Pryor (Lab) responded to Cllr Carter and said: “You are wrong to say the decision has already been made. It hasn’t. You’re trying to frame this as the council is eager to sell it when it operates as a small surplus, but you know full well that things have been forced upon us.
“We have to make a lot of these unpalatable decisions around selling assets because of the financial situation we are in. If there was a budget to do a full ‘invest to save’ budget here as you suggest I would take it, but there isn’t. It’s not the reality we are facing. The £328,000 investment it needs now is the absolute minimum, it wouldn’t touch the sides of addressing all of the issues Pudsey Civic Hall has if that building is to have a long-term future.
“Conversations are ongoing with local groups and I am more than willing to meet with them and to meet any councillor on an individual basis to discuss this. This is still a proposal. No-one comes into politics to close public buildings down.”
Cllr Peter Carlill (Lab, Calverley & Farsley) said the report needed more details about how the council has come up with the costs. He questioned what the minimum works needed to keep it operational, and running as it is. He also asked what the costs of it meeting its EPC rating would be and how have the council got it costed up. He also said the council should look at external funding schemes to help improve the building’s EPC rating.
Ms Woodhouse confirmed that the costs quoted in the report were only indicative.
Cllr Trish Smith (Cons, Pudsey) questioned what she claimed was a lack of marketing strategy and said: “Many residents of our residents have come to me and said: ‘I would have gone if I had known about it.’ Better marketing would have created more footfall and bookings. Closing it is very shortsighted.” She called for alternative uses for the car park to be identified.
Cllr Pryor said he was happy to meet anyone who might have a potential solution. He concluded: “There is no disagreement from us about how much people use it and enjoy using the facility, but the bottom line is about where the council’s finances are at the minute.
“We are having to make unpalatable decisions. We are having to make decisions we would never ever want to make, but that’s where we are. Which is why if there is any other way through I will bite anyone’s hand off who can offer a solution. I will happily guarantee that we will continue to look at options, but with a caveat of what a horrific situation council finances are in at the moment.”
The full report to the Outer West Community Committee can be read in full here.
Refurbishment costs
WLD approached Leeds City Council form comment on how they reached the indicative £7.25 refubishment costs. They said the couldn’t give any further breakdown than what is already in the report, which says:
“A full refurbishment will be needed by 2029 when the current systems within the building will all require replacement / refurbishment. Asset Management have estimated that a comprehensive refurbishment cost would be in the region of £7.25m. This has been calculated as a budget estimate using the Building Cost Information Service Construction Data calculator with inflation applied for delivery in 2029. Delivery in an earlier year would reduce this figure, as would options for a less comprehensive refurbishment proposal.“
You can read more about the BCIS here: BCIS | Building Cost Information Service Construction Data.
The calculation is made by entering in key information about square metreage, location and nature of the venue and then an estimate is provided back.
Sponsored content
A total of £ x is NOT the same as a breakdown e.g. how much for windows ( which aren’t broken ) how much for heating ( expensive heat pumps) etc. ?
Adrian. You are absolutely right. I cannot find details of the area of PCH. I reckon the area is around 2000 square metres – ground floor with smaller upper floor. £7.25m gives a little over £3600 per square metre – over three times the guideline figures given online by specialists. As you suggest – does all of it need refurbishing? For example, the dance floor of 420m2 can’t need a million and a half spending on it as it is in such good order.
I was in charge of the investigation of a similar apparently exorbitant costing in around 1994. A government building in a city not far from Leeds. The alleged cost per metre was around three times the going rate. I therefore asked the Government Property Agency to audit the costings. They found exactly what I had suspected. That the refurbishment costs had been grossly overstated in order to support the vacation of the building.
Even if lower costs for the refurbishment of PCH are established they may nonetheless support a decision for LCC to vacate. But LCC has a very large estate. If the current costings for PCH are found to be way out then all such decisions should be reviewed.
I am not surprised that Leeds City Council are unable to supply further details of the £7.25m estimated refurbishment costs.
It smacks of someone’s wild imagination, or of unquestioned and unexamined quotations.
Do Councillors have the knowledge and ability to control this expenditure? During my working life I always avoided employing anyone coming from a local or central government background: they just couldn’t meet the demands of private enterprise.
It’s interesting to see the two sides have a go at each other. The Tories raise a lot of valid points around questioning costs, poor management, piss poor community engagement and the lack of proactive marketing.They’re also in denial about the reasons why the council is in such as mess (they need to look at central Government and their own party for that).
Either way, it’s clear any costings need to be independently audited as some of there (like the £7.25m figure) are clearly plucked out of the air in an incredibly naive manner. It’s clear the council’s report lacks much credibility – and frankly casts into doubt the credibility of future reports of this nature.
Interesting to see they’ve tried to fob WLD off for asking a legitimate question which is in the public interest. It’s all gone quiet on the trial surrounding not revealing people’s names on planning application comments, I bet they’ve already taken their decision and not told us – honest and open democracy in Leeds? You’re having a laugh.
Despite being challenged, LCC has produced no supportable evidence of additional or exceptional expenditure necessary to retain PCH. In any event, their contention that any such work need not be undertaken before 2029 gives them five years’ continued ownership and use at no additional cost.
Someone in LCC has evidently decided to sell it now.