UK taxpayers could soon shell out £7.7m on new eco-friendly upgrades on a UK town’s offices. Conservative councillors in Kent are up in arms over Maidstone Borough Council’s plans pointing out that it is “not appropriate in the current economic situation”.
The estimated cost is £6.7million, with additional contingency and tolerance bringing the total to £7.7million which would upgrade Maidstone House and the adjoining Link Building. The plans will replace the gas heating system with low-carbon alternatives, adding secondary glazing, internal insulation, and new air handling units. The makeover will also include the redecoration of office space as well as solar panels being installed on the roof.
Cllr Claudine Russell, leader of the Conservative group, told the Green and Liberal Democrat cabinet that the project will cost an “awful lot of taxpayers money”.
Adding that she was “very concerned” about the proposals.
She said: “It’s an awful lot of money, taxpayers’ money, to spend essentially on our own office block.
“I do not think this is appropriate in the current economic situation.”
In mitigation Green councillor Mike Summersgill, cabinet member for climate, defended the proposals by highlighting that the offices generate £1.35m every year thanks to much of the buildings being let to commercial tenants.
He insisted the upgrade would pay for itself within seven years and deliver energy cost savings of around £50,000 per year.
Summersgill said: “If the money were not invested, the rental income would decline.”
Liberal Democrat councillor Clive English dismissed concerns about impending local government reorganisation.
Despite the controversy, the cabinet voted unanimously to proceed with the environmental improvements.
However, three Conservative councillors, Stan Forecast, Lottie Parfitt, and Claudine Russell, immediately called in the decision, preventing its implementation until further review.
Their call-in said: “We believe the substantial cost of this project, ahead of devolution and with little scrutiny provided for alternatives, justifies, on behalf of local taxpayers, this decision being re-evaluated by the overview and scrutiny committee.”