Police chief's scathing verdict on Ammanford police station (From South Wales Guardian)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting SWG NEWS to 80360, or email
us
Police chief's scathing verdict on Ammanford police station
8:50am Wednesday 18th January 2012 in News
WRONG site, wrong design, wrong cost.
That is the damning assessment of Ammanford police station from the man trying to steer Dyfed Powys Police Force through “the most significant crisis policing has faced in the last 150 years”.
Speaking exclusively to the Guardian, Chief Constable Ian Arundale confirmed that the station in Foundry Road - which replaced the town’s red-brick Edwardian station in 2001 - is costing £700,000 a year, a quarter of his total estates’ budget.
The Force’s only PFI project – whereby a public sector service leases a building from a private company – the Foundry Road station was built by local contractors T Richard Jones, of Betws, in 2001.
The building is leased from the company Dolef Cyf until 2031 and it is understood that the annual payments will increase over this period, although police are trying to re-negotiate the terms.
“Weare just not receiving value for money,” said Mr Arundale.
“And given current conditions I would not have entered into the agreement we are legally bound to regarding Ammanford police station.
“I would certainly not have been looking to denude the local community that it would be more cost effective.
“Yet because of past decisions we are having to pay for a building with a custody suite that needs to be staffed 24 hours a day.”
Maintaining that the Ammanford custody suite was used – albeit infrequently – Mr Arundale added that he could not justify three custody suites in the Carmarthenshire area and would be considering a primary facility and a reserve in the future.
“These are challenging times in which I’m having to make 20 per cent cuts in real terms – and there’s no instruction manual on howto go about it.
“I also have to maintain an appropriate police response – and that’s a delicate balancing act.
“However, there is no threat to the police presence in Ammanford.”
Comments(26)
Huw Thomas
says...
1:40pm Wed 18 Jan 12
amen.
Huw Thomas
says...
1:41pm Wed 18 Jan 12
amen.
Huw Thomas
says...
1:43pm Wed 18 Jan 12
amen.
someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk
says...
10:32am Thu 19 Jan 12
as for the company dolef cyf, try finding out what it actually means first. i am suprised nobody picked it up ten years ago...lol. and the only people who are secretely crying are the tax payers.
trj built it.. who owns dolef cyf?? muhahahahaha
the didn't see it coming? and if it is true the building was 3million pounds, someone was having a laugh.
who was responsible for all this again? planning permission was given at the time - start with them. the councillor cooper has mentioned in another feature that it will cost 15million to pay for a 3million pound building.. bargain.
as for the piece that was omitted above but is in the paper version of this story, i had to laugh when councillor evans was saying that HE wanted a cabin on the former site.. yeah sure, im sure the police would have been happy with portacabins.
someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk
says...
11:36am Thu 19 Jan 12
someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk
says...
5:37pm Thu 19 Jan 12
walesonline from 2005 ish says -
THE capital value of Welsh projects under the controversial Private Finance Initiative has topped £1bn.
http://www.walesonli
ne.co.uk/news/wales-
news/2005/04/22/bill
ion-pound-pfi-debt-m
ortgaging-future-of-
wales-50082-15430443
/#ixzz1jvVWaKbT
page 3 says Ammanford police station - £8m ... what that actually means is unclear whether cost or accumulated from 2001-2005
someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk
says...
5:38pm Thu 19 Jan 12
someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk
says...
6:25pm Thu 19 Jan 12
so, going back to the beginning, if it was 2.5m over 30 years, the wales online figure illustrates 8m, just over 3 times the initial cost. the leasing company is liable for maintenance. maybe the building will never need maintainance structrurally.. so when things like, heating, plumbing, electrical is required, the leasing company pays the bill... just like how a landlord is liable for the property they lease..
i really dont know what the 8m is. if it is 8m accumulated from 2001-2005 or is 8m the whole amount of the 30 year lease? if that is the case, then the rent should be 266k per year. and since he mentioned over 600k, maybe that needs to be explained to the readers
someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk
says...
10:12pm Thu 19 Jan 12
eg, it says Anglesey's A55 road cost approximately £100m to build and payment is estimated at £16m per annum. Total payments could be £432m - or more than four times the construction cost.
but that would of course depend on the length of contract.
if in ammanfords case is 8 million and the lease was for 20 years, that equates to £400,000 per year. if it was for 15 years, that means £533,333 and so on.
if it is 8m, over the last 11 years it would have cost on average £727,272 and that seems to coincide with the figure the inspector mentioned, and that would have taken it to the end of the budget year for 2011-12, giving it 11 years since opening.
if that is the case, then it is the correct figure. so next years figure should come down to £666,666 and so on, and in the final year it will have come down to 400k pending if it is minimum of 20 years. if it is 30 years, it will come down to £266,666 per year.
otherwise the 600k mentioned and the 8m quoted make no sense at all.
panic over, you just have to wait for the years to tick by to get it cheaper
someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk
says...
10:31pm Thu 19 Jan 12
ok, if the police station cost 2.5m and the payment is 8million pounds.
what happens to the money is thus: the leasing company is responsible for the building. so if they get a leaky roof, worn guttering, loose slates, they pay for it. it is debatable about things like electricity wiring, lighting etc as that would depend on what the contract was..
so, if for 20 years the building is 100% maintainance free, they do not have to pay anything because there was no repairs - so they get to keep all of the 8million.
if there was over a 20 year span 1million pounds worth of maintainace, then they get 7m.. but who has paid the 1m for the repairs? either it has come out from their own pocket or used the rent money accumulated. if that is the case, then the public are not only paying for the rent via the pfi grant, the public are also paying for the repair.. just the same as if the council had to repair something elsewhere. the money comes from the public purse. if that is the reality, the leasing company gets all the 8m come what may... if there is 100% zero maintainance, then they have done a good job but it leaves the public wondering how come they have been paid 8m when it cost 2.5m in the first place, they did not have any outlay to make because they had no maintainance scheduled - money for nothing. it will be in a company's intersts to have zero maintainance because they get to keep all the 8m, the less maintainance the more they get... it will not be in their interests if the constructed a 2.5m building and it was falling to bits after 6 months as they could end up using all their payments on repairs and get nothing at the end of it. and iytdefinately will not be in their intersts if they actually spent more on repairs than the cost in the first place.. or would it? as long as they put back in what they receive in repairs, that's fine. bt i doubt if the police would be happy if they were constantly having repairs all the time.
so the general rule of thumb is limit the potential maintainance to an absolute minimum so they can maximise their return, even if the public feel aggrieved that they have had something for nothing and are making money on it
someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk
says...
10:38pm Thu 19 Jan 12
so, whoever asked for x amount of custody suite, had a reason for this. which is obviuos to the inspector that he would not have required this, but the plans were drawn up 11 years ago, so things may have been different then. and if he says that half the space is not wanted, there is not a lot that can be done about that. they may well have used all the 100% capacity at that time as that seems to have been the purpose for the plans. who advised the plans? if someone rents a 3 bedroom house and is single, they are hardly likely to get a 50% reduction if only half the rooms are being used.
someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk
says...
11:03pm Thu 19 Jan 12
normal purchases are that the occupier with a mortgage owns the house on day 1.
with pfi, the occupier owns it on day zero - the day of expiry on contract.
mortgages are usually around the 3 times income mark and end up paying 3 - 4times what they borrowed in the first place over 20 to 30 years, factoring things such as interest. if it's variable it can go up and come down.
pfi is identical with what they borrow, or should i say aquire.
morgages and pfi are the same, in the beginning you pay more but as the years go by, you pay less. so instead of having intersest on the pfi, it looks like just a higher rental fee, so the longer someone is there, the less they pay. not a discount, just the way the figures have been structured, plus taking into account of depreciation value. the building may just be more valuable in 20 years time, so if the police decide to move and sell it for 10m, they made money on it. so two lots of money has been made. but that depends if it has depreciated and how much. if it holds its value, they break even.. if inflation goes up, maybe the rent goes up too, it depends what the two party's contracted to, but it is variable. if inflation comes down, it would be in the police's interests in cheaper rent, and it could be possible that the leasing company still gets the whole 8m come what may. if inflation or interest rates went to 10%, maybe the company would lose out as it could well be the total figure is capped to 8m. someone should have briefed the inspector on all the aspects.
someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk
says...
7:01am Fri 20 Jan 12
so, lets go back to wednesday. carmathen jounal has a small oiece in there saying that some police estate published that it cost 680 thousand pounds a year. this bit is either amusing and relevant because the following days evening post clearly changed the wording to 680 thousand in that year, referring to the sentences above when it mentioned it opened in 2001.
so, if someone was reading the journal on wednesday or whenever and saw this part, and read it as 680 thousand a year, someone just may look at that and think it was 680 thousand pounds a year for the duration of 30 years.
and the following day, the evening post ran the another 15million pounds story.
easy thing to do i suppose. if 7 million pounds has been spent since 2001, and paying around 680 thousand a year, multiply the remaining time span which is 19 years and it comes to over 20 million pounds. subtract the 7thousand spent and it comes up with 13million. not quite 15 but close enough.
the other interesting part is thus. if it was 2.5m and taking into account the total payment, which apparently is 8million pounds, divide 8m by 30 years and it comes up with just over 266 thousand a year. add on a bit of inflation which maybe pushes it up to 270,000 pounds. inflation fluctuated from 2001 to 2011. if the chief inspector says that it costs 700 thousand a year as in the guardian exclusive, how is it that the calculator says it should be 266? 266 times 30 equals 8million. and 8milliion has been mentioned as the total amount in wales online. it doesnt seem to make much sense to be paying over 600 thousand a year when they should have been paying 266,666.
and if that is the case, the chief would have an extra 400 thousand in the coffers. well, not an extra 400 as it is already in the system, but a disposable 400 thousand.
when this police estate publishment says that it paid 680 thousand pounds in the first year in the journal, the evening post says the estate publishment says it spent 680 thousand in the first year, how come they started off at a higher payment than the 266 thousand (providing the wales online 8 million divided by 30 is correct). whether they started off paying a high rate in the beginning and it gradually gets lower over the years, only the two parties can answer that question. start off at high at the beginning and end up paying low at the end.
by doing that is not a problem in itself as the 8 million is only used for paying for the building. it cannot be used for anything else. in effect, the shortfall in the staff coffers has nothing really to do with the station cost. if there was no new station, there would be no 8 million in the bank, and the present situation would be occuring regardless.
if the chief was around in 2001 and opted for a smaller build, they wouldn't have been paid 8million anyway. as he suggest if half the place is unused, may as well use that as a guide and have a building half the size which would mean about half of the 8 million, so he would have got 4 million. and whatever the figure was whether it was 4, 6, 8 or 10 million pounds, that grant money is for the building only, so the staff situation cutbacks would have existed whether they had a new station or not. the 8 million is in the bank for the building and not for the staffing. so resources for staff would have had to come from elsewhere anyway. it is not the staffing fund that is being pumped into the station cost. the money for the station comes from the government. the staff money comes from the council tax. at the end of the day, the council know about the shortfall. there would have been a shortfall even if the new station was built for free, they stayed at the old station or made use of a portacabin, the conditions would have been the same.
if they stayed at the old station, there would have been no 8 million pounds at all, and still would have a deficit in his budget today
someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk
says...
10:08pm Fri 20 Jan 12
www.policemarketrepo
rt.co.uk/reports/200
0-00.pdf
it's from 2000, page 55
it says finance comittee have agreed plans for a new pfi police station at ammanford. the force will pay an annual fixed link plus an annual indexed link amount, presently worth 209k. the contract runs for 30 years. IT and furniture will be provided by the contractor but there is no ongoing liability for repair and replacement of these items
someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk
says...
10:11pm Fri 20 Jan 12
someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk
says...
10:59pm Fri 20 Jan 12
ipsuk.org.uk/PUK-Cas
e-Study.aspx?Region=
Wales&Project=11420
captal value 8m
http://www.publicati
ons.parliament.uk/pa
/cm201011/cmhansrd/c
m100705/text/100705w
0003.htm
Ammanford Police Station
Estimated cost over lifetime of project (£ million) 19.18
19.18m over 30 years = 639,333 per year
where did this story of the station itself costing 2.5m come from?
someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk
says...
11:25pm Fri 20 Jan 12
authority.co.uk/.../
FOI-Responses-Aug09.
estimated projected total 21million pounds.......
how on earth has it taken all this time to realise there is a problem???
Meirion
says...
11:27pm Fri 20 Jan 12
Perhaps Councillor Cooper and his fellow represesentatives of the people can explain why was this misappropriation of public funds was allowed yet again to happen.
Perhaps in May we can representatives in place that have an ability in basic maths and act in the public interest.
someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk
says...
12:06am Sat 21 Jan 12
cyage.com/aa/news/17
55089/barclays-signs
-welsh-pfi-deal
june 2000
Barclays signs third Welsh PFI deal
The bank has also financed a £3 million deal for the building of a new Police station in the town of Ammanford, Carmarthenshire, in conjunction with T.Richard Jones, a local construction company.
someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk
says...
12:32am Sat 21 Jan 12
the above site says barclays signed a 3m deal.
dyfedpowyspolice authority.co.uk says estimated total is 21m
parliamentary publication says 19m
slight discrepencies all over the place.
who do you believe?
how come it's taken over ten years to realise there is a problem?
doesn't someone in the government check it out and see if the money they are giving is value for money? i doubt very much if someone would be given 20million pounds on a buiding that cost 2.5m or 3m.
how did they get to this position? a contract is legally binding, there is another 19 years to go.
the central taxpaper paid for it, the council tax payer didn't. so why is it assumed that police resources are being drained because of the station? that doesn't make sense, they are seperate issues and different finance sources.
does the police get a cheque annually from the treaury or whoever to hand over to trj? or do they get a cheque every 5 years or so?
how is the finance from the treasury structured?
'if' the building did cost 2.5m or 3m, how is it that the poilice authority mention the overall total comes to an estimated 21m? how is it that a parliamentary publication refers it to being a 19m estimate?
is someone sucking the life out of the police and the taxpayer?
according to an audit, everything is correct
hmmmm indeed
someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk
says...
11:04pm Sat 21 Jan 12
in other words, there are two components in the annual bill. one is the fixed 360k per annum, the other component was 209k in 2001 which covers things like inflation, labour costs, materials etc and when this second component goes up, the overall bill goes up.
in the beginning they were paying 306k plus 209k.. this year and every year, they still were paying 306k but becaue the index linked 209 has gone up, that is how they are paying 668k.
and next year it could go up again or in five years time or anytime during the remaining 19 years. maybe they could eventually pay 25million overall, but it does seem that the current 21m overall figure is correct.
pfi can be beneficial to both sides, and looking close at the deal, there doesn't seem to be anything untoward. if the pfi company had no maintenance, they will benefit, and even if they had some maintenance work to do, there is nothing to stop them from subcontracting the work out at a cheaper rate and they can pocket the difference.
IT systems get changed and upgraded evry now and then, so the force do not have to pay for it, the pfi does. but then again, the force are paying money to the pfi and getting it paid that way.
there are far too many factors to look at from everything the price of the land, the cost of the building, the roofing, the IT and computers, all the way down to the kitchen sink.. if anything needs replacing, the pfi pays for it. if nothing gets replaced, the company keep the money. it's as simple as that.
i wonder if the station cat is leased?
if an inventory takes place, they probably won't find anything amiss. not forgetting the application was put in in late 1999, so land prices and building costs were obviously not as high as say 2005 ot 2010, so they key is how much did the land cost and the building? 2.5m in 2000-2001 seems to be a bit excessive to the public,
the pfi has to take into account the cost of maintenance whether it is used or not to cover their own backs. if they charged 200k in the price for a roof replacement, it doesnt mean that the roof is going to be replaced. and if it doesn't get replaced, the company keeps the money. but it's just not 200k as a flat 200k, it is 200k over 30 years so it's more like 600k that has been charged on the bill, or even more.
they have to asume the cost of a replacement of the original item whether if it was in 2001 terms or 2011 or 2021 terms. that's the way it workss
someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk
says...
6:13am Mon 23 Jan 12
the second part to the sum is the index linked variable amount which appears was 209 in 2001, and gives the impression of being 340k a year according to the 700k figure in the article.
so far 3.9m has been paid towards the buildings lease and approx 3.5m has been paid into the maintainance pot.
has the station actually got 3.5m worth of stuff inside should everything need replacing and maintaining? it's hardly likely the brickwork will fall down and need maintaining so that can be taken off the list. maybe they should do a tally up and compare figures to todays figure.
come the year 2031, according to some figures, the total amount will be ranging from 19m to 21m, so take off 10.8m and that's the mainatainance pot figure.
if zero maintainance takes place, the taxpayer would be aggrieved that 8m-10m would have been wasted.
if they decided to move in 2031 and no maintainace took place, the taxpayer would be aggrieved and a waste.
all this maintainance pot seems to be is acting as a guarentee or some form of an insurance that fixtures, equipment etc will be maintained. and it all depends what was negotiated in the contract. if all the maintainance pot was spent on maintaining and/or repairing. maybe it would have been worth it. if 2m gets spent over 30 years, then the taxpayer would still be aggrieved because it means the pfi company gets 6m-8m. if 4m gets spent on maintainance, that means the pfi company gets 4m-6m and so on. so the tax payer will always have something to say. and this one of the problem of the pfi system
someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk
says...
6:14am Mon 23 Jan 12
someguyfromwales@yahoo.co.uk
says...
6:30am Mon 23 Jan 12
should the overall figure be 23m, not forgetting that 10.8m is for the property. that could well mean the pfi company gets 12m minus any maintainance costs. or 10.8m minus any maintainance costs if the final total is 21m
if the building today is worth 3.9m, then they are on course. anything less is a loss.
was it worth 2.5m in 2000 and 2001?
Meirion
says...
11:22am Mon 23 Jan 12
Perhaps this misappropriation of public funds should be reported as a crime to Dyfed Powys Police.
The problem is, the faulty abacus used at that time may still be in use today.
Thus, making the Police Authority feel that they do no wrong.
Perhaps a complaint to, and, a thorough investigation by the IPCC and Audit Commission or even SOCA would be more appropriate.
B17 says...
11:26am Wed 18 Jan 12
Surely the police can look into their own handling of this? It stinks of fraud and secret handshakes.
And from what I have heard the station is totally unfit for purpose anyway!!