A scathing report into the repaving of Oxford's Cornmarket Street, published today (Feb 16), reveals serious flaws in the way the multi-million pound project was handled.
Workmen resurfacing Cornmarket Street
The report criticises the county council for failing to cost the project properly, appointing some contractors who were not up to the job, and neglecting to put a thorough risk assessment in place.
Despite months of evidence, the inquiry has not been able to reveal exactly how much the troubled scheme cost taxpayers.
Although the repaving of Cornmarket Street was a city council idea, commissioned in 2001 and forming part of its Public Realm Strategy, the Town Hall escapes with relatively minor criticism -- mainly because it capped its financial contribution at £1.8m.
Before today's report was published, the figure of £5.1m was suggested as the nearest estimate to the true cost of the fiasco -- double the original quotation.
One of the biggest revelations of the 44-page document is that if the two authorities had known the eventual cost of the project at the start, it seems unlikely they would have gone ahead with it.
In August last year, a panel consisting of six city and county councillors and chaired by Rex Knight, vice-chancellor of Oxford Brookes University, began an investigation into how the project had gone so wrong and spiralled out of financial control.
Senior council staff and leading councillors were brought before the committee and asked for their explanations.
The inquiry heard that Stenoak, the construction firm specialising in road surfacing which started the repaving of Cornmarket Street, went into receivership in 2002, throwing the whole project into chaos.
Representatives from engineers Peter Brett Associates and designers Landscape Design Associates, who also worked on the project, gave evidence to the inquiry. The public will probably never know the true cost of the project because the county council and Stenoak signed a confidentiality agreement meaning the details of their contract will not be made public.
The matter of outstanding claims between the two organisations is in the hands of independent mediators and not the courts.
An Oxford Mail contact close to the Cornmarket inquiry said: "There is a great long list of recommendations -- all bar a couple relate to the way large contracts are managed.
"If a realistic budget had been put up in the beginning, it seems unlikely the scheme would have gone ahead." Although the report makes several recommendations, most notably about the way large projects and contracts are managed, the inquiry has no power to discipline.
No city or county employee is singled out for criticism.
Another contact said: "Does any review have teeth? You may ask the same of the Hutton Inquiry."
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article