The union masterplan has attracted large amounts of interest and publicity due largely to the rough time the plan had last year with Union Council often feeling they were being left out of the decision making.
However, these traumas negotiated and the plan seems to be in more trouble, this time of a financial nature.
The union executive committee initially authorised expenditure of £150,000 for the architects brief and a further £40,000 when the original estimate was found to be too low for the works required. This report was presented to Union Council earlier in the year and covers design of stages C and D (Phase 1) of the project.
The cost of implementing phase 1 is estimated at £1.8m of which the college are currently donating £1.2m of which £0.5m is for works relating to the disabilities discrimination act. This would leave the union to pay £600k.
However, the union only has £600k in its reserves and is currently making a loss in the region of £50k a year thus this expenditure would leave the union heavily in debt within a year and thus the expenditure is not an expenditure that Exec is likely to authorise.
This leaves the masterplan in a position where it cannot proceed and have phase 1 complete by October unless extra funding can be begged of the college. One possible argument is that college are paying for the DDA work but the £0.5m they have contributed to this section of the works is less than the actual costs of the work which includes the installation of a lift that a wheelchair can actually fit in to.
A delay in starting would have the extra complication that it would mean that new energy efficiency standards will come into effect and thus costs will probably increase. Paying extra for greater efficiencies in energy use is of no benefit to the union as energy costs are currently met by the college. However, it is anticipated that this will change in the future.
One possibility is that phase 1 be delayed whilst further funding is sought and that phase 1 and 2 be completed in a single block of work, this would reduce overall costs. It may also be considered to take into account future energy cost savings if the union is required to pay for its own energy use in the future.
Student Tom Tibbets has even offered to pay half of the cost of undertaking an energy review so that the new building will be inline with the future regulations. CGCU president Sid Singh described it as ‘highly embarrassing’ to ICU and that ‘ICU should have looked at energy efficiency without being reminded by a student’.
Email this Article
