It seems likely that the COG (Community in the Old Gaol) campaign to achieve some modest community provision within the redevelopment of the Old Gaol may be approaching its end without achieving that aim. The Old Gaol and its lease have been sold (for housing and shops). It is now clear that the Vale Council never had any intention other than to sell it off for the maximum possible cash and has used unheard-of levels of secrecy to avoid any discussion with the local community, including COG. COG’s aims were widely supported by Abingdon residents and local groups and included a petition from 6000 people.
It might be thought that a few crumbs from this sell-off might have been ring-fenced to secure some community provision that the town centre sorely needs. Evidently not. There is now some vague proposal from the Vale that maybe if there is a surplus (yes, a surplus!) in about three year’s time, something might be considered.
Comments by the Vale are now appearing in the media attempting to put a good face on this sell-off. I believe there is an alternative version that goes something like this:-
In 2002 the Vale hired a firm of architects to present them with options for developing the Old Gaol. In June of that year the Vale opted for the most splendid of these options. This satisfied all forseen needs for community/arts use, for the surprisingly modest sum of £10 million. Was there an immediate review of this figure and the assumptions which underlay it? Or was the consultant just paid his fee in recognition of this happy outcome?
In 2004 they hired a different consultant and in that November they announced that the same scheme (so far as I can see) would now cost an unaffordable £20 million. Of course the house of cards collapsed.
How could this dramatic change occur in a process overseen by a competent local authority? The only explanation I have seen so far is that important costs were missing from the earlier estimate.
Following this fiasco, was there a temptation to just get rid of the Old Gaol and its lease for the maximum cash, and by any means possible to shut out the voice of the local community? Perhaps not, but this is what seems to have happened.
Since November 2005 COG has tried to work in a co-operative way to ensure that at least some modest and affordable community facilities were included in the development. The Vale refused all discussion with COG and the outcome is that the centre of the town remains bereft of sorely needed community facilities.
The Old Gaol has been sold, and the cash will go into the Vale’s coffers without any recognition of what has been taken from the town. Asset-stripping is not too strong an expression for this outcome. Abingdon residents might ask whether the Vale has exercised good stewardship and management of this once-valuable asset.
No doubt the Vale has followed acceptable bureaucratic procedures throughout this saga, but where is the vision and good judgement? It looks so heavy-footed.
