The forlorn trees that cost Derby's taxpayers over £46k
THESE forlorn trees in their planters sitting on a building site each cost Derby City Council almost £8,000 of taxpayers' money.
But one garden centre manager says he could have found the same number of trees and planters for about a quarter of the cost.
The six Cypress oaks in planters were bought to stand outside Derby's newly refurbished Council House – at a cost of £46,200 but, after water from the planters was found to be causing a hazard by leaking on to the pavement, the authority moved them and is keeping them on a building site next to Derby Bus Station.
Now it says they will not be used outside the building at all but will instead first be moved to another "city centre location" and, next year, go to stand outside the authority's new multi-use sports arena.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Friday, May 31 2013
The authority, which lodged its planning application for the Council House refurbishment in 2010, says it must save £62 million over the next three financial years due to cuts to its Government grants.
It is understood that the authority was told there were cheaper trees available but still chose to buy the oaks.
Council leader Paul Bayliss, whose Labour group was against the Council House's refurbishment before taking power, said: "What we need to do is ensure there is proper supervision of schemes like this by councillors in the future as there clearly wasn't in this case. It's our duty to make sure we learn from these things."
News of the purchase has prompted outrage from the Taxpayers' Alliance, which called it an "obscene waste of public money".
Mark Smith, plant area manager at Swarkestone Nursery, said he could have ordered similar quality trees and planters for under £12,000 in total. He said oaks were sometimes a poor choice for planters as there might not be enough space for their large root networks.
If the tree outgrows the planter, they could "de-leaf and eventually die", he said.
He added: "There are far more elegant trees that would have been cheaper and easier to maintain."
Mr Smith said he could have ordered six mountain ash trees in large metal and wood containers for £11,971 for the council.
The £46,200 combined cost of the oak trees and planters forms part of the £24 million cost of the controversial Council House refurbishment, which came in millions of pounds under its original budget. Each of the "semi- mature" trees cost £1,200 and the large planters cost £39,000.
When asked to respond to Mr Smith's comments, the council referred the Derby Telegraph to BAM Construction, the firm behind the Council House work.
A BAM Construction spokesman said it had worked "very closely" with the council on the refurbishment. He said: "The project has been extremely successful in actual and financial terms. The trees and planters are no exception and BAM has been open about the costs and alternatives and delivered these – as with the rest of the project – in accordance with the council's wishes."
It is understood the council was informed that there were cheaper options but had decided to go ahead with the oaks and planters.
Mr Bayliss previously said he would like to see some public art outside the building to replace the trees but that it "certainly wouldn't cost nearly £50,000" and the council would look at grant funding.
The council had originally refused to reveal the cost of the trees and planters to the Derby Telegraph so the figures were obtained through a request by using the Freedom of Information Act.
19 Comments
View all
by dianae
Monday, March 11 2013, 11:00PM
“The tree department could have told the people who authorised the spend - part of their job is to choose trees suitable for different places like Derby streets. Bet the budget for ordinary places - Derby streets - is kept low”
by kessie2012
Monday, March 11 2013, 9:04PM
“this should be investigated for corruption thers a big backhander somewhere .as for trees well its another inatation for midnight drunks .in the autum leaves everywhere making a mess derby have cut back on derby in bloom i believe this year yet most of the plants were home grown every few months a colour change which is better than looking at boring trees every year no change there should be an investigation why this was sanctioned the price is far to high even swarkestone would have had a big profit /phone staunton hrold or meynell nurseries ask them what price they could supply these trees at or the rare tree s and shrubs /he arboretum ashby weve people hungry/ homeless /losing jobs /cut backs /oaps cant keep warm /brown bin tax /bedroom tax / yet they find monet to waste on things totaly un wanted dread to think what else has had high prices in the council house the price of furnishing maybe new desks at colosel prices totol abuse of ratepayers money we feel insulted get them out investigate everything theyve bought or buy the public should be notified on fuure prchases beforehand so we can chec and compare prices irst after all its our money”
by robmickleoer
Monday, March 11 2013, 4:33PM
“A specification can always be changed right up to the point where a paricular item needs commissioning. Therefore the date the contract was entered into is irrelevant. This still amounts to a gross waste of taxpayers money. One should never let amateurs anywhere near a major conract!”
by Hotlush
Monday, March 11 2013, 3:36PM
“@Derbyborn1964; where does it say they were procured by the current council?
The refurbishment has been going on since 2010...”
by furiousperson
Monday, March 11 2013, 2:53PM
“London Plane trees would be much nicer. You hardly ever see a London Plane around here. In fact the only one I know is in Belper.”
by robmickleoer
Monday, March 11 2013, 2:36PM
“Typical wasteful public sector. How many other examples are there of similar waste? They couldn't run a corner shop never mind a Council!”
by Monsieur_Lupo
Monday, March 11 2013, 1:54PM
“Six oak trees. Does this mean that dogs are now better catered for than humans in terms of public conveniences in the city centre?”
by RobF11
Monday, March 11 2013, 1:09PM
“Who cares? Another non-story by the DET trying to stir up controversy. I'm sure the Council are guilty of much bigger mistakes than a few trees.
The council expenditure budget for last year was £650 MILLION, so please remind me why £48,000 for some trees that are still going to get used is newsworthy?”
by Tamas
Monday, March 11 2013, 1:06PM
“I'll do some art outside the Council House for less than fifty grand.”
by SubzeroV
Monday, March 11 2013, 12:44PM
“"Mr Bayliss previously said he would like to see some public art outside the building to replace the trees but that it "certainly wouldn't cost nearly £50,000" and the council would look at grant funding."
This guy is a parody. Having just wasted £50,000 they now want some art to go outside the building instead? Why not just leave it as it is. It looks okay to me. Even if it's grant funding, I'm sure even that could be put to better use than wasted on some piece of obscure art”