Letters – 25 February 2017

Setting the record straight on government hubs I was surprised to read in your 18 February edition (p21) that the Government Property Unit’s hubs programme is “unravelling”. While we are not in a position to comment on commercial negotiations, the implication that the government hubs programme is not going to plan because it is re-evaluating requirements in the market is news to me. As guardians of the government estate, we take very seriously our commitment to delivering best value to the taxpayer and to our colleagues who will work in our buildings. Constant evaluation of what we are doing should be a necessity, to ensure that we deliver on both these fronts. Flexibility is a particularly important element of the programme given the constantly changing workforce needs of the civil service. Furthermore, the article states that the projected cost for the first phase of the programme has run over by £600m. This is not a figure that I recognise. As stated by HMRC’s Jon Thompson at the Public Accounts Committee hearing into the managing of the HMRC estate, this is likely to be closer to £150m. We are working very closely with HMRC to reduce costs and ensure that the programme runs as efficiently as possible. The hubs programme will revolutionise the way that the civil service operates, saving billions of pounds for the taxpayer and also increasing productivity by improving the way in which civil servants work. The GPU is committed to delivering this project, and is collaborating with government departments and the property industry to ensure that our vision becomes a reality. Sherin Aminossehe, head of the Government Property Unit Faster loans initiative is a welcome boost Further to your article “Faster Loans in the offing” (4 February, p43), there is no doubt the market was strangled and severely restricted when access to funding became so difficult after the credit crunch. As it was, the mainstream lenders were saying they were open for business but internally they were under instruction not to lend unless it was to longstanding clients with proven track records and, even then, on low loan-to-values. In other words, they would only lend to those who did not want/need the money and would not lend to those who needed the money to invest. Because people in property tend to be an innovative and resourceful bunch, they will find a way if there is an opportunity or deal to be done. This resulted in many purchasers raising the money themselves from whatever means so that they could buy with cash and refinance later. The main reason for this was the lack of confidence property investors had in securing funding quickly enough, which is imperative at auction given the tight timescale. An initiative such as NatWest’s confirmation of funding available in principle in 45 minutes is a potential game-changer compared with the lengthy timescale and painful processes that everyone still perceives applies to property lending. Any improvement in the lending process which gives confidence to investors that funding is accessible and available speedily can only be a positive development, especially in the auction marketplace and hopefully will prove to be a very welcome boost to our market in these uncertain times. Rory Daly, chief executive, SDL Bigwood Lessons from history I was interested to read Ken Shuttleworth’s report on Hertzog & de Meuron’s over-budget Elbphilharmonie concert hall (Outside the box and beyond the brief, 28 January, p68). It made me pick up On Architecture, Book 10, written by Vitruvius in 25BC. “In the famous and important city of Ephesus there is said to be an ancient law, the terms of which are severe, but its justice is not inequitable. When an architect accepts the charge of a public work, he has to promise what the cost of it will be. His estimate is handed to the magistrate, and his property is pledged as security until the work is done. When it is finished, if the outlay agrees with his statement he is complimented by decrees and marks of honour. If no more than a fourth has been added to this estimate, it is furnished by the Treasury and no penalty is inflicted. But, when more than one fourth has been spent in addition to the work, the money required to finish it is taken from his property. Would to God that this were also a law of the Roman people, not only in respect of their public, but also their private buildings…” But Ken is correct: time will forgive cost and programme overruns if the architecture is first-class. Tom Farrow, director, Build-Tech Consulting