Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Hawkins\Brown counters Corby Cube claims

  • Comment

Hawkins\Brown has hit back at the damning report into the failures surrounding the allegedly ‘commercially and operationally flawed’ Corby Cube

Last month (AJ 19.07.12), Corby Borough Council released a 91-page document drawn up by an internal scrutiny working group looking at, among other things, why the flagship building was now more than £12 million over its original £35 million budget. The 7,700m² landmark can still only house a maximum of 1,560 people – half that originally envisaged in the brief.

However, in a letter sent to Corby councillors by the practice, the firm said many conclusions in the report were based on ‘falsehoods and inaccuracies’ (see below and attached).

As well as questioning where the reported £47 million cost figure had come from, the practice also pointed out that although it had queried ‘poor construction practice’ and noted an ‘extensive list of construction defects’, a number of the problematic items had been ‘accepted by the council against the advice of Hawkins\Brown’.

In a filenote attached to the letter, Hawkins\Brown branded claims that its alleged ‘lack of performance’ had led to the scheme becoming a ‘de facto hybrid’ building as ‘patently untrue’.

Founding partner Roger Hawkins said: ‘The decision to adopt a “hybrid” building contract rather than the one issued with the tender was taken by Corby Borough Council and its contract administrator, six months after the works were tendered, and against the explicit advice of the design team.’

He added: ‘We just want the truth to emerge and a balanced view into any investigation.’

Dear councillor,

As you may be aware, Hawkins\Brown was employed by the council as architect and lead designer on the Corby Cube project. We are concerned that the Public Report of Scrutiny Review into the Cube, Parklands Gateway is unfairly critical of work carried out by our practice and the whole design team. It contains a large number of false statements regarding Hawkins\Brown, and the opinions and conclusions that the report puts forward are based on falsehoods and inaccuracies. The Report disparages Hawkins\Brown and has the potential to cause serious damage to our professional reputation as it has been widely reported.

 Given your role as a councillor, we can identify you as our client for this project and therefore write to you formally to ask that our proposal to offer a balanced view to the report is reconsidered by Corby Borough Council.

 I attended the open session of the meeting of the full council on 8 August 2012 and was pleased to note that several members of the council acknowledged that the Overview and Scrutiny Panel Working Group had based their report on opinions rather than contractual fact and had not taken the views of several key people involved with the project.

 For your information I have attached a few examples of the statements we believe to be false set out in the ‘summary’ and ‘conclusion’ section of the report. This is not a line-by-line review of the entire report but will hopefully give you an understanding of the gravity of our concerns.

There were several variations related to changing client requirements, such as the late involvement of the theatre operator needing a box office and amendments in the technical demands of a complex theatre, together with the reorganisation of the library and ‘one stop shop’ which caused an increase in the contract value. Costs can also be attributed to completion of the adjacent Corby swimming pool and public realm works.

It is unclear where other costs, now reported as part of the cost of the Cube project, have come from, as these did not form part of the contract works. Several areas within the Cube were left as shell space at completion with the council seeking a commercial operator for a gallery and café. In the event, the council has not been able to secure this investment and is now seeking to carry out the work itself.

Throughout the contract, there were examples of poor construction practice reported by Hawkins\Brown and at practical completion there was an extensive list of construction defects and snagging items identified by Hawkins\Brown and the design team. It appears that some of these items have been accepted by the council against the advice of Hawkins\Brown. Any further costs to rectify such construction defects should not form part of the contract works.

The Council’s Scrutiny Report opens with the lines ‘the Cube is a building of elegance and presence forming Corby Borough Council’s civic headquarters … it has already established itself as the heart of the town’s civic and cultural life’. Hawkins\Brown acknowledges these positive statements and the support it has received from friends and local people in response to the report’s unfavourable allegations. We have confirmed that while we strongly disagree with much of the report’s contents and conclusions, and are extremely disappointed not to be allowed to contribute to the report, we are continuing to support the council and work with it while the contractor completes the defects.

Yours sincerely,

Roger Hawkins
For and on behalf of the partners at Hawkins\Brown and the associated Corby Cube Design Team

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs

Discover architecture career opportunities. Search and apply online for your dream job.
Find out more