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'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Claims of uncontrollable Supreme Court costs denied

  • Comment
The government's Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) has issued an angry denial to reports that costs on the Supreme Court project are escalating out of control.

National newspaper articles published over the weekend claimed that the Feilden and Mawson scheme to transform the Grade II*-listed Middlesex Guildhall on Parliament Square had bust the £30 million budget and would soon hit £40 million.

But a spokesman for the DCA told the AJ that this was 'nonsense' and that 'all that had happened' was the figure had been revalued to take inflation into account.

The scheme, which has not had the smoothest route through planning, hit the headlines two weeks ago when it emerged that Norman Foster had decided against continuing to work on the scheme ( Foster abandons supreme court).

The DCA, which claimed Foster's decision to walk away would not damage the scheme, also insisted claims of cost hikes were 'overblown'.

'The overall capital construction cost for the UK Supreme Court remains as described in the Written Ministerial Statement delivered on 14 December 2004 (that is, £30 million at 2004 prices),' the DCA said in a statement.

'These costs have been adjusted for inflation and are now £35.3 million. In addition to these construction costs there will be a number of associated costs.

'Westminster City Council is currently considering a local planning application which it is expected to reach a decision on over the summer recess.

'We do not yet know if this decision will have an impact on the costs. Therefore when the application has been decided we will be in a position to announce the overall estimated costs,' the statement concluded.

by Ed Dorrell

  • 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


Do you want the latest jobs emailed to you?
Sign up for job alerts.

AJ Jobs