Archway Tower (Hansard, 17 March 1998)

§ Mr. Kilfoyle

[holding answer 16 March 1998]: As my hon. Friend is aware, Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE) is responsible for the disposal of the vacant Government offices it inherited on 1 April 1996, including Archway Tower. The Chief Executive of PACE, Mr. John Locke, reports to me regularly on the agency's performance. Therefore, I have asked Mr. Locke to write to my hon. Friend.

Letter from John C. Locke to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated March 1998: I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service to reply to your Parliamentary Question about Archway Tower. Since 1998 there have been major policy changes affecting Civil and Defence accommodation. Departments have been fully untied from the former PSA which was privatised in 1993. PACE has responsibility for vacant office buildings which have been declared surplus by other Government Departments. Archway Tower is such a building. PACE is charged with disposing of it at best value for the Exchequer. PACE has no intention of seeking to change current planning permission to use Archway Tower for office use. Furthermore the property is currently held under the terms of a lease which restricts occupations to office use. Mr. Colgan has made you aware that if the London Borough of Islington was to consider redevelopment of the area responsibility for implementation and funding would lie with them. PACE has a contractual commitment to the existing building and use. The lease on Archway Tower runs until 24 December 2009 and the current annual rent payable is £884,000. Further rent is payable for 49 adjoining car parking spaces. The outgoings for the property in the current year are estimated at approximately £1.1 million including rent. The best value solution for dealing with the building is to effect necessary repairs and refurbishment and bring it back into use as offices. A detailed scheme, which does not require planning permission as it is essentially repair, has been worked up and necessary contracts are about to be let. An occupier has been secured for part of the building and the remainder of the space will be marketed widely as soon as it is again in occupiable condition. In this way PACE intends to defray the cost of holding Archway Tower and bring about an improvement in the appearance and management of the building. I understand that you are in close contact with Mr. Colgan, Director of PACE, London and South East Region, and that he has outlined these proposals in more detail to you and representatives of Islington Borough Council at a recent meeting. Should the Borough Council have any proposals for the property which are achievable in view of the existing leasehold constraints and offer better value for money than naturally PACE would be pleased to consider them.