Monmouthshire County Council is set to take unprecedented legal action against tenants of Beaufort Court, as the row over scaffolding around the Shire Hall escalates.

And, as a second row over the provision of a new burial ground in Monmouth, also grows, this paper has been given a copy of minutes of the Cabinet meeting which shows there is no cash for the new burial ground.

Meanwhile, The Beacon has been given a statement, issued through one of the tenants, Mark Williamson, which said:

Beaufort Tenants have had no alternative than to report the facts of the matter regarding the delay to the Shire Hall Works.

It has been reported that the council made £51, 000 of alterations to the scaffold at the request of the tenants These alterations were made, in fact, to preserve the integrity of the historic cobbled yard in Beaufort Arms Court and were a necessity, not a concession.

The tenants asked to access the scaffolding to inspect windows and the parapet but were denied access on Health and Safety grounds. The council offered to repair sash windows as appropriate instead and have made a provisional budget of £3,000 available.

The council's surveyor, as of the 18th of December, had yet to agree the terms of the scaffold licence, including days and hours of work. Beaufort Tenants have made alternatives to the penalty clause available to the council,  to move things forward and indeed attended a meeting at County Hall accompanied by the Chairman of the Shire Hall Stewards, Mr Richard Wills to try and do just that. Again they were met with a stone wall and threat of court action. A further proposal has been submitted this week and we await a response on this and the last one as so far no replies have been forthcoming. 

It is reported that the scaffold has come in at a cost of £400,000 more than the tender, it has been reported that if the tenants don't wish two Christmases of blight that it did not matter as work could start in January and still meet the later deadline of 31st of January 2010.

It has been reported that the reason there can be no penalty clause is that the council, before discussing with the tenants and shops of Beaufort Arms Court, had already entered a closed contract with their contractors.

The council wish to protect the tax payer from a penalty of £5,000 per week, which would happen only if there was an over run on a project which will have taken over 18 months.

It was late starting by almost three months. The point of a penalty clause is to keep things on track, on time and to budget. It is time some accountability was placed where it belongs and someone needs to ensure that this project is completed with minimal disruption.

Beaufort Arms court has been blighted by a dramatic downturn in passing trade. Promised banners have yet to materialise. The entrance is almost obscured. Commercial premises have been told they have no recourse. Who will stand up for what is right and attempt to ensure that in this instance there is a reasonable result for the electorate and council tax payer.

Yet the council do not wish to see this and seem to be willing to enter lengthy and costly legal proceedings rather than run the risk of being held to deliver on time. The penalty clause was insignificant in the the greater scheme and would never have been paid if the project was kept on schedule. 

On Monday The Beacon was told Beaufort Tenants Management Limited had been advised that the council have indeed instigated court proceedings to gain an access order, with the court proceedings likely to take place on February 2nd in Newport.

Counc Bob Greenland, Cabinet member for regeneration said on Monday "We are still in discussion with Beaufort Court Management Company and are in the process of arranging a meeting for this week, with the hope of resolving this issue before Christmas. 

"We have taken legal advice and we are convinced of our position on dealing with this important Grade 1 listed building.  However, we still believe that the best way to resolve this is to talk to the parties concerned which we will continue to do."

Meanwhile, as reported earlier, it appears the County Council has no cash to provide a new burial ground for Monmouth. This information was given in a report to the County Cabinet. The report was prepared by Mr Steve Greenslade, Corporate Director, Regeneration, Environment and Resources, and Joy Robson, the Head of Finance and Improvement.

Referring to cemeteries, it said:

"Funding required to investigate sites (£50,000) and possibly land purchase (£250,000) has been excluded from the budget due to pressure on finance.

"Members will be aware in this respect that burial capacity at Monmouth (remaining estimated capacity is 18 months) and Usk (remaining capacity three years) in particular is extremely limited.

"An inability to re-provision will necessarily result in relatives having to either bury out of the area, such as Llanelly Hill, Llanfoist or Chepstow, or use the Usk natural burial site, which is far more expensive and does not allow traditional headstones".