The Shire Hall project is being delayed by a dispute over the erection of scaffolding.

After a year for negotiation, the Beaufort Court Management Company will still not give permission for the scaffolding towers to be placed in the courtyard.

The result is the back of the building cannot be covered to remove the roof , and the Shroud planned to be in place before Christmas, to encouraging shoppers to the top end of town, cannot be in place until the scaffolding is completed

The 'Shire Hall Stewards' whose members represent many groups and organisations in Monmouth and the rural area, have campaigned for the renovation of the Shire Hall, are disappointed by the news of the delay.

Their Secretary, Barbara Wright said "The 'Shire Hall Stewards' were overjoyed on 25th June 2008, when their efforts on behalf of the community, resulted in the Heritage Lottery Fund awarding £3.1 million as 69% of the money required to save the Shire Hall.

"Without the Heritage Lottery Funding the Shire Hall would be shut and boarded up, resulting in the centre of Monmouth becoming a squalid area with devalued properties.

"I personally live in a terraced house, within sight of the Shire Hall, if my neighbours wish to repair their property, they have the legal right to erect scaffolding on my land, and block my windows, until the completion of the work.

"Now that the front scaffolding is in place, I cannot understand, why the Beaufort Court Management Company, are delaying the work, that will result in the main scaffolding remaining in the square for longer than planned.

"The 'Shire Hall Stewards' have worked hard, to keep the Grade 1 listed Shire Hall upgraded to be open for use by the community. It is disappointing that this important project is being delayed by a handful of the community."

In a statement to The Beacon, Beaufort Tenants Management Ltd said: Following the appointment of surveyors a meeting was held at Beaufort Arms Court to discuss the Shire Hall Project in July 2008. Final details of scaffolding requirements and project length were then discussed at a meeting, called by Beaufort Tenant's Management on 14th November. Present at that meeting were the project manager, Mr Keith Davies; the county council's appointed surveyor, Mr Andrew Ball; representatives of the council's agents Linfords; BTM's surveyor, Mr Mark Crowley; Col. Peter Gooderson and Mr Mark Williamson of BTM.

BTM fully supported the project, asked for no recompense, offered access for light vehicles across the courtyard to facilitate proceedings and agreed a completion date of the first week of December 2009. BTM asked that a penalty clause be inserted to ensure on time completion and to ensure minimal disruption to the eight commercial premises and a return to normal life for our 15 residents, many of whom are elderly and will be impacted significantly through loss of privacy and natural light for the duration of the project. All was well

On Friday 21st November it was intimated to BTM that work was to commence the following week, the project had been extended to January 31st 2010 and there would be neither compensation for any resident nor a penalty clause should there be any over run. This was felt to be unacceptable and steps were taken to address these issues.

On Friday 28th November steps were taken by the council to start work on BTM premises when no agreement had been reached, no licence issued and with no access order. BTM were advised the work was going ahead with or without our consent. Objections were raised and work ceased.

A further meeting took place in Beaufort Arms Court on Monday 1st December to facilitate agreement on the best way forward. Work continues in the background and further developments are awaited.

BTM fully support the aims and ambitions of the Shire Hall Stewards for this very worthwhile community project but seek the understanding of all parties that this should not be at an unnecessary prolonged detriment to the lives and livelihoods of neighbouring residents and businesses. 

Slippages such as that experienced in the moving of dates by almost two months (As happened between the 14th and 21st November 2008) are unacceptable but with no penalty clause there would be no incentive to complete on time. BTM seek no recompense for the work should it finish on time and wish the penalty clause to reflect the importance of maintaining a tight grip on the project so that it is completed to everyone's satisfaction.