Town Hall carpets and wallpaper "cost £140,000"

Carpets and wallpaper for Rotherham’s £3 million town hall cost £140,000, according to insider sources.

The claims came as the row over Rotherham Borough Council spending rumbled on with new details about the refurbishment of two other civic buildings.

The council refused to comment on claims that Town Hall carpets cost £80,000 and wallpaper £60,000, but divulged that £2.46 million was spent on the new Doncaster Gate offices and £793,000 on the Eric Manns Building.

A spokeswoman for the council said that the original Renaissance plans included a new Civic Quarter on the Guest & Chrimes site, incorporating a new Town Hall at a total cost of £7.5 million.

But in 2008 it was agreed that it would be more cost effective to refurbish the existing Town Hall and the Eric Manns Building.

She went on: “This did not compromise the remaining Renaissance elements of the plan, but enabled the council to maintain the heritage associated with the existing Town Hall.

“The refurbished Town Hall provides a civic focus for the borough, a base for the Mayor, rooms for council meetings and facilities which can be hired by the public.

“The Town Hall is also to be used as the Registrar Service’s main marriage suite and the John Smith Room can also be hired for receptions with associated catering if required.

"The Eric Manns Building has been turned into accommodation for councillors and officers that support council meetings. Work was also required to bring the building up to standard for disabled access.

“Work at Doncaster Gate primarily involved wiring to support power and IT systems, roof repairs and some minimal decoration to convert the former hospital into office accommodation, pending the completion of the new civic building.

“Some car park modifications were also required to separate office car parking facilities from those provided for NHS facilities on the same site.”

The council said it could not comment on the claims over Town Hall carpets and wallpaper costs because it was awaiting a review of a Freedom of Information request made by the Advertiser.