Business

| View Comments (9)
Sackville chairman Sir John Madejski said the drop in property values had caused the breach of covenant but there was no threat to the scheme
Sackville chairman Sir John Madejski said the drop in property values had caused the breach of covenant but there was no threat to the scheme
advertisement

Station hill scheme still on track

By Alan Bunce
May 19, 2010

Station Hill developer Sackville expects to announce a joint venture partner within weeks that will help take the multi-million pound development a step nearer reality.

A report in a national newspaper on Monday said the company breached covenants both on a £63 million loan from the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) which funds the firm’s investment portfolio, and a £43.6 million loan from HBOS (now Lloyds Banking Group) taken out when Sackville acquired the site in 2005.

Falling property values led to the breach of covenants by increasing the loan-to-value ratio of the land and making the loan a greater risk for the bank.

But Sackville told the Post yesterday the breach was a technicality and insisted not only that the scheme was going to plan but the firm expected to make an announcement soon about a significant deal with a development partner which will help fund it.

The covenant issue, according to Sackville finance director Ian Smith, would not interrupt the scheme.

He said: “All property companies have seen significant drops in underlying property values. That will cause issues with all property investments. It’s like house prices, your house price will have gone down. It is more a technical matter than operational. In terms of going forward it won’t affect things at all.

“People who we are talking to are in the property market and they know and understand it’s a cyclical thing.”

Sackville has been in discussion with potential development partners since gaining planning permission for the scheme in September. Now those discussions are close to a conclusion.

Development director Jon Homan said signing a joint venture agreement would mean a timescale could be agreed which would make the buildings more attractive to potential occupiers who wanted certainty of delivery.

He said: “We hope within three of four weeks we will have singled out who it is we are going to run with. We are in discussion with three or four companies.”

He added: “We are quite positive about it. We are quite positive about the future.”

Sackville chairman Sir John Madejski said the drop in property values had caused the breach of covenant but there was no threat to the scheme.

Sir John told the Post: “It’s the fact that property has gone down in value by 45 per cent and of course you are borrowing for it. Most companies are in breach of covenant.

“Everybody is in the same boat, you just have to do the best you can. We are all about keeping things going and keeping jobs and doing the best we can. We are all suffering from the recession but you just soldier on and put your best foot forward.”

The scheme was due to start in 2011 with the first phase completed by 2014, but the recession has now forced the likely start back to 2012.

Sir John added: “It will take longer than anticipated but I got involved all those years ago with Reading Borough Council and we are going to see this through and deliver a very nice centre of Reading.” 

| View Comments (9)
advertisement

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Most recent user comments 9 of 9

   If JM wants to do something really useful for this town then perhaps he could build a bus station/terminus that could provide a proper transport interchange with the railway, instead of the current plan which is to shove all the bus stops out of the way. Some will end up to the north of the station, some in Friar st, the rest who knows where! Sure the area needs to be developed.......but do we need 30 storey blocks(twice the height of the 'Blade') in order to tidy up the area? The size of this proposed scheme would probably see other areas of our town with even more empty office accomodation......is this a good thing? With regard to the state of the area currently, ask yourself this question....who let it get into this condition.....and why?
Howard Thomas Common Sense party
22/05/2010 at 13:23 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   All explained in paragragh 3 - no panic. Many companies affected in same way
Take a Chill Pill!
20/05/2010 at 13:44 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   This article could do with an explaination as to what a covenant is for the average Evening Post reader. I laymans terms a bank lends money and may sets a few conditions, one perhaps being that the company has enough assets to cover the cost of the loan (in this case the property portfoilio). The reason banks add these covenants is to ensure that the business doesn't go down the pan with no means of the bank getting their money back.

If a covenant is broken the bank can demand imediate repayment and take actions to cease assets.

I'm surprised at the response of John Madejski though, He virtually dismisses this despite it being a serious matter. I guess the bank are not too bothered though as they've not taken action.
Forbury Lion
19/05/2010 at 17:51 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   Seeing as the buses have been forced out to make way for more offices, i'm surprised they haven't asked Network Rail to reroute the railway line to give them more space to build more offices. Then they can all stand empty, like they mostly are now! Building office blocks is not ambition and is not going to make it into a city, it is just going to be an expensive disaster. But obviously i'm no property or planning expert, and i'm not a councillor, so my opinion means nothing :-)
Mr P, Berkshire
19/05/2010 at 16:51 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   Spanky, Frank Castle, Watlington - Three wise monkey's comes to mind!!
Take a Chill Pill!
19/05/2010 at 15:26 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   This site wont be developed for ages. No one is going to fund the development of an office without a significant pre-let (which they don't have), as it will just be a massive liability that they have to pay empty rates on. It is just boom time fantasy that has gone wrong.
Watlington
19/05/2010 at 14:59 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   This will only start to be developed when it is dealt with piecemeal, and when Sackville and RBS write down a big loss on values. Clearly this is yet to happen despite the loan re-negotiation, so...nothing will happen and it will stay derelict and a scar on Reading centre's face for years.
Frank Castle, Reading
19/05/2010 at 14:16 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   "Most companies are in breach of covenant" errr and his evidence for such a statement is what? Perhaps the reality is too much money swapped hands in the first place?
Spanky
19/05/2010 at 13:56 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   Scheme says it all
Nimrod Maximus, The Voice of Reason
19/05/2010 at 12:46 Offensive or Inappropriate?
 
Homes / Jobs Search
 
Jobs Homes

Brought to you by

Fish4jobs
Newsletter Sign Up
 
Sign up to the
weekly news
update


Submit
Loading poll, please wait...