Business

Wokingham's Lib Dems are concerned about how much the council is borrowing to fund the town centre regeneration.
advertisement

Wokingham town centre plans could be "poisoned chalice" say Lib Dems

By Jon Nurse
February 28, 2013

Ambitious plans for Wokingham town centre could be a poisoned chalice for the borough, the council’s opposition has warned.

As the borough council approved its new budget on Thursday, Liberal Democrat Councillor Tom McCann cautioned the authority’s huge reliance on borrowing.

Cllr McCann said: “The borrowing of large amounts of public funds to promote private enterprise and raise incomes is not new but has a very bad track record.

"In the 1960s places like Bracknell town centre have proven to be a poisoned chalice to that council and the community.

“The ruling group believe the only way to revitalise the town centre in their eyes is to borrow more than £62 million and mortgage the future to the whole council.

“We turn and say the council has failed the residents of Wokingham borough by saying they will all take second place to this over-ambitious plan. Shame on you.”

Cllr Anthony Pollock, executive member for finance, responded: “We have costed it, analysed the risks and it will be successful.

“It is a lot more modest than the developments in Reading and Bracknell – the risks are less. Yes, they are there but we have our eyes fixed firmly on them.”

A large investment for the borough is its commitment to regenerating Wokingham town centre, a pledged sum of £62 million over the next three years.

Cllr McCann added: “This council is about to increase its borrowing over the next three years to £181 million; in order to do this it has to raise its borrowing limit to £289 million within three years.

“You will have borrowed more money over five years than this council has in its whole existence since 1974, leaving it with £16.7 million interest per year – costing each household more than £250 in interest per year.”

Opposition councillors delivered eight scathing critiques of the Conservative-led budget, following a theme that the leadership was indecisive and lacked strategic planning.

Cllr Prue Bray, leader of Wokingham Liberal Democrats, warned: “There have been a lot of costly mistakes in the last 10 years: u-turns that have wasted time and money, poor project management, delays and failures to plan ahead. We cannot go on like this.

“Finances will get even tighter over the next few years. They have to up their game or there is a real risk that the council might find itself in very serious difficulties indeed.”

Cllr Pollock replied: “In 2009 we knew budgets were going to get tighter and were one of the few councils in the country who anticipated the cut in grants.

“We do long-term planning, we are aware of the risks coming over the horizon. We are up for the challenge because we have vision, clarity and leadership.”

| Submit Comments | View Comments (39)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 15 of 39

1 | 2 | 3 | Next Page Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

Just to make sure the last comment is relevent. The National Audit Office had concerns about how the regen finances are open to abuse. Google. Wokingham owned companies scrutiny.

Kaz4Wokingham, Wokingham
28/02/2013 at 18:14

Kaz on the warpath. There's no stopping this relentless and determined force! ;) always good to chat with you.

alex_f, Wokingham
28/02/2013 at 16:16

I may have used the C word. There was a red haze...

Kaz4Wokingham, Wokingham
28/02/2013 at 16:11

Kaz - you obviously must have gone in with a sledgehammer again... happy to translate to diplomatic prose for you ;-)

alex_f, Wokingham
28/02/2013 at 15:55

Corrie played the 'How dare you insult my integrity card' with me. I had to complain to the ICO to get the contract. Then WBC supplied it with the the key information stripped out.

Anyone who stands for a position of trust and then expects you to trust them blindly is part of the problem.

Kaz4Wokingham, Wokingham
28/02/2013 at 15:00

Kaz is all of that (specifically '£100m deal (signed the morning before the open public consultation) with an auditor that is self appointed') true? That's astonishing... how do we, as citizens, fix this? Who are we supposed to report these things to? Are the media all we have?

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
28/02/2013 at 14:52

Thus the need for transparency.

What are the limitations for a Cllr taking paid role from Wilson Bowden or their associates after service?

None? 2 years? A special Cllr relationship can be worth 20%+ to the developer. We need to change the rules.

The potential for a lifelong career as a consultant or a free house for their kids somewhere means there need to be a lot more exposure than what their wife does for a living and the land they own only in this borough.

Our £100m deal (signed the morning before the open public consultation) with an auditor that is self appointed represents a risk.

No matter who asks to represent you there is a lot of insensitive for well backed people representing business interests to the detriment of the community.

Telling them apart means some new rules. For MPs and Councillors.

In the mean time Cllr Corrie. Are you going to keep the details of this agreement secret?

Google 'Wokingham Regeneration £100m contract secret'.

Kaz4Wokingham, Wokingham
28/02/2013 at 14:48

Damiano - agreed. My colleague noted to me the other day that party politics is killing us, and I think he is right. It leads candidates to not think independently, and meet in the middle when at times drastic measures may be needed. It also means parties opposing, when their stance is indecipherable to the common person. As you say - politicians are not making pure judgements for themselves on right and wrong. I'm not sure how a system of independents would work though!

My colleague who contracted in the NHS and is married to a director in the NHS, and always has war stories of what a mess it is in and the corruption which goes on and surged under the labour years. I don't know about many parts of government though so I'm sure you're correct.

You're right though - NHS trusts started under the last Tory government, as well as PFIs, so the ideas were fundamentally Tory.

alex_f, Wokingham
28/02/2013 at 14:14

alex_f, I agree, broadly speaking. Much of what is said is purely political, and not at all based on 'what is best/right'. Which is a terrible way for a political system to work. It seems to be 'what is best for my career/party'. And that disgusts me. And many policies would be welcomes by both sides, if they had the decency to admit it.

Without rubbishing your notes on Labour and their privatisation while in government - which I think you've described fairly accurately - while they played a part in some privatisation, it appears to me to be the basis of all Tory policy. "How can we privatise X". If you've any friends/family in local government, the NHS, to the police, ask them how much it's changed in the last couple of years; it's staggering the methods and extent to which things are privatised. Even locally, the refuse collectors, building maintenance teams, park teams and so on are all PRIVATE companies (ie we pay for the management and other things twice).

There are so many things that are done that you and I just wouldn't do in our own private business.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
28/02/2013 at 13:57

@Damiano - haha I preferred punch ;)

I tend to think that (I think as mavdo has mentioned a few times previously, if he ever joins this discussion) regardless of the colour of government, policy would be largely the same and alot of what the opposition says is symbolic rubbish (re-instating the 10p rate for example - what a load of symbolic tosh). Against what Labour might want the public to think, the NHS for example went down the privatisation path long before the current government - NHS trusts, PFI contracts - some (particularly PFI contracts) expanded massively under the previous administration. Labour truly made a dog's dinner of the NHS finances, such as the horrendous new GP contracts meaning GPs can opt-out of out-of-hours work, only to contract the same work at £100/hour.

I was only a tot though in the Thatcher years but have heard of the horrific privatisation and demolition of some of our industries so I don't think I'd apply this 'excuse' historically!

alex_f, Wokingham
28/02/2013 at 13:16

"no just the vast majority."

Done your own research have you? Very commendable.

Megaman
28/02/2013 at 13:10

For 'punch' read 'punish'... Very Freudian.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
28/02/2013 at 13:03

(Another way of analysing voter groups - the flip side of 'benefit scroungers all vote labour' - is to say that rich people vote Tory, because they look after the rich. Reduction of tax for the richest in society, failure to recover money from/punch the banking sector, privatisation of EVERYTHING, end numerous other policies seem to bear that out. And their main objection to the EU is that it maintains the rights of the employed - to limit to 40hrs/wk, pay a minimum wage, etc.)

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
28/02/2013 at 13:01

PoneRana - yes that's true, it also supports the argument that what we have in the town centre doesn't align to what residents want, but is also driven by a variety of external factors. As you say - government needs to define policy to re-align. If there are so many charity shops everywhere, and not in proportion to what people want in their towns, clearly the rate reduction is no longer suitable (and vice versa for independents).

It's also true though what I mentioned - I have seen numerous occasions (friends / family) where independents have been looked over in favour of a charity, simply due to a charity having a bigger wad of cash and less risk of going under. I know for definite this happened in Wokingham for the the newest charity shop entry to our town.