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 9 of 39

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

I would be surprised if a leading supermarket chain or hotel would cough up that amount of cash when they don't need to. In general, such organisations no full well when a town needs them to generate some kind of footfall (through their brand name) and mostly councils have to pay the smkts and hotels to be there. After all such organisations can go to any other town they want an get very good deals. Like the rest of you I don'y have access to the figures but they will get money from the house builders for selling them the land and s106 cash. Including the recently built estate on the cricket field. However, I have always thought the regeneration to be over the top and we have all had our say in the past on this website but to no avail. We are also in the hands of the landlords as can be demonstrated by the landlord doing a deal with the bank to move into market square (ex peacocks / indoor market) without wbc being able to do anything about it (apparently)

Stig2, Wokingham
28/02/2013 at 10:18

I aggree with Tommassi

The filthy lib-dem national trust sticker toting pensioner party are at it again.

Lenin, Kremlin
28/02/2013 at 10:11

I aggree with Tommassi

The filthy lib-dem national trust sticker toting pensioner party are at it again.

Lenin, Kremlin
28/02/2013 at 10:11

Hi Damiano_Tommassi - it might well be the interest rather than full repayment, not sure I'm afraid! Maybe there are huge wads of section 106 payments going towards it, considering there are facilities which are being considered to serve the North and South Wokingham SDLs at least. I can only speculate without being privy to the info...

alex_f, Wokingham
28/02/2013 at 10:01

@Phil Challis - you probably know better than me, but did Wilson Bowden actually choose not to own the development, or was it WBC wanting to own the development post-regen?

Despite taking on the debt, there are some benefits at least, with WBC getting cash from lets, to some degree WBC being able to dictate which shops go where in theory (no more charity or betting shops!!). At the moment noone (apart from the landlords of course) can do anything about the onslaught of charity shops in non-WBC owned properties, or stop any betting shops from opening, unless it involves a change of use.

alex_f, Wokingham
28/02/2013 at 09:55

Hi alex.

I'm just thinking to myself 'if I had control of Wokignham and £90 to spend, how and where would I invest it...'.

I can't imagine a hotel and superstore paying me that money over 10-20 years (£4.5-9m/year)...

I can't imagine adding enough to Wokingham town centre to bring in enough customers to enough new shops to pay enough new rates to add millions a year to the council income...

I can't imagine how the suggested improvements in the area would cost £90m either...

It's just occurring to me now that a council with a very long track record of making decisions that infuriate, disappoint and disadvantage me and my community, are being trusted to spend near 1/10th of a billion pounds of OUR money. in a recession. And I don't know that they've made a case for it.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
28/02/2013 at 09:48

Never did like that phrase!!

Everyone should ask why if this is such a quick win did the original commercial operator who was going to take the risks decide that they would rather be a contractor with WBC council tax payers taking the financial risk.

To quote Bill Clinton "It's the economy stupid".

I thought it was Conservative ideology to trust the market, so why do they think they know best this time about redeveloping towns when they outsource our core services to commercial companies.

The council should focus on the services that residents need councils to provide rather than property development.

Phil Challis, woodley
28/02/2013 at 09:43

Damiano_Tommassi - whilst I can understand the concerns around this amount of borrowing, and also that the Lib Dems have performed a much greater scrutiny and have greater visibility than most of us plebs do, I think this is a little unfair. As far as I understand it, the pre-let of the supermarket and hotel alone will cover the majority of this, so it is mis-representing facts to say that it will actually cost households £250 each. I may be wrong though, I haven't exactly had visibility of the budgets and discussions, my understanding is all based on hear-say!

alex_f, Wokingham
28/02/2013 at 09:29

Will WBC truly have to repay £16.7 million per year in interest payments?

I had always assumed that, as 'we' were investing this much, we were sure to be making far more from the investment. I'm struggling to see it now though; how does a lick of paint and a couple of new buildings bring in anywhere near enough money? Has it been planned and costed? I mean, if WBC currently take £15m/year in rates and want to increase that a tiny bit, fine. Can't see it though. Please help!