Wobbling over Wolsey

The purchase of Wolsey Place has attracted a lot of debate in various places, including local Lib Dem blogs and a dismal Facebook group set up by UKIPpers, who have taken a break from blaming everything on Europe.

I’m disappointed that having agreed to it in council, some Lib Dems in Horsell are trying the old “we don’t have to follow the party line” gag just as they did over county hall. No – you don’t have to follow the party line on a Horsell issue such as development in the village or bus service cuts. But this is nothing to do with Horsell specifically and it’s a major financial commitment that the council has signed up to on a cross-party basis. For local activists to now try and wriggle out of their party’s official position on Wolsey Place is opportunistic and disingenuous. If they were so concerned, did they lobby their leadership against cross-party agreement?

For what it’s worth, Horsell West councillor Tony Branagan voted against the purchase but now the matter has been resolved he is committed to defending the council’s position, even though it wasn’t his own. How very easy to abdicate responsibility in the face of hard questions – to me, elected representatives need more fibre than that and Tony has it in spades.

I’d prefer a world where Woking Borough Council was debt-free, as it was six years ago under Jim Armitage. But that isn’t the council we’ve got and only a firesale would restore that position. In the circumstances, the best place to spend the borrowed money is on appreciating assets and generating revenue. So let’s look at Wasteful Woking and see just how inaccurate the UKIP information is.

“Not only do they splash out 68M for Wolsey, they also just announced a 2.5% council tax increase. It’s time to take some control back!”

And just think how much more your council tax would be without £1.5m in revenues next year from Wolsey Place. This is a totally misplaced statement based on the notion that Woking Borough Council itself has written a cheque for £68m.

“It will take the council 50 years to pay back the loan for Wolsey Place, a development that will probably be beyond it’s usab…le life within 20 years. That means a major capital expenditure to either rebuild or upgrade the current site. “Invest to save” is a phrase usually best applied to upgrade work or repairs that will lower future bill and fixed cost base. Not buying a leaky old shopping centre and half occupied office.”

What is wrong with taking 50 years to pay back the loan? People with mortgages usually pay them back over half that and they usually borrow a good deal less than half the money. As time goes on, the value of the repayments will decrease while the rental income keeps pace with inflation ie the value of income over repayments will increase hugely over 50 years. If the centre is sold on, the loan could be paid back or if the site is sold in say 15 years, it will be most likely be worth a great deal more than was paid for it and will cover substantially the amount of the loan outstanding.

Whatever the author’s view of the shopping centre, actually looking at the books (rather than guessing wildly) revealed a sound basis for buying. In addition, there is potential for development in the future, although that’s not something I think would be considered for some time. For the record, floors one to five of Export House are empty, with six to 15 occupied. The internal decor and facilities are very good and I know that because I work on the 14th floor.

Elsewhere, we’ve had concerns about maintenance, unforeseen legislation and all sorts of other things that really scrape the barrel. There are always risks associated with everything – given all the information available, councillors on all sides took the view that this was worth doing.

Finally, there are Lib Dem concerns about the process, about the fact that the deal was done with press and public excluded (Part II). I’m no fan of Part II and as a journalist I fought tooth and nail to find out what was going on “behind closed doors”. But consider this – councillors are elected by the people to take decisions. As residents, we’d no doubt prefer everything to be decided in public but just because the press and public are excluded doesn’t make the process less democratic. These are still the same councillors making the same decisions under the same constitution in the same way that magistrates confer in private rather than open court. And the Lib Dems, who have to a person all been involved in Part II items in the past, know that perfectly well.

In his blog Denzil Coulson claims that the Lib Dems have helped rescue us from a financial disaster this year by backing Wolsey Place. If that makes him happy, so be it - but he is right that the financial outlook for 2010/11 is a lot better because of this purchase. Remember that net of repayments, net of tax, net of maintenance the council will get £1.5m a year from the Wolsey Place purchase – it pays for itself and a lot more besides.

So t’s time that UKIPpers stopped spreading rubbish about the deal that was done for pure electoral gain and that Lib Dems locally had the bottle to agree – as Denzil seems to want to say – that this deal was the very best of the bad job that Woking’s borrowing is.

Wasted opportunity for change

The debate tonight in council over whether to change the voting system in Woking to one all-out election for councillors every four years instead of the contrived thirds system we have at present was a frustrating experience. I had hoped against hope that the sensible cross-party voices of David Bittleston, John Kingsbury, Peter Ankers, Ric Sharp and Richard Sanderson would pursuade some of those with fears about all-out elections to take the plunge.

It was a big ask and needed a two-thirds majority (24 out of 36 councillors) to get through – in the end it was defeated 16-17 by those wishing to stick to the current system. There were some really good points, ranging from the structural ie that all-out elections provides a period of election-free space to encourage longer-term thinking and decision-making by councillors to the equitable ie that resident in three-member wards such as Horsell West get to vote three times as much as those who live in one-member wards like Brookwood.

There are also questions of clarity for voters, of being able to spend less time electioneering and more time engaging with residents and of the £100,000 three-years-in-four cost benefit. But the sticklers, of whom the “radical” Liberal Democrats formed the backbone, won through, obviously worried about their seats and the prospect of four years in the wilderness. Denzil Coulson told the chamber that in 2011 he was sure the Conservatives would be unpopular and thrown out of administration – and then proceeded to defend the thirds system by way of it being more “democratic” because it forced people to work together and gave councillors contact with residents.

Lib Dem leader Ian Johnson too said that the council was best when it worked together on projects and made out that all-out elections would somehow preclude this, allowing one party to bully its agenda through. Other thirds supporters opposed the idea of too radical a change in the council’s makeup after a four-yearly election, with it taking time to retrain new councillors. Yet successful authorities like Guildford, Elmbridge and all the Berkshire unitaries – as well as all London boroughs – are elected this way and seem to overcome these issues.

More to the point, the strong leader model adopted by the council tonight also seems to point to the need for a all-out election, as the leader’s four-year term should co-incide with the council’s. By keeping thirds, members have essentially nullified the strong leader idea and kept the system we have now. Woking is a good council but it is not helped by its marginal and shifting control. It needs a stability and permanance that at present only the officers of the council enjoy.

A number of members felt that those in safe seats were more in favour of all-out elections because they were less likely to find themselves booted out for four years. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again – as someone who is standing for election in a marginal ward, I’d rather lose the seat and not have the opportunity to stand again as a consequence of the best system than win it and have to work within a second-best model that hinders strategic thinking and bold decisions.

It’s a shame that I have to get party political but I think that the Liberal Democrats have let the borough down by not being bold enough to embrance this change. It is only fair for me to mention Cllrs Ian Eastwood, Ric Sharp and Richard Sanderson as the honourable exceptions to this – they voted against the rest of their party in the free vote and also Independent Peter Ankers for coming down on the visionary side too. Interesting to note that Lib Dem PPC Rosie Sharpley, your agent of change if the Lib Dem literature is to believed, didn’t feel able to vote for it on this occasion.

The next opportunity to get rid of our thirds system is 2015. By then I hope the case will be clear.

Shopping Centre cardinal to Woking economy

Earlier today, Woking Borough Council officially announced that it had purchased Wolsey Place Shopping Centre following a decision on February 2 to become sole owners. The cost is £68million, which has been financed by the Public Works Loan Board.

The aim of the purchase is twofold – to invest in an asset that will both appreciate in time and generate a healthy £1.5m every year for the council and to play a pro-active role in encouraging economic growth in the town - in this case by securing the future of a major retail space. There are, it must be stressed, no plans for the council to run the centre, this will remain with existing staff.

There will no doubt be those that criticise the council for taking on more borrowing. They will stand on the fact that Woking has borrowed more than almost any other district council and that this somehow indicates financial imcompetence. Not so. The act of investing in tangible assets on a long-term basis and generating net profits from those investments is using borrowing as a force for good. I won’t defend all of the projects WBC has invested – and I favour a debt-free position – but in this case, one has to consider the broader interests of Woking in the future.

The nature of local government finances has changed. No longer are councils about revenue income, support grants, non-domestic rates and council tax versus costs – they have a wider, enabling role to play through investment in communities. We aren’t the only council looking to be more pro-active economically. Surrey Heath has got pro-active with The Atrium development and there are other options for the future. Runnymede redeveloped its Civic Centre and Guildford has worked to improve its Civic Hall and Friary Centre infrastructure for years.

The difference is that we have already gone into the market while the money is cheap and we are ahead of the curve – as suggested by the fact that the Liberal Democrats also backed the purchase of the centre. I’m pleased we’ve got a consensus on this and hope it survives the election intact.

Traditional local government finance will fade out as more and more cuts have to be made and councils look to other means of raising revenue. Outsourcing only gets you so far and is politically challengingfar better to invest cheaply in strategic assets that will generate multiple benefits for both residents and the council.

Press release: Woking Conservatives keep council tax pledge

At its meeting on Thursday (11 February), the Conservative Executive agreed to deliver the pledge given by the Leader of the Executive, Cllr John Kingsbury, in May 2009 not to increase the Woking element of council tax by more than the Bank of England’s CPI inflation forecast.  

Although this figure now stands at 2.9%, the Executive agreed to recommend to Full Council on 22 February a council tax increase limited to 2.5%. This modest increase equates to £4.95 per year or 10p per week for a Band D council taxpayer.  

For a Band H taxpayer – the highest property banding – the increase for the Woking element of council tax will be £9.90 per year or 19p per week.

Leader of the Executive, Cllr John Kingsbury said: “While we know no-one likes to see council tax increases, we believe that in this challenging economic climate, we have kept faith with our pledge and kept this increase in Woking’s share of council tax to the very minimum. 

“At the same, we have managed the council’s budget to ensure that there will be no cuts to any of its core services. I believe this is an important message that Woking residents will want to hear from their Conservative administration.”

Halving the deficit

moneyOne of the key things in the the Pre-Budget Report was the headline to “halve Britain’s deficit” during the next four years, bringing this down from 12% of GDP where it currently stands (up from 2% in 2007) to 6.5%. In other words we are going to reduce the £180bn-a-year borrowing levels to something more “manageable”.

But this is not the same as reducing the deficit ie paying back what we owe – it simply indicates that the government, over the next four years, wants to reduce borrowing to £90bn a year, adjusting for inflation. During that time, of course, they could have borrowed the best part of £600bn more.

It doesn’t pay off the amount borrowed – it doesn’t even pay off the interest – it is simply a commitment to reduce the future levels at which we borrow. Strangely, this distinction doesn’t seem to have made it past Tom Clark in The Grauniad, as the paper happily swallows the government lines that Labour is to “halve the deficit”.

The total figure for what Britain owes is not easy to find but one must assume it is heading towards £1trillion. In addition, the nation has promised £2trillion in public pensions that it doesn’t have.

What the government is actually doing is spending £100 on a credit card every month. It used to spend £20, but the recession meant it needed to borrow more. It has not paid any of the money back and is intermittently paying back bits of interest. The bank is watching closely to see if the credit limit should be reduced. So the government is now looking to reduce its spending to £50 within four years. It is not saying that half the total amount on the card will be repaid.

That isn’t the impression left by James Lansdale on the “full story of the pre-Budget report” on the BBC, or even by the Daily Telegraph, who also seem happy to take the government’s suggested wording.

What the government is seeking to do is halve year-on-year borrowing, nothing else. It might help if journalists read the report itself rather than the Treasury’s press release, or even understood a little bit about how the economy works.

Cutting government waste

Carl Thomson, co-author of the Bow Group pamphlet

Carl Thomson, co-author of the Bow Group pamphlet

There is a very good pamphlet that has just been published by the Bow Group on cutting government spending without impacting on public service delivery. The author is John Redwood, MP for Wokingham who spoke at the Conservative Annual Dinner the other evening along similar lines to some of the themes in the pamphlet. Carl Thomson, our candidate in Mount Hermon East in the Woking Borough Council elections next year (Twitter @carlthomson), has co-authored the report with John Redwood and his clarity of thought is evident in there too.

Mr Redwood has written an article on ConservativeHome about his work and it is definitely worth a read – it is comfortably digested in 20 minutes. The two authors go through each government department and suggest areas where savings could be made. Some of them are themes we are already familiar with such as quangos and staffing and there are one of two others thrown in that you may not have considered.

Particularly interesting are the comments of the introducion and conclusion, which talk about the politics of cutting expenditure, how Labour has tried first to say that all spending is untouchable and automatically equates to sacking doctors and nurses and then changed its mind. Spending cuts are not about cutting services, the pamphlet says, that is a very public sector way of looking at things. They are about delivering everything that you want to deliver – which might be everything you deliver now, or even moremore efficiently, with less waste and providing the taxpayer with better value.

A lot of ConservativeHomers are calling for John Redwood to be installed as Shadow Chancellor on the back of this but personally I think they are living in a dreamworld. Mr Redwood’s problem is not ability – he is among the most able of all MPs – it’s his public image, associated as he is with the cost-cutting, economy-is-everything right wing of the party. This pamphlet has shown another side to him – that he a considerate MP looking to create a better, more financially sustainable future but I had to laugh in the conclusion when he suggested that PR, spin and marketing costs should be cut.

Apart from the fact that everyone says that in opposition but seem to be much keener on PR when it comes to telling the world what they’ve achieved, perhaps if John Redwood had had the benefit of some proper PR and marketing to the general public during the first 10 years of his political career, there’s a chance he might be Shadow Chancellor by now!

Anyway, being Shadow Chancellor is no good if you can’t contribute anything useful and this is a superb contribution to the debate. Particularly congratulations to Carl, whose first pamphlet for the Bow Group this is – it’s a very careful and measured look at an emotive subject and will I’m sure find its way to the Shadow Chancellor before long.

Denzil’s bin posting

I haven't got a picture of a Woking bin, this one's from Peterborough

I haven't got a picture of a Woking bin, this one's from Peterborough

I saw Denzil Coulson after the executive in Brewery Road Car Park while I was chatting with the News and Mail’s excellent reporter Beth Woodger. He stopped to make some chat and it was good to exchange words after a few little storms in teacups over blog posts etc. He’s standing as the Lib Dem candidate in North East Hampshire, where he’ll be canvassing the leafy streets of Fleet trying to nab James Arbuthnot’s 12,500 majority away.

You’d have to be pretty optimistic to believe he’ll do it but it takes guts to slog away at the other side’s safe seats and it’s fighters like Denzil who keep politics interesting. While I wouldn’t like to think we’ll lose a seat like North East Hants, I’m sure Denzil will give a good account of himself and I’m pleased he’s standing for Goldsworth West again – we might not agree on much but he’s strong member and the council needs that on all sides.

Following our discussion, he walked off and looking at his website for the first time since the Queen’s Speech, I now realise why. He’s gone and posted a cheeky little piece about the rise in cost of the green bins for April 2010, claiming that it is about raising money rather than keeping the environment clean. Well, it’s only going up £2  for most people from £35 to £37, which isn’t exactly extortionate and from £15 to £20 for a second bin.

Denzil’s point is that concessionary charges are going up from £20 to £25 for the first bin and £10 to £15 for the second, which works out at a higher percentage than non-concessions. But obviously if you calculate it in percentage terms, you will get a higher percentage the lower the starting basethat’s just the way numbers work.

I don’t think it’s a big secret that the point of the new scheme is both environmental ie it will help more carbon-efficient collection and prevent 400,000 plastic bags going to landfill and budgetary ie it embraces the principle that residents who use the service should contribute to it rather than the cost being spread to everyone through council tax.

One of the beauties of the new waste scheme is that it introduces a small slice of free market economics into the service. It’s basic pricing theory – if the council charges too much for bins, people simply won’t take up the service and the council will be forced to reduce the price. If however take-up is huge and the council doesn’t test price elasticity at a higher level, it has done taxpayers – including those on lower incomes - a disservice by not attaining Best Value.

So if concessionary households are struggling to find the extra £5 a year, that is something that the market will tell us and I am sure will be examined further.

Lane excuses

The meeting of the executive on Thursday will consider a report on residential mitigation sites for the Hoe Valley Scheme. This is necessary because the Hoe Valley Scheme projections at the moment show a loss and therefore other sites that the council can develop – or sell for development – need to be considered in order to recoup some of this cost.

Among the sites identified is Blackness Lane, which was subject to a similar situation and council consultation in 2003/4. I understand the objections to building so close to the park but the former greenhouses that were on the site were part of the park’s operation and have never been green open space.

There is the issue of traffic along Blackness Lane but I don’t think the proposals will fashion a great number of new homes. It would be good to see that problem addressed though, particularly because of the risks already taken by those turning right into Claremont Avenue from Guildford Road.

The Blackness Lane site is long overdue being developed. There is currently no best value being gained from the asset. I know that the surrounding area has been developed significantly already – I used to live in Claremont Avenue – but the area on the south side of the town centre has got to bare the burden of the superior transport links it enjoys. There is further development on Constitution Hill and the south entrance into the town that needs to be achieved and I hope that is reflected in the Local Development Framework.

The Blackness Lane site is derelict, overgrown and isolated from the park. No-one wants development in their back yard but if Danesfield can take seven townhouses just down the road from me, so can it. In any case, financial realities leave little room for choice – if holding onto dormant assets was an option, it should be no longer.

Busted

The Woking News and Mail today reports Surrey County Council plans to launch a comprehensive review of its passenger transport budgets in common with most of  its other budgets. It simply cannot afford, it says, to keep subsidising bus companies to run routes that are not commercially viable and the level of subsidy has risen from £4million in 2001 to £11million now.

One could say that the bus companies are being greedy and not putting enough of their margins on the commercially viable routes into helping out loss-making “social” routes. But that is a moot point because rising costs and the recession have forced them to tighten their costs too and the county council is not able to negotiate from a position of strength.

Unfortunately, the only way to cut costs is to cut subsidy and that means routes having to change dramatically or go altogether. The spin on the county site is upbeat enough and talks about a fresh review and an opportunity to shape services but the reality is too stark to deny.

In Horsell, the number 73 bus that goes from Chobham to Woking via Well Lane and Horsell is listed on the review document as one that the county council would like views on but is not immediately under threat. It is then really important that as many people in Horsell as possible contact the county council to express support for this service. It would also be a good idea for as many people as possible to use it.

Should the 73 service be questioned – and there is nothing at this stage to suggest that it will be any more than any other route – one solution is alluded to by Cllr Ian Lake in his quote – that community transport could be answer. That, of course, raises the question of who is going to pay and we had just such a question tonight at the management committee of Horsell Residents’ Association.

Chris Chaney and Edward Bentall came to speak to us about the Chobham community bus that currently runs from Chobham to Woking during peak hours and the possibility that it could be extended into Horsell, which would give us a chance to shore up at least a part of the 73 route. The committee gave a resounding endorsement to the principle of extending the service and giving this option to Horsell residents in the future.

The question is where the money will come from. At the moment, the scheme is funded in part by Surrey Heath Borough Council and Woking Community Transport. But to extend the service would mean more money, which Surrey Heath is hardly likely to pay for given it is Woking residents who will benefit. And Woking Borough Council has little capacity for additional expenditure as things stand.

But I’m hopeful that we can make it work and I will certainly do everything I can to find a solution because I think that having that extra option of peak services into Woking from Horsell will give reassurance to many people in our village. The figures may suggest that few people use it but to those people that do it is often a vital part of their quality of life. And a community is defined by its treatment of the minority, not the majority.

Press statement: Conservatives delighted with green waste scheme take-up

Leader of Woking Borough Council’s Conservative executive Cllr John Kingsbury said he was very pleased with the success of the new green waste collection scheme as more than 6,000 households had opted to receive the new bins.

The scheme, which started at the beginning of November, attracts around 20 new subscribers every day who receive a green garden waste bin to replace the current plastic sack scheme ending in December. This bin can then be filled with garden waste and is collected once every two weeks along with either household waste or recycling, depending where the subscriber lives.

Cllr Kingsbury, whose Conservative executive championed the scheme said: “It’s clear to me that Woking residents are seeing the benefits of the new green bin. These bins prevent a huge amount of plastic bags going to landfill and allow the council to plan collection routes more efficiently.

“More than 6,000 households signing up to the scheme also means that we have received substantial revenue to help pay for the service. This system will help us keep council tax as low as possible and is fairer for those people who either don’t have gardens or who already pay a service charge for their grounds maintenance.

 ”I am delighted with the scheme’s success thus far and hope that many more residents buy into our new arrangements which are environmentally friendly.”