Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


grey_man last won the day on December 19 2019

grey_man had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Newcastle under Lyme

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

grey_man's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)

  • Week One Done Rare
  • One Month Later Rare
  • One Year In Rare

Recent Badges



  1. Some people buy the myth that they can get high from the fumes and even that different coloured bins give them different highs. I'm not making this up. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/kids-setting-fire-wheelie-bins-17260803
  2. I suspect from what little I know about it that the whole airport business model has fallen apart. They're obviously no longer just places where people get on and off planes so this will have crippled them. Even with initially healthy bank balances and given their role in the economy I can understand why they need substantial intervention. A pandemic certainly isn't unprecedented. One has been predicted for years. But what was far more likely was some major economic crash and that would have been a certainty within the lifetime of the loans taken out by WBC. Even that may have tipped the council into trouble given the paltry returns on their investments. God alone knows what their position is now. I get why they've invested in general but I don't understand why they've gone about the specifics. There's something off about the Redwood thing too. Maybe it's incompetence or naivety but there's something not right about what has happened there and how it came to happen.
  3. I know only what I've read in the news. It was a profitable organisation and the GM councils are now stumping up £260 million in the hope that it returns to profitability. Obviously there are wider economic issues with a major International Airport. But I can't see the airline industry ever being the same again given the number of planes now being mothballed. My point is that Lynton Green needs to be a lot more circumspect before issuing sarky statements like this, obviously aimed primarily at the people who pay his wages. It's not his or his organisation's money to play with, councils don't have a good track record with this kind of thing and history teaches us that you have to be prepared for major shocks to the system. There's nothing unprecedented about the pandemic. Does anybody in Warrington apart from a handful of people have the slightest idea what is happening to the council's investments or even what it has invested in and on what basis? I know they throw around this figure of £20 million net annual revenue but it's not much of a return on £1.6 billion or whatever the current figure is, there's no evidence for it of any sort, it's a suspiciously round number and it hasn't changed in months. Everybody had better hope it's true, anyway. The levels of aggression being displayed on the subject by at least one councillor make me worry.
  4. He's the son of 1970s actor Soylent Green.
  5. I didn't find it. I kept it. Always a good chance these things will return to haunt people, especially those shooting their mouths off about the risks they are taking with other people's money. I'm surprised Lynton's still in Warrington. Anybody who can guarantee a return on billions of pounds over a period of decades and with no risk to capital must be worth more than he's being paid now. Even if he doesn't understand apostrophes and irony. What he means is sarcasm. Like I've just applied there. I don't know how much truth there is in the idea that the delay with the accounts is down to him trying to save face on Redwood. But frankly, given the minuscule amount of information that the council allows to leak into public, who knows anything about what's going on? We might find out, but it will be the hard way when the whole thing is falling around everybody's ears.
  6. Spelthorne council’s secret rent deal will cost £4.5m Andrew Ellson | Gareth Davies Friday June 26 2020, 12.00am, The Times A council that has bet more than £1 billion of taxpayers’ cash on commercial property has secretly let a key tenant put off paying millions of pounds in rent because of the coronavirus pandemic. Spelthorne council in Surrey is said to have agreed an 18-month rent deferral with WeWork, the troubled property management company, amounting to a £4.5 million short-term loss for the authority. The deal is likely to add to fears that families across the country face higher council tax bills and reduced public services as local authorities’ multibillion-pound bets on commercial property turn sour. Councils across the country have borrowed £6.6 billion since 2016 to buy shopping centres and office blocks to replace revenue lost by government cuts. Council finances, however, are now taking a hammering as tenants default on rent. A report leaked to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a non-profit organisation based in London, and seen by The Times, claims that three senior councillors at Spelthorne agreed to the company’s request to help it “absorb difficulties brought about by the Covid crisis”. The deal calls into question the council’s investment strategy. With other tenants struggling to pay rents owed to the council, the provision of local services is threatened. In the past five years Spelthorne has borrowed more than £1 billion to buy offices and shops so it can use the rental income to help fund local services. The purchases include £40 million spent on a shopping centre weeks before the lockdown. Nearly £10 million of Spelthorne’s annual spending on services is now funded by its investments — more than the money from council tax, business rates and government grants. The report claims that senior councillors agreed to the plan with WeWork. The councillors admitted that they would struggle to find another tenant for the Hammersmith Grove offices in west London. They would face significant costs if WeWork had to leave the building. The council bought the building for £170 million in January 2018. In exchange for the rent deferral, WeWork is said to have agreed to extend its 20-year lease by a further five years. This effectively means that Spelthorne council would only start recouping the lost income from 2037. WeWork is itself facing great financial difficulty. The US company, which sublets space to freelancers and small companies, has laid off 2,400 staff around the world after its stock market flotation failed. It is undergoing a second round of redundancies in Britain. The council is also believed to have granted a rent deferral, for 13 months, to a tenant at another of its investment properties, the £73 million Porter Building in Slough. It is unclear whether the council can afford to offer deals to its other tenants. It had 41 “commercial clients” connected to its property portfolio in June last year. Before the crisis the net return on the council’s property investments was less than 1 per cent after costs and reserve funding. The WeWork deal was allegedly voted through behind closed doors on Monday morning by a special investment committee that only has three voting members. The committee included Ian Harvey, who had been the council leader who led the £1 billion investment programme, and his wife, Helen, who was appointed by her husband as the council’s cabinet member for investments. Mr Harvey resigned as council leader at a meeting last night, however, before a motion was brought calling for him to be removed. John Boughtflower, a Conservative councillor, was voted in as his replacement. He pledged to launch an investigation into the £1 billion investment programme. He said that his first action as leader would be to introduce a spending limit so “no single person will ever again have authority to spend tens of millions of pounds without the scrutiny that residents expect and deserve”.
  7. I suspect it's already a car crash and some of it would have been a problem without what is happening. The argument that the council has been fond of making - that it's low risk because of the underlying value of the assets - looks increasingly frazzled. For those investments with little or no asset value - Redwood and Together Energy - other questions should be asked and not just by keyboard warriors like me. Councillors should be doing their job. I also wonder when the local media (I'm watching you :)) will report on that story that the council has decided not to go ahead with the £220 million purchase of a property portfolio in Trafford that was on the market for £200 million. Maybe local journalists are unaware but it's been in the regional business press. Again, there needs to be far more scrutiny of this and the reasons behind it. PS - The council's Moody's rating was downgraded last year. Normally WBC issue a press release about their healthy credit rating but not this time even though the rating remains good. Also Moody's notes that one of the reasons the council enjoys a good rating is because the government won't let a council fail completely.
  8. And from The Guardian MPs investigate commercial property purchases by councils Parliament’s spending watchdog has launched an inquiry into purchases of commercial property by local authorities, amid fears that the coronavirus pandemic will expose councils to a drop in income from their investments. The public accounts committee will look into whether local government officials have the commercial skills required for such transactions, which have rocketed over the past four years. MPs will also question officials from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government over how much they monitor commercial activity among local authorities and their exposure to risk. Local authorities have been on a shopping spree in recent years, buying up property such as shopping centres and office buildings as a means of increasing their revenues and to offset the impact of austerity measures introduced in 2010. A recent report from the National Audit Office (NAO), which scrutinises government spending, found that local authorities spent an estimated £6.6bn on commercial property from 2016-17 to 2018-19, compared with £460m during the preceding three years. The pandemic is expected to create a hole in councils’ budgets due to a huge shortfall in council tax income, along with lost revenues from missed parking and leisure fees during the coronavirus lockdown. Ministers are expected to provide English councils with a £1bn bailout to prevent several of them from collapsing into insolvency due to soaring costs related to the coronavirus crisis, such as for providing extra social care and housing rough sleepers during the lockdown. Even before the government lockdown created uncertainty about local authorities’ income, the NAO report warned of the risks associated with commercial property, which could leave councils badly exposed by a recession or property crash. “Income from commercial property is uncertain over the long term and authorities may be taking on high levels of long-term debt with associated debt costs,” the NAO said. Councils have been able to access low-cost funding from the government’s public works board, but critics argue it has caused them to bid higher amounts for property, and in some cases overpay. Spelthorne council in Surrey, a tiny Conservative-controlled authority, has used these Treasury-backed loans to build a £1bn property portfolio, despite its annual operating budget of £22m. The council said last year that income from commercial property allowed it to offset £2.5m of government grants cuts, and raised more income than council tax. Shropshire council has previously been criticised for spending £51m on three shopping centres in Shrewsbury, all of which had fallen in value by almost a quarter even before the pandemic.
  9. To be fair to the council I think this is why Time Square is the right thing to do. But even that is - at best - going to be harmed by what is happening. Cineworld was already a bit wobbly even before this and I can't see any of the bars and restaurants they may have been in conversations with going unaffected either.
  10. Below, from The Times with a worrying conclusion. Did anybody pick up on the news in the business media that WBC has just shelved plans to spend £220 million on commercial property that was on the market for £200 million? They need to be coming under far more scrutiny from councillors, the government and the media. I suspect that their current investment strategy is now a millstone for the town. Authorities’ big gamble on property deal-making puts locals on shaky ground Martin Shortland spends most of his time working as an IT consultant, but last year the 52-year-old declared war on Spelthorne council. Frustrated by what he sees as a lack of transparency at the Surrey authority, which has racked up £1bn in debt by buying commercial property, Shortland set up It’s Our Spelthorne, an action group that aims to hold local representatives to account. “If council taxes aren’t going up and services are still running, people don’t really care because they don’t feel it is affecting them,” said Shortland, from Ashford. “But what’s going to happen if this all goes pear-shaped?” Over the past five years, a raft of local authorities have tapped cheap government debt to splurge more than £6bn on commercial property, according to estate agent Savills. The coronavirus crisis means that their residents could end up paying through higher taxes or degraded services. With the nation’s shops, bars and restaurants forced to shut, only about a third of their £2.5bn of quarterly rents were paid last month. Cash-strapped tenants are unlikely to loosen their purse strings by the next quarter. Some will simply not survive. “These retail centres are quickly going from being a cash generator to a cash drag for councils. Ratepayers will end up with a load of council-level debt racked up from bad decision-making,” said Sam Resouly, a partner at investment firm Trinova. In many instances, local authorities have bought shopping centres in their own areas from private owners too beset with debt to invest in improving them, aiming to bring on regeneration. More controversially, some councils, such as Spelthorne, have bought elsewhere, hoping that the income generated will exceed the debt costs and offset some of the 25% budget cuts they have suffered in the past decade. Spelthorne spent £40m in February on the Elmsleigh centre in Staines, where the council is based. Tenants include troubled retailers such as Topshop and New Look. The office provider WeWork, which is skipping rent payments in an attempt to survive, is lead tenant at a west London block bought by Spelthorne for £170m in 2018. Councils typically take out cheap 30 – 40-year deals from the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB), which does not cap the amount they can borrow or require them to prove they can afford it. The debt binge has caused alarm at the Treasury, which increased the PWLB loan rate last year by one percentage point to 2.8%. Concerned that property speculation was depriving councils of finance for more conventional projects, the Treasury opened a consultation last month on revising the lending terms. Councils are on the hook to the private sector, too. Some have used “income strips”, where institutional investors make an upfront payment in return for inflation-linked repayments over decades. Two years ago, Gravesham council in Kent struck a 50-year income-strip deal with Aviva to finance the redevelopment of a tired retail mall into a bright and airy arcade. Last week’s launch party for the Rochdale Riverside centre was scuppered by Covid-19, but the Greater Manchester borough’s ability to pay down £80m of inflation-linked debt over 35 years may cause a far bigger headache. Since some of these deals were struck, the retail market has worsened significantly. Councils have spent £1bn on shopping centres in the past four years and bought more than a third of all those sold last year, according to estate agents Knight Frank. Analysts at Jefferies forecast that rents will fall by 14% this year and by another 7% next year. “Using income strips on shopping centres with public money is scandalous. Some of these council leaders will end up in front of select committees over this,” a leading property agent said. While many in the private sector are quick to criticise councils, they look at investments on a shorter time horizon than public sector bodies, which are also motivated by broader societal and economic benefits. “People working for councils are not muppets. Are they experts on shopping centres? No. But do they understand finance and risk? Yes,” said Mark Williams, a director of the investment firm RivingtonHark. Councils cannot be blamed for failing to foresee the coronavirus carnage, but that does not mean it will not hurt. According to Tony Travers, a professor at the London School of Economics, PWLB repayments rank above all other council outgoings — meaning that while the risk of outright default is negligible, some authorities will be forced into raising taxes or cutting services.
  11. What statistics? I know the pilot schemes showed no decrease in injuries so the decision to use them as the basis for a blanket 20 limit was baffling. But what has happened since they were introduced? I'd guess equally no impact otherwise we'd have been told.
  12. From the FT today. Auditor raises alarm at £6.6bn council property spree Fourteen-fold increase in deals as local authorities seek to plug funding gap The UK government’s spending watchdog has raised the alert over local authorities pouring billions of pounds into commercial property at a time when many private investors are shying away from the sector. The National Audit Office found councils had spent £6.6bn on shops and offices between 2017 and 2019, a 14-fold increase compared to the previous three years. Meg Hillier, chair of the public accounts committee, said it was understandable that councils were carrying out “risky investments” to get more money in. “However, a fourteen-fold increase in spend on commercial property raises serious alarm bells,” she said. “The [communities] department needs to take stock and ensure that there is protection for local taxpayers from local authorities acting as investment bankers. ” The NAO found the investments were focused on a small number of local authorities, with 49 out of 352 carrying out 80 per cent of the deals. Local authorities in the south east of England were highly active, accounting for 53 per cent of commercial property spending in the past three years. Spelthorne borough council in Surrey has blazed a trail, building up a portfolio of nearly £1bn of commercial property including BP’s £358m business campus in Sunbury-on-Thames. Other big spenders include Warrington borough council and Eastleigh borough council. Councils investing in property have seen “significant increases” in debt and in the cost of repayment, according to the authority. Some councils have justified their purchases as a way to ensure the survival of shopping centres or offices in their local areas — or to carry out regeneration projects. Local authorities face potential investment risks from buying commercial property, such as in the event of an economic recession or a downturn in a particular economic sector. But many have been investing in other parts of the country: 38 per cent of spending in the three-year period was on properties outside the buying council’s own geographical area. The NAO said there was a growing trend of authorities speculating in real estate to make up for deep cuts to their budgets: “A key motive of some authorities’ recent investments in commercial property has been generating rental income in order to offset reductions in their funding.” Local authority spending power — a mix of government grants and council tax — has fallen by 28.7 per cent in real terms since the start of public spending cuts in 2010-11. In a review of 45 authorities’ strategies for investment, the NAO found that all but three identified generating income as a significant objective. “Local authorities face potential investment risks from buying commercial property, such as in the event of an economic recession or a downturn in a particular economic sector, particularly where authorities are dependent on their rental income to keep up with debt repayments or fund local services,” the watchdog said. “The scale of spending and borrowing by some authorities in recent years leaves them potentially exposed to these risks.” Retail property in particular has been under relentless pressure with rents falling as competition from online shopping has forced traditional outlets into administration. Some councils had mitigated risks by recruiting specialist staff, undertaking due diligence and using external expertise. “Nonetheless, local external auditors indicated to the NAO that there was room for improvement in the governance and risk mitigation arrangements of some authorities,” the report said. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) is responsible for the framework of statutory codes and guidance that set the parameters for local authority borrowing and capital spending. It has recently tightened up that guidance. But the NAO said: “Recent activity has raised questions about the extent to which MHCLG can rely on the framework in its present form to support local authorities to make decisions which provide the taxpayer with good value for money.” The NAO identified various risks including “specific risk” — such as the length of the lease of the financial strength of tenants — as well as “systematic risk” in terms of market movements in commercial property. “In recent years, systematic risk is apparent in the performance of the retail sector with the shift to online sales, among other factors, leading to growth in vacancy and void rates,” it said.
  13. People can have lots of reasons for remaining anonymous Geoff, only some of which are malicious. You and I have communicated under my real name and I have no problem doing so in direct interactions. I just don't want to do so on a public forum. Talking of this though, how often do we see the council hiding behind an anonymous 'spokesperson' whenever anything controversial happens or on an issue which has the potential to cause an individual a problem? You'll find councilors and senior officers queuing up to be associated with good things, yet the moment anything goes wrong or needs somebody to be held accountable, suddenly the only person available is 'a spokesman'. Here's a perfect example from the other day. https://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/2020/02/04/progress-being-made-on-refurbishing-swing-bridges/ Then you have the council's propensity to blame people who have died or retired. Did nobody at the council really notice about the payments for Hatters Row for 30 years until somebody was in the ground? Do you object to all of that? Especially from people who are on six figure salaries precisely because being accountable is what they are supposedly paid so much for. And one person in particular. Naming no names obv but you know who I mean. He suddenly found out about Hatters Row when the person he claims is responsible had recently died? Do me a favour. Let's call this person at the council Simon Brushhead to protect his anonymity. He's been at the council at various times for a quarter of a century. And he never knew about this until a former employee was dead? Edit: How could I forget the anonymous Labour councillor who suggested to Chris Vobe that ‘the Labour Party would be better off if you found a packet of razor blades and did away with yourself’?
  • Create New...