Sounds like a good plan; 2 buildings that basically need rearing town will be replaced by housing, car parking and what sounds like much needed new council offices: http://www.warwickcourier.co.uk/news...ntre-1-7330743
Sounds like a good plan; 2 buildings that basically need rearing town will be replaced by housing, car parking and what sounds like much needed new council offices: http://www.warwickcourier.co.uk/news...ntre-1-7330743
Well, Coventry's figures don't stack up for their new headquarters, I hope these do.
I doubt the £300,000 the council claims it will save will translate into reduced council tax bills: http://www.leamingtoncourier.co.uk/n...iled-1-7961827
plus £300,000 a year saving: what's not to like?...the new Council headquarters should cost the council nothing
It's high time those suggesting these figures should be held accountable. And when the savings don't materialise (because they won't!) they should be held for malfeasance in public office and face doing time for misleading (lying to) the general public.
Get a political party to put that in their manifesto and you have the UK political system sewn up for years to come.
If this goes the way public sector projects tend to, the sale of the old offices will be significantly less than expected, the cost of the new building will be significantly over budget, and any savings will just disappear in the general inefficient governmental machine (maybe with a bit left over for a couple of vanity projects, or something actually useful just before an election).
Which proves that those doing the jobs aren't doing a very good job at all.
Of all the projects I have run, I've never run over budget and I've only over run on time a couple of times, and those times were down to ever moving goal-posts.
This lack of performance in the public sector is not on, and we ought not allow it. People must be held accountable to their promises.
Office sharing's been rejected: http://www.stratford-herald.com/7349...-rejected.html
The plans have been submitted. I'm not convinced the numbers work out, but no doubt the scheme will be waved through anyway: http://www.leamingtoncourier.co.uk/n...tted-1-8161014
The leader of the council ought be held personally responsible for this. If (when) it doesn't pan out as the electorate are led to believe, his assets ought be up for grabs.
It's all going ahead: https://www.leamingtoncourier.co.uk/...ight-1-8323428
I stand by my previous comment.
Of course it'll fit, you just need a bigger hammer.
There'll be a lot of parking disruption for a couple of years while the building work takes place: https://www.leamingtoncourier.co.uk/...gton-1-8354539
More controversy around the scheme: https://www.leamingtoncourier.co.uk/...ject-1-8362683
I ts time all councils were accountable for every penny. Businesses have to do it , so why not them.
From money gleaned from developments, the extortionate cost for getting plans passed. handouts for permission for building student homes money-its not done for nothing, and rents from these. in fact everything which goes both in and out. Car parking, parking fines and hundreds of other costs too numerous to mention.Oh , and all grants received.
We'd find there is enough money to do everything without all these 'cuts' dreamed up every other week.
This would include grants, so that the public could keep tabs onhow it is spent.
How many grants has the council received for roads and pavements and lighting over the past ten years or so? What has it been used for?
We need to know exactly where the money comes from and where it goes.
Perhaps every two years would be kinder knowing how slow they are.
And--everyone should be able to receive a copy.People work hard to keep their homes going and pay for the services.
I d like to see how my money is spent.
Last edited by cathidaw; 04-02-2018 at 12:16 AM.
A bit of a U-turn on the parking plans: https://www.leamingtoncourier.co.uk/...plan-1-8361118
A bit of a spanner in the works for WDC:https://www.leamingtoncourier.co.uk/...lace-1-8442656
Bookmarks