Creditors grab the Brunel Centre

In a rather complex chain of financial transactions, it appears that the Brunel Centre has been forced into the hands of ‘fixed charge receivers’ by the fall in property values in recent years. The centre — which is owned by a Jersey-registered company — had breached some of the terms of a loan — traded on the Irish stock exchange — of over £110 M in the first half of last year. The creditor’s agent — appointed after the default — had also had the centre revalued, reducing its worth by almost a third, down to £87 M, less than the value of the loan. The closure of the Liquid & Envy nightclub was estimated to have lost the centre income of £90,000, but this was less than 4% of their total income.

With the loan due for repayment on 25 April this year, and with over £100 M of the loan still outstanding, the creditors were clearly getting worried about the chances of getting their money back, and have taken possession whilst considering options, including the possibility of selling the centre. The appointment of receivers was announced on 22 December.

Garry Perkins’ reverse commitments

The universe occupied by Mr Perkins is clearly a very topsy-turvy place. In all other places, if one wants to show commitment financially, one gives money rather than taking it. In the Perkinverse, it’s the other way round, Thus with several public sector bodies — including Swindon Borough Council — stumping up £3.5 M to remodel Whalebridge roundabout, as a prerequisite to Muse even starting their Union Square development, Mr Perkins is claiming that this shows commitment by Muse.

The fact that there’s £4 M invested shows Swindon is serious, it shows Muse is serious.

And even the first phase of the Union Square development will mainly be paid for ultimately by the public sector. It consists of a car park — that Swindon Borough Council will buy — sheltered housing, and a health centre — to replace the NHS Carfax Health Centre which will be demolished to make way for the main part of Union Square.

The only commitment in evidence here is that of Swindon taxpayers’ money, being spent up-front, well before the commercial developers have even submitted detailed plans.

Wi-fi’s dead — long live wifi!

The report to next week’s special cabinet meeting of Swindon Borough Council makes it clear that their venture with our money to bring wifi to the whole of Swindon is dead.

So far as the Council’s interests in Digital City is concerned, further legal and financial advice will be required in this matter following which it is suggested that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, be authorised to take such action as he considers necessary to protect and, if appropriate conclude, the Council’s interests in Digital City and ensure that the network assets deployed in Highworth are transferred in the first instance to the Council’s ownership.

Conclude the Council’s interests, i.e. dead, finished, failed. And do we get any apology for that failure? No. Far from it. In fact, reading the report you could be forgiven for thinking the project had been a success.

Despite Digital City having failed to make interest repayments since late 2010, the granting of the loan has still proved to be financially advantageous for the Council. Sums received in interest and arrangement fees total £10.5k, while investment of the sums advanced to the company would have generated £6.9k to date at the Council’s average investment rate of return.

Let’ forget, shall we, that the original proposal said that Digital City would have repaid its £450k loan from us, the tax payers of Swindon, in full within two years. Instead, lets just be grateful. for £10.5k.

In place of an apology, we get a new proposed scheme, between Swindon Borough Council, an unnamed investor “under the ultimate ownership of a Global Telecommunications Company with annual revenues in excess of $3b US.” and that company well known for successful IT projects, Capita. Capita already provides numerous services to Swindon Borough Council. The report gives no indication as to whether Swindon Borough Council would have to stump up more of our money for this deal to go ahead. It also tries to suggest that the return on this new investment will constitute a return on the investment in Digital City (UK) Ltd.

The financial return to the Council is, therefore, enhanced by its investment in Digital City and the resulting Highworth pilot and the Council will now get a return on its investment. This will equate to the loan advance of £400k plus interest by year five or earlier depending on revenue share and this financial benefit will continue to accrue in future years…. Through these arrangements with Capita, SBC has the potential to receive significant return based on sales targets being achieved over 5 years, part of which will be credited against the loan of £400k to Digital City, and accumulated interest. Current indications are that this amount is likely to be repaid over approximately 5 years.

5 years? That’s in addition to the 2 years over which the loan to Digital City (UK) Ltd was meant to be repaid. And unless this new investor is going to take over the assets and liabilities of Digital City (UK) Ltd, then to suggest that this is a repayment of the loan to that company is the most creative of creative accounting. As the report makes clear, no such takeover is envisioned.

The Council’s intention will be to secure an orderly extraction of our interests from Digital City, with its assets being transferred to SBC to ensure that the Highworth infrastructure is kept intact. To ensure this happens, it is suggested that the Chief Executive be authorised, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, to take such action as he considers necessary to protect and, if appropriate, conclude the Council’s interests in Digital City and ensure that the network assets deployed in Highworth are transferred in the first instance to the Council’s ownership.

So effectively, Swindon Borough Council will exercise its rights under the loan agreement with Digital City (UK) Ltd and take over the company’s network assets. It will then enter a new venture with Capita and an unnamed company. On that basis, the new venture will owe nothing from the first, despite what the report may try to suggest.

The report to Swindon Borough Council’s cabinet is written my Mr Hitesh Patel. Mr Patel is an ex-director of Digital City (UK) Ltd. Mr Patel was also an author of the original recommendation to councillors to invest in Digital City (UK) Ltd. Perhaps, then, it’s unsurprising that he writes about that investment in such glowing terms. But given how poor his advice was the first time around, and that he didn’t know he was already a director of the company he was recommending an investment in, would anyone with any sense really trust his advice again? But then, would anyone with sense have made the first investment? Answers to that on a no-questions-asked cheque for £450k please.

Market failure

Started a year ago with some fanfare, Wood Street Farmers’ Market has slowly withered away. For the first few months it served as a Christmas Market, with craft stalls to accompany the food stalls. It brought so much trade that many of the shops in Wood Street opened on the Sundays it was there. But after Christmas 2010, with most of the craft stalls gone, interest dropped. In late spring the food stalls started to abandon it too and the shops went back to being closed on Sundays. Now all that are left are a bread stall; two meat stalls — one selling burgers as a take-away as well as raw meat, the other just selling hot pork rolls — a photographer, and a burger stall selling candy floss.

In many ways Wood Street is the ideal place for a market, but with competition from the Sunday Farmers’ Market at the Designer Outlet — which many of the stallholders in Wood Street also attended — and little reason to visit Old Town on a Sunday apart from the market, it was always likely to struggle.

Bluh’s wifi hindsight was others’ foresight

It seems that the current leadership of Swindon Borough Council are going through a rather ‘retro’ phase at the moment, claiming for themselves as original thoughts ideas put forward by others years ago. First there was Mr Perkins who claimed that creating a park on derelict town centre sites await redevelopment was his idea, whereas local residents suggested it in April 2008. Now it seems that Mr Bluh wants to get in on the act too.

Now, whilst it’s always refreshing — and all too rare — when a politician admits they got things wrong, Mr Bluh has a particularly unrefreshing way of admitting his errors. In fact he does so in a way that suggests he doesn’t accept he’s failed in any way at all. As long ago as December 2009 local residents — some that were members of his own political party — were pointing out how risky his decision to invest almost £½M of our money in a wi-fi start-up company was. A company lead by someone with no track record in the industry; a company where directors seemed not to know they were directors, and a company where the directors that did realise they were directors didn’t understand what their responsibilities are. So for Mr Bluh to now say,

We did all the due diligence but perhaps in hindsight we should have looked at the risk factors a bit harder.

is little better than an admission of total economic blindness. For Mr Bluh to only recognise with hindsight what others with just a little foresight have been telling him for almost two years is, though welcome, inadequate. And at the risk of stating the obvious, if they didn’t look at the risk factors hard enough, then they clearly didn’t do all the due diligence, only some of it.

We were prepared to take the risk and we felt it was a managed risk at the time and, with hindsight, perhaps it wasn’t the best risk.

Even if it were managed at the time — which is disputable — the council then chose to relax that management, disregarding concerns that were raised. Again, there’s no hindsight required here, all the evidence was available at the time, and pointed out repeatedly to Mr Bluh, but he wilfully chose to ignore it. Until he shows some signs of admitting that this isn’t just a matter of hindsight, but something he should have and easily could have avoided, there’s no reason to believe Mr Bluh won’t be squandering our money yet again.

Digital City (UK) Ltd, R.I.P.

Hard on the news that John Richard ‘Rikki’ Hunt has filed for bankruptcy, comes the news that Digital City (UK) Ltd is now in the process of being struck off the register of companies. So that’s £½M of Swindon taxpayers’ money gone, despite the assurances of the Messrs Bluh and Perkins that the equipment installed by the company and the use that could be made of that was worth more than the loan to them from Swindon Borough Council, that it was a no-lose proposition. How a patchy wireless internet service for Highworth, and nowhere other than Highworth, could be worth £½M is hard to see, but that is all we got for the money our councillors squandered on our behalf on this project.

Lest we forget, here are a few things said about this failed adventure with our money by Mr Bluh in December 2009.

This is a commercial decision, in the new world in which we all live more and more commercial decisions will be made. An opportunity was put to us, and we were asked if we wanted to invest…. This is a commercial venture that will bring commercial return. The only affects on capital budgets will be if this loan does not get repaid in full…. To get a reasonable level of council tax and to go forward we have been required to find savings and efficiencies. We are doing everything that is humanly possible to keep this ship afloat.

The ship was holed below the waterline before Mr Bluh squandered our money on it, and is now sinking rapidly to the bottom of the ocean. There were many that brought this to the attention of our arrogant council leadership at the time. They wilfully chose not to listen. Now it will be us, the council taxpayers, rather than those councillors personally, that will be paying for their financial stupidity.

The fall and fall of Rikki Hunt

Once upon a time, not so long ago, the likes of Mr Bluh and Mr Perkins were fond of telling the people of Swindon what a great person they thought Mr John Richard ‘Rikki’ Hunt was. How they thought he was a great person to be leading a company to which they had loaned almost £½M of Swindon taxpayers’ money because, in their view, he was a very experienced business man from which Swindon would benefit.

Of course not all experience is equal. Eddie ‘The Eagle’ Edwards had much experience of ski-jumping… and of coming last. Mr Hunt has now managed the same feat as a business man, going bankrupt to the tune of over £1M, including over £400,000 to the tax-man. As he filed for bankruptcy on 8 March this year, it also puts some perspective on his apparent generosity in ‘gifting’ to Swindon Borough Council his stake in the failed wi-fi company for which he had convinced the aforementioned gullible councillors to part with our money. It would have been no financial loss to him, only to his creditors.

Mr Hunt’s involvement with wifi company Digital City (UK) Ltd was via a consultancy company he set up for that purpose, Avidity Consulting Ltd. That company is now in the process of being struck off the register of companies. How much Avidity received from Digital City — and so indirectly from Swindon taxpayers — for its consultancy services has never been revealed. Also of note, before anyone is overcome with sympathy for Mr Hunt’s predicament, is that his wife, Laura Hunt, is not bankrupt, remaining a company director. For the Hunts, Rikki’s bankruptcy may be little more than a minor business inconvenience, rather than a case of serious financial hardship.

Bailing out before a bail out

It is normal practice in any private sector company for the executive to have shares either in that company or, is a subsidiary of some larger organisation, in the parent company. For companies traded on a stock market it is often mandatory for the directors to own shares in their company. That way it ensures that their own well-being is most likely to be guaranteed by them ensuring the well-being of their fellow shareholders. A director without shares in their company — according to the accepted logic — is more likely to perform acts of reckless self-interest that damages the company that employs them.

So when Mr John Richard ‘Rikki’ Hunt claims he is going to ‘gift’ his 30% stake in his failing wifi company Digital City (UK) Ltd to Swindon Borough Council, should that be seen as an act of generosity? No. Given that the company has been unable to keep up its loan repayments to the council, and that it has failed almost every target it has set itself, its debatable whether those shares are worth anything anyway. And now Mr Hunt wishes to remain chief executive of the company he’s lead to failure, yet without the financial incentive almost every other company deems essential to ensure a chief executive does their best for the shareholders. That would seem to be a recipe for financial disaster, though Mr Hunt seems to already have achieved that in a fairly comprehensive manner.

Mr Hunt claims that his company was damaged by public criticism.

There has been a lot of effect on the business with the public noise and debates that have gone on… the kind that is politically damaging to us and the aggression towards the project.

Is political discussion really a surprise when he went looking for funding from politicians? And lets be clear, there has been no ‘aggression’ towards ‘the project’, only to the secretive way in which the decision was made to pour the money of Swindon taxpayers into a company that on the evidence available to those taxpayers at the time had no track record in its industry, no credible plans, and no understanding of the market it was entering. The criticisms remain valid, and the taxpayers of Swindon are currently £½M poorer as a result.

The responsibilities of a director

When Mr Perkins was appointed as a director of Digital City (UK) Ltd last year, I was told by Mr Bluh that he was selected to represent Swindon Borough Council on the company’s board because of his skill and experience in business. The company of which Mr Perkins is a director has failed to make payments on its loan from the council… and that failure pre-dated by a month Mr Perkins claiming that payments were still being made. According to Mr Perkins, that’s all fine and dandy.

I was asked in December whether it was up to date with its payments, and I said yes — because that’s what I had been told. When I made that statement it was correct, based on the information I had at the time.

Perhaps it’s time that Mr Perkins reminded himself of his obligations under the Companies Act 2006.

(1) A director of a company must exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence.
(2) This means the care, skill and diligence that would be exercised by a reasonably diligent person with—
(a) the general knowledge, skill and experience that may reasonably be expected of a person carrying out the functions carried out by the director in relation to the company, and
(b) the general knowledge, skill and experience that the director has.

At the moment, Mr Perkins’s diligence in checking his facts before making public statements about Digital City (UK) Ltd appears to be falling far short of reasonable expectations.

Swindon Borough Council top pay

Some research by the BBC has revealed the remuneration of the highest paid across the public sector, those paid over £100,000. The figures for Swindon Borough Council are interesting not so much for the figures themselves, but for the apparent coyness of the council, in several places giving neither name nor post of the person in receipt of this largess.

Name	Job Description	Total remuneration
No name supplied		£177,500
No name supplied		£142,500
No name supplied	Group Director Environment & Regeneration	£140,352
Gavin Jones	Chief Executive	£138,525
No name supplied	Group Director Childrens’ Services	£138,370
No name supplied		£137,500
No name supplied	Group Director Business Transformation	£130,112
No name supplied		£127,500
No name supplied	Director of Housing and Leisure	£114,066
No name supplied		£112,500
No name supplied		£112,500
No name supplied	Director of Finance	£100,678

One can only hope that their achievements are rather less anonymous than their identities.

The efficient approach to building restoration

In these economically tightened times, how do you go about restoring a building in the most efficient way possible? Don’t know? Never mind, let Swindon Commercial Services be your guide.

First, get some banners specially made, that’ll only be of use for this one job.

Next, give someone that most strenuous of tasks: being the ’elf ’n’ safety guard who stops pedestrians blundering into the path of passing buses, ’cos the pavement has been cordoned off.


Then hide those specially prepared signs with big wooden hoardings.

Finally, as noted by Swindon Centric, paint the hoardings white. It’s nice to know that the newly pseudo-independent SCS is spending our money so carefully.

Update, Tuesday, 27 July 2010: As expected, the hoardings have now been fully painted in traditional white, ready for the graffiti taggers to do their worst.

What expenditure isn’t protected?

With the local blue councillors claiming first that expenditure on big arts events is not ‘not a priority’ and then that the programme of upgrades to play areas will be protected, I’m beginning to wonder whether there’s any scheme that — when challenged — they won’t claim is protected, despite their impending emergency budget.

But then, if that accounting genius, Mr Bluh, can claim that ‘the value is not related to money’ we really shouldn’t be surprised that Swindon Borough Council’s budget is in such a mess.

Swindon Tories back socialist town centre

The boys in Bluh ensconced in Swindon Borough Council are rapidly becoming the least conservative Conservatives in the country. What other Conservative controlled council would go for a government funded, local-government owned town centre regeneration? So far the only part of the regeneration of Swindon town centre to be privately funded is the rebuilding of the BHS store — which was never part of the New Swindon Company’s grand scheme. The big screen in Wharf Green belongs to the BBC. Repaving of Canal Walk and Regent Street is funded from government grants. Now the council is propping up the Union Square development by buying a car park for over £14M from developers Muse.

Last November, we were told that work on Union Square would be ‘starting on site in summer 2010’. As I said back then, never believe a project plan based on the seasons. Summer 2010 is here, but nothing’s happened, not even a planning application. As recently as December, Mr Bluh told us ‘We have the Union Square development going ahead’. As is so often the case, the easy way to tell whether Mr Bluh is spouting ignorant twaddle is to see if his lips are moving.

Last week, buried in a cabinet report ostensibly about lowering the charges at the council’s town centre car parks were options for splurging more of our money. The report makes it clear how ill-informed Mr Bluh’s earlier comments were.

It is clear that if the Council is unable to take up an option on the car park, the development would remain unviable in the current market. MUSE have indicated that they would mothball the project and unless there is a significant improvement in the economic situation, there would be unlikely to be any redevelopment for the foreseeable future.

And thus it is that the residents of Swindon once again find themselves at risk of picking up the financial tab for one of Mr Bluh’s grandiose schemes.

Hat-tip: Bogomil on TalkSwindon.

Dial-a-cut

I’d not been aware that social and community transport is a hotbed of international competition, with companies from other EU countries queuing up for a piece of the action. Indeed, given the strength of the UK’s bus industry — Stagecoach, First Group and National Express are all international operations with the only strong overseas presence in the UK being French state owned Transdev and imminently German state owned Arriva — and community transport being almost by definition transport services that are highly unviable commercially, it would be amazing if that ever were to be the case. However, Swindon Borough Council seems to believe that European community bus operators will be queuing out the door if they put out to tender the service currently provided by Swindon Dial A Ride.

’Tis odd that Swindon Borough Council is happy to apply European competition law to a small non-commercial transport operation, yet elsewhere claims it’s irrelevant to giving almost £½M to a company launching a service in what’s already a highly competitive industry.

Update, 22:11 Thursday 27 May. Apparently, the EU regulation being used by the council is one specific to public transport rather than the general competition-related regulations originally thought. But it’s a regulation that specifically defines ‘public passenger transport’ to exclude services such as social dial-a-ride services.

Fountain or folly?

I’m sure that, on paper, the new fountain at the crossroads of Canal Walk, Bridge Street and Regent Street was a good idea. I’m sure that, in model form, the water cascaded nicely down what is now almost £¼M of curvy metal and into the drains below. But the reality is somewhat different.

I passed the fountain this morning. There were no children playing around the fountain then, but the flow of water was just a trickle, and what little water there was was mainly splashing on the paving rather than running through the drainage grills. Come the winter, just how long will it take for Swindon Borough Council to be the recipient of an insurance claim for a fall on ice from the fountain? It could be better; it should be better; perhaps with a few tweaks it will be better, but for the moment the fountain looks like an expensive folly.

Negativity

At tonight’s meeting of Swindon Borough Council’s cabinet Mr Bluh complained at length about the ‘negativity’ of some commentators on the decision to spend almost £½M of Swindon taxpayers’ money of wifi. According to Mr Bluh and Mr Edwards it is ‘offensive’ for anyone to raise concerns about the process by which they made their decision to spend our money. On that basis, Messrs Bluh and Edwards clearly find at least two of their own cabinet colleagues offensive.

Mr Perkins said that if it was up to him, Digital City (UK) Ltd’s business case would have been published. It remains a secret, accessible to only a few and only under strict conditions. Mr Greenhalgh said he had ‘concerns about the legality’ of the earlier decision. It was notable that when Mr Bluh tried to say that the external auditor had investigated the process and had no concerns, the borough solicitor felt the need to intervene and correct that statement. Both Mr Bluh and Mr Hunt seem eager to move on and end the discussion about the legitimacy of the council’s funding of this project. Perhaps that’s because the questions are both persistent and difficult for them to answer.

Mr Bluh also seems to be trying to rewrite history. He now claims that the decision made by three council officers on the advice of just himself and Mr Edwards was ‘a cabinet decision’. Again, the borough solicitor felt the need to intervene and correct that statement. For any that might be inclined to believe Mr Bluh when he says this was a cabinet decision, here is a reminder of what was said by the council in response to a Freedom of Information request.

Decision Makers – these are the three authors of the briefing note.

Those authors were the Director of Finance (Mr McKellar), the Director of Law and Democratic Services (Mr Taylor) and the Group Director Business Transformation (Mr Patel). That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a cabinet decision.

There are some other discrepancies. Mr Greenhalgh raised concerns about whether it was appropriate for Mr Patel to have been a director of Digital City (UK) Ltd and to have written the briefing note to Messrs Bluh and Edwards and to be one of those conducting a risk assessment the company’s plans. According to the borough solicitor, Mr Patel is just an observer on the company’s board, not formally appointed. That is not how it appears in the records of Companies House.

When his own cabinet colleauges have serious concerns, when a former council leader from his own party, Mr Bawden, was shaking his head through much of what Mr Bluh had to say, surely even the most arrogant and vain of council leaders would realise they had made a mistake? In the case of Mr Bluh it would seem not.

Update, 01:17, Sunday, 14 March 2010: Mr Patel’s directorship of Digital City (UK) Ltd has now been terminated, on Friday 12 March 2010.

Delusions of importance

In a puff for himself in the Adver, Mr Hunt makes grand claims for the historical importance of the wi-fi project he’s running at our expense.

It’s as ground breaking and significant today as the introduction of the Penny Post or the motor car or the aeroplane were to our fore-fathers…. Daniel Gooch identified Swindon as the ideal location for the Brunel’s Great Western Railway works. The decision turned a small market town into a transport, communications and economic power house. A century later, Swindon was still at the forefront of national innovation and social inclusion. Aneurin Bevan MP, determined to create a National Health Service offering every member of society cradle-to-grave healthcare, visited Swindon to see how Gooch’s GWR Medical Fund, paid for by employees’ contributions, worked in practice…. A complete health service, and all we had to do was to expand it to embrace the whole country.

Of course, Mr Hunt cannot know whether this new service will be as trailblazing as those he compares it with; only history will tell. What we do know is that some of Mr Hunt’s claims are, at the least, exaggerated.

Yes, this is new, and it’s brave. But that’s the beauty and the strength of it.

A quick internet search for ‘free city wide wifi’ shows it’s far from new and the only bravery is in the risk being taken with almost £½M of Swindon taxpayers’ money.

[S]mall and medium enterprises, who instead of having to maintain their own networks will be able to rely on Signal

An internet service provider that plans a break of service in the middle of the working day is not one I’d wish to rely on.

Down the line, costs of sending and receiving texts and emails when abroad will plummet with Signal.

For a company that already seems to be short of cash, that’s a very long way down the line, unless Mr Hunt thinks his competitors are going to give his company cheap access to their networks. From the evidence of the internet deals being offered in Swindon by the companies of Messrs Branson and Murdoch, their main aim at the moment seems to be to price Mr Hunt out of business.

It will even allow more efficient energy distribution throughout the national grid.

That assumes that National Grid would want to sign up for an account: as a company that have themselves been an internet service provider with past experience in wireless communications, that seems unlikely.

I understand there are those that doubt the benefits that wi-fi can bring to our whole town, and the wisdom of the council’s partnership with Digital City. But I am also sure there were those who doubted Gooch and Bevan at the time.

No Mr Hunt, that shows you don’t understand the concerns at all. Those are concerns about the secrecy surrounding this decision and whether due process was followed.

If Mr Hunt wishes to be compared to Messrs Gooch and Bevan, he first needs to prove that he can match their achievements. From the evidence available at the moment, £150,000 of Swindon taxpayers’ money has bought just 5 paying customers when the target at this stage was 125. As a record of achievement, that’s hardly a stunning start.

Contemptuous — pouring our money after bad

It seem that the wi-fi company to which Swindon Borough Council has loaned almost £½M of our money may be running a little short of cash. At a meeting of the council’s cabinet this coming Wednesday, there is a request to significantly relax some of the conditions of the loan.

Whilst fifteen out of the original nineteen Highworth progress measures have been considered to have been met, four have not been fully met to date…. These four measures, however, do not represent a significant enough risk to justify placing constraints on generating revenue by slowing down the roll-out of the Wi-Fi network across the rest of Swindon. All four measures are still expected to be achieved, however, variations are requested on the timing and scale of these.

Four out of 19 measures failed is not good, especially as they are some of the more measurable measures. And the failure to fulfil them indicates that the business case was significantly less robust than the likes of Mr Bluh would have us believe.

Measure 1: Originally stated: “Highworth network installed, working and accessible.”
Proposed variation: Highworth network installed, working and accessible to 90% of households and a commitment made that the two remaining router installations that enable consistent coverage for the outstanding 10% of Highworth will be completed within a week of planning consent being granted.

That’s not too significant of itself: 100% coverage is never a sensible measure. That it’s a consequence of the company not noticing that there are hills in Highworth, is rather more worrying. One would hope that they have learnt from this.

Measure 2: Originally stated: “Private sector sponsorship or commitment to future funding, to the value of at least £20,000, secured by end of Quarter 1.”
Proposed Variation: Expressions of interest received from the private and or public sector for investment once a Borough wide network is available.

So that’s replacing private sector money with a vague promise of more tax-payers’ money.

Measure 3: Originally stated: “Sold – at least 100 private use packages by the end of Quarter 1.”
Measure 4: Originally stated: “Sold – at least 25 business packages by the end of Quarter 1.”
Proposed Variation: The measures 3 and 4 be combined and changed into a single measure : “Sold – some business and private packages by end March”.

That’s a clear, easily measurable sales target being replaced by something vague and far less stringent. Just how many less than 125 packages is ‘some’? The council paper states the number of ‘packages’ sold:

as of Monday the 2nd March 5 packages were sold.

5 out of a planned 100. That’s not just poor, that’s pathetic. Just how badly does the company need to fail to meet its sales targets for Mr Bluh to recognise a commercial disaster?

Mr Montaut has expressed some concerns about these changes.

I understand that the Conservative administration are eager to get wi-fi rolled out throughout the borough. However, there is an investigation into the wi-fi deal being undertaken by the council’s Internal Audit and there have been enquiries made by the district auditor into the deal…. The council and Digital City stand to be in a much worse financial position if the auditors find the wi-fi deal to be contemptuous.

As has become all too familiar, the response from Mr Bluh to those expressing concern, rather than addressing those concerns, is just dismissive.

I am deeply disappointed that the opposition party should be so desperate to score political points that they are willing to sabotage and undermine private sector investment in Swindon.

Just how stupid does Mr Bluh think we are? Since when has £½M of taxpayers’ money been regarded as private sector investment?

The Labour opposition is being contemptuous of the residents of the borough by failing to support this investment. The Labour opposition is jeopardising the borough’s economic future by trying to bring down Digital City.

The only contempt I can see is from Mr Bluh, who seems to behave as those this is his own private investment, rather than taxpayers’ money. Has Mr Bluh ever asked the residents of the borough if they wanted this investment?

Mr Hunt also appears either naïve or to take his funders — Swindon council tax payers — as fools.

First of all the investment is a contract — the council pull out of this, they break the contract and face penalties.

Err… remind me, who is it that has failed to meet 4 of 19 contractual obligations under the loan agreement?

This political scrap is 100 per cent damaging our business plan.

The plan seems rather damaged even without any political problems. And if you don’t like politics, you shouldn’t go begging for public sector money. And if Mr Hunt doesn’t like politics, he shouldn’t be making political comments himself.

It has been very, very frustrating and what stuns me is that the Labour group are preventing us getting on with rolling out free wi-fi, which is something that will increase social inclusion – something I thought was at the heart of their group.

Let’s also be clear that concern on this isn’t just political. If the decision to spend almost £½M of our money had been made openly, there would be far less concern. It was not. The basis on which the decision was made remains a secret. Whilst that secrecy remains, the scrutiny will continue. Investigation by the Audit Commission would be more than welcome.

The slash and burn approach to council budgeting

I don’t wish to appear churlish about Swindon Borough Council achieving a low council tax increase for the coming year but… if they can achieve an increase of just 1.8% following a year when the council’s other revenues (such as planning application fees) have collapsed, just why haven’t they achieved it before? Or perhaps it would be more pertinent to ask why they haven’t felt it appropriate to achieve such a small increase before. In principle, it should have been possible for them to achieve this level of increase in previous years putting far less strain on service provision, as the council’s finances were in a better state.

To go for broke — possibly literally — this year looks like little more than reckless pre general election posturing rather than carefully thought out financial planning.

Still unplanned

If I were someone who’d chosen, on the basis on minimal consultation, to stump-up almost £½M of local taxpayers’ money to the company intending to install wireless internet boroughwide across Swindon, I’d be feeling a little worried reading that company’s February update.

Things aren’t going according to plan. Just six weeks ago installation in Highworth was expected to be complete by mid-January. It’s now early February and work is still in progress.

[T]he installation in Highworth has not gone to plan. There are several reasons for this – topography, approvals and snow to name a few…. We have also had areas where there were no suitable lampposts and no public buildings to substitute. We have in the High Street spoken to retail businesses and begun to cover our black spots and hope to complete around the 15th.

Now I’m not aware of the approvals process for radio transmitters having changed in recent months. Nor have I seen reports of a mountain suddenly springing up in the middle of Highworth, nor of buildings and lampposts disappearing overnight. None of these could be regarded as unpredictable, and cold weather in winter is not a total surprise either.

Not only is the hardware side a bit awry, the marketing seems to have been off-target too.

Customer response in the main remains positive but we know we have frustrated many because we went live with the PR before we were ready, as a result are always playing catch up…. The following is our initial plan. In Highworth, from the end of February, we will carry out a leaflet drop, display window posters and place an advertisement in a community magazine. We will also be placing adverts for the free service (not yet designed) in as many public places as we will be allowed.

If they don’t know what the adverts will be nor where they will go, that’s more an initial guess than an ‘initial plan’.

To be fair, no start-up company will be anywhere near perfect: start-ups make mistakes… lots of them. And the openness with which the company is now talking about its progress is welcome. If this was all being done with private capital, whilst I might have a little fun at the company apparently being caught unawares by the presence of hills in the landscape, I wouldn’t be overly concerned. But this isn’t being done just with private capital.

There’s almost £½M of local taxpayers’ money invested in this. Taxpayers money invested in secret. Taxpayers money invested on the basis of a business case only a select few in the council have seen. A business for which the briefing to two councillors said marketing was key. If the business case was truly robust enough to warrant stumping up £450k of local taxpayers’ money, I wouldn’t expect things to be so far off plan as they are now.