This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2017/jan/20/garden-bridge-dont-bank-on-it-not-being-built

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Garden Bridge: don't bank on it not being built Garden Bridge: don't bank on it not being built
(about 17 hours later)
Enemies of the Garden Bridge, potentially the most permanent of Boris Johnson’s mayoral follies, have been encouraged by the trust responsible for building it saying in its latest annual report that it is “unable to conclude” that the project “is a going concern”. Its tardily released accounts for the year ending 31 March 2016 show that it needs to raise a further £56m to hit its target of £185m. On Wednesday, Johnson’s successor Sadiq Khan reaffirmed to the London Assembly that his support for the bridge is subject to “no new public funds being required.” Meanwhile, Dame Margaret Hodge MP is working on a review, commissioned by Khan, “to look in detail at the procurement process around the project”. Enemies of the Garden Bridge, potentially the most permanent of Boris Johnson’s mayoral follies, have been encouraged by the trust responsible for building it saying in its latest annual report that it is “unable to conclude” that the project “is a going concern”. Its tardily released accounts for the year ending 31 March 2016 show that it needs to raise a further £56m to hit its target of £185m. On Wednesday, Johnson’s successor Sadiq Khan reaffirmed to the London Assembly that his support for the bridge is subject to “no new public funds being required” having declared last May that it would cost the taxpayer more to cancel it that have it built. Meanwhile, Dame Margaret Hodge MP is working on a review, commissioned by Khan, “to look in detail at the procurement process around the project”.
So what are the chances of the bridge being built? Recognising that its future is at risk, the trust’s chair Lord Mervyn Davies concedes that unless rights to the necessary land on both sides of the Thames are secured and the further private funding raised, trustees “will need to consider further delay to the project, and in a worst case scenario, whether the project remains viable”. Yet pre-construction work has already been done, using the £60m received from the Department for Transport and Transport for London (of which £20m is being treated as a repayable TfL loan). Davies states that “our funding pipeline is strong” and that he “looks forward to starting construction in 2017”. In a letter to the Financial Times last October, he said he expected to “make major announcements involving international companies soon”.So what are the chances of the bridge being built? Recognising that its future is at risk, the trust’s chair Lord Mervyn Davies concedes that unless rights to the necessary land on both sides of the Thames are secured and the further private funding raised, trustees “will need to consider further delay to the project, and in a worst case scenario, whether the project remains viable”. Yet pre-construction work has already been done, using the £60m received from the Department for Transport and Transport for London (of which £20m is being treated as a repayable TfL loan). Davies states that “our funding pipeline is strong” and that he “looks forward to starting construction in 2017”. In a letter to the Financial Times last October, he said he expected to “make major announcements involving international companies soon”.
The mayor’s role in this is important. The project cannot proceed unless he provides guarantees for the future maintenance and operation of the bridge to Westminster (Conservative) and Lambeth (Labour) councils, which granted the planning permissions. Politicians urging him to sink the scheme include fellow Labourites. Others simply can’t understand why he has given house room to an enterprise that Khan himself seems to suspect is tainted by cronyism and lack of transparency. Such puzzlement is understandable, but maybe fails to allow for the mysteries of political manoeuvring.The mayor’s role in this is important. The project cannot proceed unless he provides guarantees for the future maintenance and operation of the bridge to Westminster (Conservative) and Lambeth (Labour) councils, which granted the planning permissions. Politicians urging him to sink the scheme include fellow Labourites. Others simply can’t understand why he has given house room to an enterprise that Khan himself seems to suspect is tainted by cronyism and lack of transparency. Such puzzlement is understandable, but maybe fails to allow for the mysteries of political manoeuvring.
In July 2015, an opinion poll commissioned by the trust found that nearly 80% of Londoners backed the Garden Bridge idea, even though it was already mired in controversy. Jump forward to February 2016, when hostilities in the London mayor election campaign were becoming most unseemly, and find Khan, while expressing misgivings about the deal Johnson had sanctioned, declaring that the bridge enjoyed his “full support”. His Conservative opponent, a fellow called Zac Goldsmith who was a big fan of the bridge, alleged that Khan was plotting to ditch the gestating product of Thomas Heatherwick’s foliage fantasia and Joanna Lumley’s breathy leverage, but Khan’s stance made the charge harder to sustain.In July 2015, an opinion poll commissioned by the trust found that nearly 80% of Londoners backed the Garden Bridge idea, even though it was already mired in controversy. Jump forward to February 2016, when hostilities in the London mayor election campaign were becoming most unseemly, and find Khan, while expressing misgivings about the deal Johnson had sanctioned, declaring that the bridge enjoyed his “full support”. His Conservative opponent, a fellow called Zac Goldsmith who was a big fan of the bridge, alleged that Khan was plotting to ditch the gestating product of Thomas Heatherwick’s foliage fantasia and Joanna Lumley’s breathy leverage, but Khan’s stance made the charge harder to sustain.
We can only guess at Khan’s true feelings about the bridge, but there is no question that he’s a steely pragmatist. Getting on the wrong side of what public opinion appeared to be, not to mention giving the Zac-backing, Boris-loving Evening Standard a chance to label him a killjoy, cannot have seemed a very good idea. But the move constrains him now. How can he U-turn on that “full support”?We can only guess at Khan’s true feelings about the bridge, but there is no question that he’s a steely pragmatist. Getting on the wrong side of what public opinion appeared to be, not to mention giving the Zac-backing, Boris-loving Evening Standard a chance to label him a killjoy, cannot have seemed a very good idea. But the move constrains him now. How can he U-turn on that “full support”?
There is a persuasive theory, expounded by Jonn Elledge at City Metric, that Khan is cancelling the Garden Bridge by stealth. Both his block on further TfL funding and the reputational damage that might be done by the Hodge review fit this line of thought. So might his attitude to those operational funding guarantees. A mayoral decision on them that Johnson signed off just before he left office remains in place, but Khan told the Assembly he’ll only adorn them with his signature “if I’m convinced no more London taxpayers’ money will be spent on the project”. This sounds like a contradiction. How can a guarantee to meet future costs provide a guarantee not to do so? City Hall, though, confirms that there is nothing to stop Khan amending Johnson’s decision - which is itself an amended version of a previous one - or reversing it.There is a persuasive theory, expounded by Jonn Elledge at City Metric, that Khan is cancelling the Garden Bridge by stealth. Both his block on further TfL funding and the reputational damage that might be done by the Hodge review fit this line of thought. So might his attitude to those operational funding guarantees. A mayoral decision on them that Johnson signed off just before he left office remains in place, but Khan told the Assembly he’ll only adorn them with his signature “if I’m convinced no more London taxpayers’ money will be spent on the project”. This sounds like a contradiction. How can a guarantee to meet future costs provide a guarantee not to do so? City Hall, though, confirms that there is nothing to stop Khan amending Johnson’s decision - which is itself an amended version of a previous one - or reversing it.
The wider context here is TfL’s strained finances, which Khan is accused by Tory opponents of placing in jeopardy with his four-year fares freeze. He therefore has every reason to demonstrate an intolerance of perceived wastefulness. Having inherited the Garden Bridge project and all the grief it has entailed, he wants to avoid it doing him political harm but also, with luck, have Johnson’s leafy cake and eat it. If the bridge fails, he’ll be able to say it was not his fault. If it succeeds, there will be photo ops in front of lovely shrubs and, let’s not forget, maybe lots of happy happy Londoners too. Don’t rule out the Garden Bridge being built for as long as that possibility remains. The wider context here is TfL’s strained finances, which Khan is accused by Tory opponents of placing in jeopardy with his four-year fares freeze. He therefore has every reason to demonstrate an intolerance of perceived wastefulness. Having inherited the Garden Bridge project and all the grief it has entailed, he wants to avoid it doing him political harm but also, with luck, have Johnson’s leafy cake and eat it. If the bridge fails, he’ll be able to say it was not his fault. If it succeeds, there will be photo ops in front of lovely shrubs and, let’s not forget, maybe lots of happy Londoners too. For as long as that is a possibility, don’t rule out the Garden Bridge being built.