Council spends £400k on consultancy fees (From Watford Observer)

Why do we need a bridge over the pond? A senseless waste of money.

Saddly it appears its money that has to be spent on this type of project or it gets returned to developers.

I agree a bridge is rather pointless, there must be some better project that particular bit of money could be spent on?

garston tony wrote:
Saddly it appears its money that has to be spent on this type of project or it gets returned to developers.

I agree a bridge is rather pointless, there must be some better project that particular bit of money could be spent on?

How about doing away with bridge and using the money to give someone a year rent and rates free on the old Artichoke pub. That would spruce up the area more than a pointless bridge.

I've been following the consultation program. The website feedback on the plans is not overwhelmingly positive. If anything it's decidedly negative, with many people being in favour of retaining the status quo and exercising financial prudence.

Pointless waste of dosh, Dorothy. Maybe it's time to give way to an austerity mayor, i.e. one with a bit of common sense.

Well done Dorothy. The money spent is a snip. As for the mean minded critics on here whingeing about a few pence on their council tax; I suppose they would rather that the top of our town degenerates into a cesspit similar to Luton or Harrow. The bridge over the pond sounds imaginative but will not excite those stuck in Victorian times.

Here's a blast from the past....

"Mike Watford says...
9:23am Wed 6 Jun 12

Reg Edit wrote:
Looks like the Lib Dems have got it wrong again. Can anyone tell me how much Dotty and her dotty followers (quite an apt description) have spent on this project so far, just getting these plans drawn up? Let me guess. Half a million? More? Can one of the Liberal Democrat moles on this forum
give us a true figure?

Mike then replied...
Your name calling is SO boring!...and then you pluck figures out the air (ie make them up) = not credible"

--------------------
--------------
That's a little something from a previous article on this revamp, where Mike from Watford accused me of making up figures. Thanks Mike.

OK, I said £500,000 on consultants, this says £439,000. Let's add on the costs of the Watford Council to make this happen. Are we getting close to £500,000 yet?

Not far off, actually, was I mike?

None of this changes the fact it is a complete waste of money by the dotty mayor of Watford. A bridge over the pond beggars belief, but the whole scheme is a wasteful vanity project for the Liberal council.

@Honest Rog.
The money that has been spent has not come from council tax but from a development grant that has to be spent on infrastructure. But by spending that grant in this way, other areas of infrastructure that need updating will likely have to be funded by tax receipts.
The Parade and Upper High Street have been regenerated several times over during the last 50 years, whilst other areas have been left to go to rack and ruin. The Lower High Street, for example, is a concrete jungle, especially at Dalton Way covered as it is with rusty iron railings, broken glass and more of pedestrian obstacle course than the Krypton Factor?
There are smaller shopping arcades dotted throughout the communities which could benefit from investment - Queens Road Broadway, Vicarage Road, the corner of Harwoods, Euston Avenue, Garston Parade, Courtlands Drive... loads of streets with corner shops opening onto broken flagstoned pavements with no security, inadequate lighting, dog mess everywhere, no beauty.
There are many areas of commercial development too, small light industry workshops, garages, offices, that are just depressing to look at and which become no-go areas once the workers have finished for the day.
What about sorting out the perennial traffic jams at Bushey Arches or the Vicarage Road triangle or Station Road, or St. Alban's Road? That's infrastructure, yes?

The big question is what would this investment in the Parade return to the community? The answer, I fear, is not a lot. This isn't going to encourage extra people to go to the Parade, this isn't going to help the policing of the drunken hoards that frequent the nightclubs, this isn't going to increase the footfall for Mr Patel's family run general store or Emily Smith's florist or Julie Gambalee's hair salon or Mike Brown's butcher's shop...

Whilst it's laudable that the council goes after this kind of funding, it's a scandal that it gets spent in the same area where a similar schemes happened barely 10 years before. Can we be expecting to have a similar scheme again in 2025?

Honest Rog wrote:
Well done Dorothy. The money spent is a snip. As for the mean minded critics on here whingeing about a few pence on their council tax; I suppose they would rather that the top of our town degenerates into a cesspit similar to Luton or Harrow. The bridge over the pond sounds imaginative but will not excite those stuck in Victorian times.

Liberal alert!

Rog,

not doing this project does not mean the top of town turning into a "cesspit, Luton or Harrow". This is just Liberal hogwash and unless you are one of the Liberals (are you?), you should know better.

So, anyone against it wants the top of town to turn into a cesspit. Anyone against it is stuck in victorian times.

Anyone who doesn't want this Liberal revamp is just wrong, is that it? It is simply not possible to continue with the existing pond area - is that what you're saying?

How long do we have before doomsday Rog? Have we got days, weeks, months, decades? I personally think it would last for decades, and so, doesn't actually have to be done. It just seems a complete waste of money.

TRT wrote:
@Honest Rog.
The money that has been spent has not come from council tax but from a development grant that has to be spent on infrastructure. But by spending that grant in this way, other areas of infrastructure that need updating will likely have to be funded by tax receipts.
The Parade and Upper High Street have been regenerated several times over during the last 50 years, whilst other areas have been left to go to rack and ruin. The Lower High Street, for example, is a concrete jungle, especially at Dalton Way covered as it is with rusty iron railings, broken glass and more of pedestrian obstacle course than the Krypton Factor?
There are smaller shopping arcades dotted throughout the communities which could benefit from investment - Queens Road Broadway, Vicarage Road, the corner of Harwoods, Euston Avenue, Garston Parade, Courtlands Drive... loads of streets with corner shops opening onto broken flagstoned pavements with no security, inadequate lighting, dog mess everywhere, no beauty.
There are many areas of commercial development too, small light industry workshops, garages, offices, that are just depressing to look at and which become no-go areas once the workers have finished for the day.
What about sorting out the perennial traffic jams at Bushey Arches or the Vicarage Road triangle or Station Road, or St. Alban's Road? That's infrastructure, yes?

The big question is what would this investment in the Parade return to the community? The answer, I fear, is not a lot. This isn't going to encourage extra people to go to the Parade, this isn't going to help the policing of the drunken hoards that frequent the nightclubs, this isn't going to increase the footfall for Mr Patel's family run general store or Emily Smith's florist or Julie Gambalee's hair salon or Mike Brown's butcher's shop...

Whilst it's laudable that the council goes after this kind of funding, it's a scandal that it gets spent in the same area where a similar schemes happened barely 10 years before. Can we be expecting to have a similar scheme again in 2025?

Well said TRT.

If only the council had your common sense we would not be in this mess.

Reg Edit wrote:

TRT wrote: @Honest Rog. The money that has been spent has not come from council tax but from a development grant that has to be spent on infrastructure. But by spending that grant in this way, other areas of infrastructure that need updating will likely have to be funded by tax receipts. The Parade and Upper High Street have been regenerated several times over during the last 50 years, whilst other areas have been left to go to rack and ruin. The Lower High Street, for example, is a concrete jungle, especially at Dalton Way covered as it is with rusty iron railings, broken glass and more of pedestrian obstacle course than the Krypton Factor? There are smaller shopping arcades dotted throughout the communities which could benefit from investment - Queens Road Broadway, Vicarage Road, the corner of Harwoods, Euston Avenue, Garston Parade, Courtlands Drive... loads of streets with corner shops opening onto broken flagstoned pavements with no security, inadequate lighting, dog mess everywhere, no beauty. There are many areas of commercial development too, small light industry workshops, garages, offices, that are just depressing to look at and which become no-go areas once the workers have finished for the day. What about sorting out the perennial traffic jams at Bushey Arches or the Vicarage Road triangle or Station Road, or St. Alban's Road? That's infrastructure, yes? The big question is what would this investment in the Parade return to the community? The answer, I fear, is not a lot. This isn't going to encourage extra people to go to the Parade, this isn't going to help the policing of the drunken hoards that frequent the nightclubs, this isn't going to increase the footfall for Mr Patel's family run general store or Emily Smith's florist or Julie Gambalee's hair salon or Mike Brown's butcher's shop... Whilst it's laudable that the council goes after this kind of funding, it's a scandal that it gets spent in the same area where a similar schemes happened barely 10 years before. Can we be expecting to have a similar scheme again in 2025?

Well said TRT. If only the council had your common sense we would not be in this mess.

Kinda have to agree

Honest Rog wrote:
Well done Dorothy. The money spent is a snip. As for the mean minded critics on here whingeing about a few pence on their council tax; I suppose they would rather that the top of our town degenerates into a cesspit similar to Luton or Harrow. The bridge over the pond sounds imaginative but will not excite those stuck in Victorian times.

I do not want to see the top of the Town degenerate into a cesspit, and I agree that it does need a tidy up, but not to the extent of spending £439,000 on consultants, and not by wasting money putting a bridge over the pond. The council must be wasting £1m+ on these 2 items alone, but its not there money, and value for money does not seem to matter to them.

Use the money to subsidise business rates and rents for a few years on commercial properties that have been empty for longer that 12 months. Give budding entrepreneurs an incentive and a bit of help to start a business. This, I feel, would do far more to generate the area and create jobs than putting a pointless bridge over the pond.

garston tony wrote:

Reg Edit wrote:

TRT wrote: @Honest Rog. The money that has been spent has not come from council tax but from a development grant that has to be spent on infrastructure. But by spending that grant in this way, other areas of infrastructure that need updating will likely have to be funded by tax receipts. The Parade and Upper High Street have been regenerated several times over during the last 50 years, whilst other areas have been left to go to rack and ruin. The Lower High Street, for example, is a concrete jungle, especially at Dalton Way covered as it is with rusty iron railings, broken glass and more of pedestrian obstacle course than the Krypton Factor? There are smaller shopping arcades dotted throughout the communities which could benefit from investment - Queens Road Broadway, Vicarage Road, the corner of Harwoods, Euston Avenue, Garston Parade, Courtlands Drive... loads of streets with corner shops opening onto broken flagstoned pavements with no security, inadequate lighting, dog mess everywhere, no beauty. There are many areas of commercial development too, small light industry workshops, garages, offices, that are just depressing to look at and which become no-go areas once the workers have finished for the day. What about sorting out the perennial traffic jams at Bushey Arches or the Vicarage Road triangle or Station Road, or St. Alban's Road? That's infrastructure, yes? The big question is what would this investment in the Parade return to the community? The answer, I fear, is not a lot. This isn't going to encourage extra people to go to the Parade, this isn't going to help the policing of the drunken hoards that frequent the nightclubs, this isn't going to increase the footfall for Mr Patel's family run general store or Emily Smith's florist or Julie Gambalee's hair salon or Mike Brown's butcher's shop... Whilst it's laudable that the council goes after this kind of funding, it's a scandal that it gets spent in the same area where a similar schemes happened barely 10 years before. Can we be expecting to have a similar scheme again in 2025?

Well said TRT. If only the council had your common sense we would not be in this mess.

Kinda have to agree

Me too.

Just for the record - Empty shops Town Hall to Flyover - 5 (6 if you include one describing itself as a Site Office). Empty Shops between Flyover and King Street 11 (12 if you inlude a shop saying it is having a closing down sale) - but these include half the Woolworths building and all of the Clements building. So even if the the Town Centre needs £4.5 million spent on it - this is the wtrong area needing action!

@Andrew1963... +1

Charter Place redevelopment the money should be spent on Watford falling behind place's like Derby London Nottingham that are spending millions on redevelopment of there town centre's that are creating jobs in a recession with new shop's Leisure Facilities. restaurants we have lost Watford springs leggatts way pool all under her and her monkeys but she was voted them in why what's up people haven't you learned anything and yes queen's road look like a war zone shop windows board up and now the half way house is two look good when your walking up to the harlequin from Watford junction and they say people first inspiration is made in the first two minuets so well done there on one of the main routes in to town with 2 big Westfield just a train a way soon there be no shopping centre worth having if the mayor don't pull her finger out as Watford own's 7 % share in the harlequin to be honest think both party should sell to Westfield and spend all the money made doing up all the place's everyone has said as more foot-full means more shop not empty and more jobs

£4m for a few pot plants and a little bridge over the pond are they sure? the building of the bridge could of been made into some kind of local youth training project where unemployed youths (we have enough of them nowadays) could of been trained on the job, would be nice bit of experience and atleast something to stick on a CV.

From a document detailing the proposed regeneration of the gas holder site on the Lower High Street.
"The site is a redundant industrial complex, formerly used for the storage and generation of gas. The site is therefore highly likely to be contaminated. The site will need to be remediated and this is likely to carry a considerable cost, including the demolition of the existing redundant gas holder. It is currently estimated that these costs are in the region of £2.3m."

So for just over half the cost of building a bridge over the pond, the council could remove the gas holder and decontaminate the land, opening the way for a new retail operator (mooted as Waitrose) to develop the site creating jobs (and sadly traffic at Bushey Arches) along the Lower High Street corridor in preparation for the redevelopment of High Street station and the much talked about southern gateway into the town centre.

The area cannot be used for housing due to flood risk, and it's not a WBC owned site, but it does have one of the two Grade II* listed buildings in Watford on it. The restoration of this building is going to be costly, thus off-putting for developers. How costly? £1.7m costly?

Now, tell me again how much value this pond scheme is. Tell me how much WBC is prepared to spend in the name of culture.