London garden bridge plan is a misuse of funds say critics

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/04/garden-bridge-london-thames-boris-johnson

Version 0 of 1.

It was heralded as a potential architectural wonder, a corridor of green across the river Thames, but an escalating backlash is now threatening to wreck plans for London’s £175m garden bridge.

Before a crucial judicial review into the project next month, local campaigners against the bridge have called for a parliamentary inquiry into the “misuse of public funds” over a scheme that once came with the promise that it would be entirely paid for by private sponsors.

So far, London mayor Boris Johnson and chancellor George Osborne have each pledged £30m of public money for the project, ignoring concerns that what is being created amounts to a privately managed tourist landmark rather than a bridge – using the definition of a public right of way across the river. Details of how the bridge will operate indicate limits on group sizes, suggesting a ticketing system may be required. The bridge will also be closed once a month for corporate events, and between midnight and 6am. Plans no longer includes provision for cyclists.

Both Johnson and Osborne have been accused of body-swerving protocol when sanctioning the use of taxpayers’ money normally designated for public transport ventures that will benefit millions. Leading the opposition is Michael Ball, director of the Waterloo Community Development Group, who claims the cost of the project could fund 30 new London parks, or 30 times the amount of open space the bridge would provide.

“They could easily get this money though the Heritage Lottery Fund – that’s there for vanity projects like this. Instead they are using fundraising streams that are to do with transport infrastructure,” he said. “This cannot be classified as transport infrastructure because it is a private bridge and there will be no right of way. It does not appear to fit in with any rubric of how you fund transport projects. How can they approve this through the normal processes?”

The chair of the London assembly’s budget and performance committee accused Johnson of “sophistry”. John Biggs pledged his colleagues would continue looking into the funding of the bridge. Johnson promised last December that taxpayers’ money would not be used for the bridge’s upkeep, but last month it was revealed that public funds could be used to underwrite the bridge’s annual £3.5m maintenance bill in perpetuity.

The garden bridge was also mentioned in the conclusions of a recent inquiry into procurement by the London assembly, which recommended that in return for £30m funding, the public ought, at least, to have free access to the bridge.

Biggs told the Observer: “The mayor has said: ‘Don’t worry boys and girls, this will cost us nothing and it’s a wonderful scheme.’ But, as time has rolled on, the wheels have come off.

“The business plan of the bridge promoters is a bit flaky, I think, based on assumptions, and the public purse may have to underwrite other costs we don’t know about yet.

“You can always look a gift horse in the mouth, contrary to the expression. This gift horse has got some fairly dodgy teeth as far, as I can see. At a whim, Boris has underwritten this, following no procedure whatsoever. It needs proper scrutiny.”

Next month a judicial review will take place into Lambeth council’s handling of the planning approval for the scheme after Ball, backed by law firm Leigh Day, argued it had failed in its duty to protect the historic views of listed buildings like Somerset House.

Ball has also been in contact with Labour MP Margaret Hodge, chair of the public accounts committee, over a potential post-election investigation into the chancellor’s pledge of Treasury money for the bridge. Ball believes the sanctioning of Treasury money breaches guidelines on the correct use of capital expenditure on transport projects. Lawyer Richard Stein of Leigh Day also questions the lack of parliamentary debate over the Treasury’s involvement.

The bridge also appears to be losing support among environmentalists, sceptical of Boris Johnson’s “stunning oasis of tranquillity in the heart of our city”. The involvement of controversial mining company Glencore as sponsor of the bridge’s copper cladding has dismayed some, while the RSPB has withdrawn its backing for the project.

As the questions mount, campaigners hope a Labour election victory will see the bridge scrapped as an early statement of intent. Certainly, its future is clouded with uncertainty. “It may turn out to be one of the most inspired bridges in the world; or it may turn out to be a white elephant,” said Biggs.