LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Explain risks of this unnecessary project

WE buy our Rotherham Advertiser every week to support our local paper, keep up to date on significant local/neighbourhood issues and for insights into what local residents think about them, not to be subjected to a non-stop stream of oft-offensive diatribes from Messrs Foulstone, Platts and Phillips on national and international issues which, for some unfathomable reason, are given greater prominence than more balanced, informative comments from other correspondents on significant, pressing, local issues.

A classic example of this is the prominence their diatribes were given over the critical, local issues raised by Messrs Moss, Foulstone  and Names and Address Supplied correspondents about the pretentiously grandiose, flagship Forge Island scheme, particularly its eight screen boutique cinema and 69-bed hotel; the use of the RMBC reserve fund and increased borrowing to pay for its full £47m costs after RMBC failed to attract any private investment; the £9.8m overspend on the market revamp; zero progress after three-plus years and the escalating costs of the High Street pocket park; and delays in the town centre paving project etc (all featured on the front page — editor). What an utterly depressing catalogue of financial, project and risk management, delivery and public service failures that is clearly evident to anyone going into Rotherham!

The Rotherham Advertiser and all Rotherham residents need a laser, priority focus on what is being done to sort out Rotherham, making sure RMBC officials and elected representatives deliver projects and services on time, to standard and cost and spend RMBC’s budget of £220-plus million (half coming from council tax payers, a third from business rate payers and 18 per cent from income tax payers) cost-effectively and efficiently.

As Philip Moss rightly highlighted, Cineworld, a major cine company, has filed for bankruptcy protection and other cinemas are struggling to survive with attendances at only 60pc of pre-Covid levels. Who, in this climate, would invest in a new eight-screen boutique cinema? And as Tim O’Connell, head of RMBC’s own investment arm RiDO, acknowledged rising inflation has driven up developments’ costs, pressures in financial markets have removed the prospect of private funding and the financial outlook is unpredictable. Add to these, the escalating cost of living, end of very cheap mortgages and a pending recession, which will reduce people’s disposable incomes, and there is no wonder the private sector will not risk its capital.

RMBC — that is every Rotherham Council business rate and income tax payer — inevitably becomes the investor “of last resort” bearing all the risks of this “flagship” project for it to continue. As the funders of this project, we therefore deserve and have a right to a far better explanation than we have had to date of its escalating financial, investment and business risks and its continuing social and economic needs.

For example, why do we need an eight-screen, “boutique” cinema when we already have plenty of multi-screen cinemas on our doorstep, when audiences are in decline and  when owners are struggling to make a profit? Why do we need a 69-bed hotel in the town centre? Who are the anticipated occupants? What bed occupancy rate is projected? How can the original £47m costs still be the same when RMBC’s own investment head said inflation has pushed up development and borrowing costs? What percentage of the £47m are we borrowing from those same tight, capital markets? What, if any, contingency costs have been built-in for the inevitable delivery delays and cost overruns? Is RMBC’s and our elected representatives’ confidence of a positive return on our investment, based on a best-case or worst-case scenario? If not worst-case, why not in the current and projected financial markets and economic forecasts? And after three-plus years, it is patently obvious that the High Street pocket park site is totally unsuitable for a p

ark, so instead of wasting more time and racking up ever-higher costs to the public purse, why are RMBC and our elected representatives not moving the park to a more suitable site?  

These concerns/questions are not generated by opposition to the Forge Island project, the area certainly needs redevelopment, but as a council, business and income tax payers, we do have a right to proper, convincing assurance from our council officials and elected representatives that our hard earned cash is being used to the best possible effect for our town and its residents. Less “flagship”, more customer/tenant-affordable, quality facilities that are simpler, quicker and less costly to deliver are what we need to level up and improve Rotherham. Hasty, ill thought through decisions lead to intractable delays/problems that often result in projects being obsolete/inappropriate well before delivery — the road to hell is paved with ill-informed, hasty, good intentions!

Perhaps the Advertiser might do a feature article on the answers to some of these questions for all the council tax, business rate and income tax paying Rotherham residents who will be paying for and bearing all the risks of this project?

Readers might also be interested to note that RMBC has received £40m from the government’s Town Deal Fund and Levelling Up Fund for a variety of projects across Rotherham.

Perhaps the Advertiser might run periodic feature articles on the progress and cost positions of these projects to keep local residents up to date? And £2m from the government Winter Help Fund for communities which, I am pleased to note, will be used to fund £899,000-worth of supermarket vouchers for families with children receiving free school meals; £1.4m to help the most vulnerable people with their heating costs, in addition to universal £400 and £1,200 for people on certain benefits; £45,000 to help people leaving care; £30,000 to help vulnerable families over Christmas; and £90,000 and £25,000 to food banks for food and non-food items.

C Peters, Brecks