Wednesday, 18 March 2009

A Hole Lotta Money, But Is It Art?

Howard Thomas, has followed up on reports to ask about the value for money provided by over £100,000 in section 106 money given by Tesco to fund a piece of public art. He points out that protected trees illegally felled during the development could have been replaced and may actually have been a better use of the developer's financial contribution.

Section 106 money is a community 'sweetener' to ameliorate the impact of a new development, but which in many cases is abused as an unaccountable slush fund and as such can produce variable results. In the case of the supermarket development on the site of the former Battle Hospital, ward councillor Tony Jones has consistently [1, 2, 3] questioned the project and the public consultation designed to involve local residents in agreeing the design of the artwork.

Meanwhile, Labour culture spokesman, Cllr Graeme Hoskin, has defended the project after Tesco complained about rising cleaning and maintenance costs it would be forced to shoulder.

Oranjepan says:
It seems everybody is unhappy, except for Cllr Hoskin!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Loading...
"Reading List... is fantastic, it could help revolutinise politics in Reading"
Matt Blackall

"Prolific"
Matt Brady

"Irrelevant"
Adrian Windisch

"Bizarre"
Reading Geek Night

"A bloggers digest of the Berkshire blogosphere"
DMOZ

"An easily accessible collection of Berkshire's excellent blogs"
The Cookham Blogger

"An excellent digest of the thoughts of local bloggers"
Reading Guide

...