Booker people do not want this stadium (From Bucks Free Press)

WDC can stress what they like, an investment doesn't mean that it is a sound one especially where the liability of WSDL is only £100.

Interestingly enough, the convenants on the land state the following:

"THAT THE PROPERTY HEREBY NOR ANY PART THEREOF THAT NEITHER THE PROPRTY HEREBY CONVEYED NOR ANY PART THEREOF SHALL BE USED FOR ANY NOISY NOXIOUS OR OFFENSIVE TRADE OR BUSINESS OR FOR ANY PURPOSE WHICH MAY BE OR BECOME A NUISANCE DAMAGE OR ANNOYANCE TO THE VENDOR OR OTHER THE OWNERS OR OCCUPIERS FOR THE TIME BEING OF THE RETAINED LAND OR ANY PART THEREOF PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS CLAUSE SHALL PROHIBIT THE PURCHASER FROM USING THE PROPERTY HEREBY CONVEYED AS AN AIRFIELD AND FOR PURPOSES ANCILLARY TO SUCH USE."

No doubt, like me, many of our residents are delighted to learn that the new stadium will “not incur additional cost to the taxpayer”. However, describing the expenditure as an investment really doesn’t explain where the money is coming from, it simply describes the manner in which it is to be spent.

Without further explanation I am left to assume that yet more of our land in the care of the Council is to be sold to raise the funds. Alternatively we have either paid for our Councillor’s property development aspirations in the past through our council tax, or will be doing so in the future. Whichever it is, this is not the Council’s money, it is ours, their job is to spend it sensibly on our behalf and, dare I suggest, for the benefit of our community.

I may be a lone voice on this one but it seems to me that gambling precious council budgets on a speculative property investment is more than a little reckless; particularly when money is in short supply and we are constantly reminded that things are going to get worse before they get better.

Perhaps the council could reassure us that the decision makers on this “investment” project are not the same as those that took the decision to off shore millions of pounds of council tax to Iceland. I wonder what the current return is on that investment?

Leaving aside the matter of the money. As a resident whose environment is to be blighted by the construction of a large bus station, offices and a new hotel, I must admit to having sympathy for the Booker NIMBYs, just as I have for those that don’t want the athletics track at Sir William Ramsay School. No doubt a whole new army of NIMBYs will appear when the true community cost of re routing the A40 away from the overpass becomes apparent.

It seems to me that most of our Council’s more substantial plans involve making the town a more attractive place for visitors but at either a financial or community cost to those that live here. How much has the ludicrous Park and Ride experiment cost, how much did we pay for Eden, why do we have the fourth highest level of vacant shops in the country and how can we afford those pointless car park signs erected at every entrance to the town when apparently we don’t have the money to keep our street lights on?

This is a small provincial town and I for one like it that way. If I wanted to live in a large overpopulated conurbation then I would move to one so please will the Council stop all this wheeling and dealing in the property market and limit themselves to the business of delivering local services efficiently and cost effectively to the people that are paying for them. Our elected officials should remind themselves that they are merely custodians of Council owned property during their time as elected officials; they are not a Board of Directors selling off assets to generate profit for shareholders.

If a new sports stadium is needed then let those that want it find a piece of ground, raise the funds and submit their plans through the usual channels. Gambling with community funds on investments of this type is entirely inappropriate, particularly when the authority responsible for granting planning consent is also one of the financial backers.

Well said Tedunn, succinctly put.

And pray tell me how do we recover this hypothetical "investment"?
I haven't heard of anyone mounting an expeditionary force to Iceland to recover a previous "investment".
Just how much has already been spent, and how are councillors to pay it back?
Perhaps by increasing next year's rates by another 1.75%?
Or perhaps not.

And pray tell me how do we recover this hypothetical "investment"?
I haven't heard of anyone mounting an expeditionary force to Iceland to recover a previous "investment".
Just how much has already been spent, and how are councillors to pay it back?
Perhaps by increasing next year's rates by another 1.75%?
Or perhaps not.

They have spent a small fortune on a feasibility study that doesn't mention the bats nests, doesn't mention the residents of Lane End or Booker, doesn't take into consideration the Covenants etc etc that said, never let the small important things get in the way of ambition.

In light of the Inspector's rejection of Marlow FC's planning application, might it not be expeditious for WDC to cut and run from this ludicrous proposal.
The rate payers won't notice another few thousand loss after the Iceland expedition - how much has already been wasted?
Strange that when Adam's Park was planned, WDC fought tooth and nail to have it rejected.
They then opposed Marlow's application.
What has changed?

Raising parking fees to gain £140,000 ! In the same edition of the BFP I note that the council have agreed to spend £500,000 on a 'feasibility study' for a football ground move.

No money or land of ours should be used to subsidise these private greedy sports. It is not a sensible investment.