SEVERAL weeks ago, I wrote about the cost of scaffolding around Pathfinder House. Hence, I was interested to read the article Scaffold s saving grace, on May 2. So, the council is saving £20,000 a year because the rates on the building have been reduc
SEVERAL weeks ago, I wrote about the cost of scaffolding around Pathfinder House. Hence, I was interested to read the article "Scaffold's saving grace," on May 2.
So, the council is saving £20,000 a year because the rates on the building have been reduced and, therefore, the council has to pay less to the Treasury.
That presumably means that the Treasury is losing £20,000 a year. I wonder who makes up that loss. Yes, you've got it - we do. So, if my (or your) Council Tax has in any way been affected by the council's "saving", then, as sure as the sun rises in the morning, I/we will be contributing more to Treasury funds by other means.
Is this what is known as "creative accounting"? There is only one person who is better off as a result of the scaffolding around Pathfinder House, and that is the scaffolding contractor.
The reason given for the rate reduction - that "the metalwork is unsightly" and, therefore, the property is less attractive as a rental proposition - is mind-boggling.
If that is the case, the council should have been able to get a rate reduction without the aid of scaffolding. As the scaffolding makes the building even more unsightly, logic dictates that they should be able to negotiate a further rate reduction. After all, who would want to rent a building with scaffolding permanently erected around it?
The building is still occupied, so presumably it is not about to collapse. I still contend that the decision to surround the building from ground to roof with scaffolding was, at best, misguided, and that it is a waste of public money.
MARTYN REDMORE, Great Stukeley