MEMBERS of Warrington Borough Council’s cabinet look set to approve a four-year loan to a property developer for the promotion of economic regeneration in the borough.
Officers are recommending the loan be made to Warrington-based developer and private equity company Salboy which has delivered more than 1,200 homes over the last 18 months.
Salboy is owned by Simon Ismail and Fred Done, the owner of Betfred.
They deliver their schemes in partnership with contractor DOMIS and have completed 1,400 homes, 96 per cent of which have sold.
In a report to the cabinet, Cllr Cathy Mitchell (pictured), deputy leader of the council, said the council had administered a successful loans programme since 2009 to support economic regeneration in Warrington and the surrounding sub-region.
The financial implications of the loan and the amount involved will be considered in private for commercial reasons.
But it will be funded by borrowing.
No external consultation has taken place for reasons of commercial sensitivity.
5 Comments
I don’t understand this story, could somebody explain it to me?
1. Why does a property developer need a loan from the council? Don’t they have other sources of income?
2. Why is the council loaning them money? Is it to carve out a bit of margin on the borrowing versus lending rates? Because we’ve been told repeatedly that this isn’t a suitable use of public funds
3. What does this mean for the planning permission? Will this company get an easy ride?
4. Why no detail? Commercial confidentiality? Really? It’s my money – I’d like to know how much, what the return is, what the track record of the borrower is – I want all of the information. Because it’s my money
Corruption at its finest.
Join us at Warrington Action Against Development
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1379299642439088/
WAAD – that’s not fair. You should ask for your comment to be deleted.
I’m as willing to criticise WBC as anybody, but there is absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing here. Much to question, certainly, but we need to be mature and not fling accusations of criminality around.
Well said Jim (and above too). There’s plenty to go at without. Throwing that word around is neither necessary, helpful, nor provable and just diminishes the argument.
This looks even more puzzling when we learn WBC announces it is not going to ask for its allocation of a government fund set up to reimburse local authorities for some of the impacts of Covid. Why no? Could WBC’s reluctance to tap into this fund stem from its failure to have two years’ accounts signed off? Or is WBC reluctance occasioned by its current level of borrowing from government funds? If this offer from HMG comes with no strings attached, why is WBC not making an application for its allocation?