Charity criticises council over Ikea spend

[dutchman]

Jenni Muskett from Coventry Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre has questioned the council's priorities



A charity supporting people who have been sexually abused has criticised a council for investing more money in a city centre development whilst cutting its contract.

But Coventry City Council has now asked its cabinet to help meet a multi-million pound shortfall on its transformation plans for the site.

As part of its budget cuts, the council has ended a £200,000 contract with Coventry Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre (CRASAC), which has led the charity to question the council's spending priorities.

The council has said it cannot comment on the cost of transforming the furniture store, but it will be good for the city, and boost the region's economy.

Coventry City Council bought the Ikea building after it closed it in 2020, and the BBC has learnt it spent about £9m on the purchase.

It is thought the total cost of the scheme could be more than £55m but the council would not be drawn on a figure.

The Labour-run council has warned in recent months that it was at risk of being declared effectively bankrupt, and councillors voted to approve a plan to plug a £20m gap in its finances this year.

The budget includes a 4.99% rise in council tax, and cuts to street lighting and school bus routes.

Sexual abuse support charity CRASAC has also had its council contract ended.

The charity said that meant having to close its waiting lists to teenagers and adults seeking treatment.

"What we cost to run is very little, actually, in terms of a million pounds for a building, or £400,000 for the swimming baths,'' said Jenni Muskett from the centre.

"What is the value we are placing on children and adult's lives?"

Conservative councillor Gary Ridley said it was a "real plot twist" to learn that the council now wanted to borrow more money to complete the Ikea project, after recently warning about its financial situation and "slashing basic services."

"If this now needs more money, is this Ikea project viable, or is just a flatpack fantasy?," he added.

Coventry City Council claim that the scheme will generate more than £185m over ten years, and breathe new life into the city.

Labour councillor David Welsh said he could not comment on the total cost of the project

"I can't go into the figures, as there are commercial sensitivities around it," he said.

But the councillor insisted there was a "robust business case" and the development would be "good for the city."

[dutchman]

Coventry City Council claim that the scheme will generate more than £185m over ten years, and breathe new life into the city.

[rebbonk]

... councillor David Welsh said he could not comment on the total cost of the project

...

But the councillor insisted there was a "robust business case" and the development would be "good for the city."

We've heard that before, haven't we, children!

[dutchman]

IKEA building decision as Coventry council borrows more money for project



Calls for Coventry council to put "essential services" first have been made as it borrows more money to turn the old IKEA building into a cultural hub. Opposition leader Cllr Gary Ridley made the comments as the move was approved by councillors yesterday (19 March.)

He said many residents of the city will "find it hard to understand" the borrowing after huge service cuts last month. He also said it will add "additional burdens" to the council's budget.

"It is very very difficult to tell people around Coventry that we're going to turn off their lights, we're going to charge for dustbins, we're going to do all sorts of other unpopular things, but we're coming back borrowing more money for this," he told councillors.

"It's not an essential service. And we need to prioritise essential services." Cllr Ridley did say the group supported putting extra funding to cover the higher cost of building work for the former furniture shop.

But they tried to amend the Labour-led council's motion to stop the council borrowing a separate amount to spend on the building's lower floors. Cllr Ridley claimed this part "gives officers a blank cheque" for the spending "without any idea of what they're actually going to spend that money on."

He later claimed that it is a "significant" amount of money that would be spent "without proper scrutiny." He added: "We are making a decision to sign off that cheque today. And we are doing so without any idea who the tenants are going to be."

A report for the meeting from officers recommended that money be borrowed to spend on the lower floors. Not doing this would "essentially rule out any immediate uses and associated rentals," the report said.

The report stated it would delay work to ready the floors by putting in vital systems like sprinklers until a permanent, long-term letting is found. It added that these works would be needed in future anyway, and not doing them would slash the chances of recovering investment in the short term.

Income from the floors could offset the impact on the council's revenue budgets from the borrowing, depending on the cost of financing it and how much they are occupied, the report said. The extra borrowing will not happen straight away but would happen "once there has been a developed and approved business case for future tenancies," for the floors, it added.