Letter: Section 106 Money Is Not Pocket Money To Be Spent On A Whim

Published on: 11 Dec, 2015
Updated on: 12 Dec, 2015

From Michael Bruton in response to the story Public Art On The Increase: Is It Just Art For Art’s Sake And Worth the Money?

No one will probably agree about whether a piece of art is ‘good’, ‘bad’ or ‘indifferent’. That applies to art, architecture or any form of construction.

However, one might criticise the way taxpayers’ money is spent.

Section 106 money is not pocket money to be spent on a whim.

Something happens to those in the public sector – whether senior employees or elected representatives.

The phrase ‘gravy train’ was probably invented for town halls in Guildford. The Tories are savaging the museum, ejecting archaelogists but seem happy to spend our money on a vanity project – which is hardly Barbara Hepworth or Henry Moore.

That is sadly the way of the world with councillors generally. Councils fritter money. Few councillors would ever spend so lavishly if it was their own money but other peoples’ money matters not a jot.

Guildford has been a Tory fiefdom for years. But I scratch my head to find anything they have ever improved.

They vandalised Guildford in the 1960s and 70s – think Debenhams, Surrey Police HQ, the Friary, etc.

Think how awful was Woolworths pre White Lion Walk and the fascia of Sainsbury’s in the High street – before being rescued from planners and councillors.

Even now just consider the recent carbuncle which is the House of Fraser on North Street.

Trust Guildford Tory council with protecting and enhancing Guildford or protecting the green fields of the borough from Ash to Effingham? I think not.

Share This Post