Letter: The Lesson of Runnymede’s Investments Must Be Learned

Published on: 1 Oct, 2026
Updated on: 2 Oct, 2026

From Neil O’Brien

In response to: £150m Wiped from Runnymede’s Investment Portfolio

There is a very important lesson here as we create the new West Surrey authority.

Councils absolutely should invest.

But we need to be much clearer about the difference between investment and speculation.

Borrowing to improve roads, regenerate a town centre or build infrastructure that unlocks homes, jobs and economic growth can create lasting productive capacity.

Borrowing hundreds of millions to buy commercial property because the rental yield appears higher than the cost of public borrowing is something very different.

Runnymede spent £487 million building its investment portfolio, much of it funded by borrowing. The remaining properties are now valued at £338 million.

That £149 million reduction is a valuation movement, not a realised cash loss, and the properties sold so far have actually achieved more than their valuations. That distinction matters.

But so does the underlying risk.

Local government should not become a leveraged property investor with taxpayers ultimately standing behind the balance sheet.

As West Surrey inherits the assets and liabilities of its predecessor councils, every investment should face a simple test:

What additional public or economic capacity does this create?

• Invest in infrastructure
• Invest in our places
• Invest in enabling growth.

But don’t confuse owning an investment asset with investing in our future.

Share This Post