Bristol Live readers have been weighing in on the controversy surrounding the Bristol Beacon refurbishment and its eye-watering cost. A Conservative councillor has claimed that the true cost to taxpayers could be a staggering £183 million, significantly more than the initially announced £132 million.
The council’s decision to increase its financial contribution and take out loans over 50 years has raised concerns about the financial burden on residents. Councillor Jonathan Hucker pointed out discrepancies in the reported figures, suggesting that interest rates on loans were underestimated, potentially inflating the final cost.
Cabinet members were informed at the time that the council needed to borrow £84.5million, with annual repayments – that have to come from its general revenue budget which pays for essential day-to-day services – of £2.2million a year for the next half century. Despite the financial scrutiny, Council leader Councillor Tony Dyer praised the Beacon’s success post-refurbishment, highlighting its positive impact on the city’s cultural scene and economic growth.
The council defended its borrowing practices, stating that the Beacon’s renovation was part of a broader capital projects funding strategy. However, concerns remain about the long-term financial implications and transparency surrounding the project’s financing.
Our readers have had a mixed response to this revelation, reflecting diverse viewpoints on the Bristol Beacon’s cost and value. Some express disappointment at the financial management. While others question the decision-making process, and call for accountability and redress against those responsible for potential misinformation.
AdvisoryService101 comments: “Before the refurbishment, the ticket prices were affordable. Now the all new Beacon is too expensive for many locals. Pointless, if so many people are now excluded due to massive ticket price rises.”
Dbanderson replies: “And if you live out of town you can’t get anywhere near it with a car anyway.”
Katiem believes: “It is money badly spent. The seats wobble as they are all attached in such a way that one moves they all do in the row. It can make you feel a bit ill. The upper seats are like perches. Some front balcony seats have no leg room. Sound for The Pretenders was not particularly good.”
Si86 adds: “Maybe a bit steep but It’s an absolutely brilliant venue and we should be investing more in the arts. They waste money everywhere so at least this actually brings something to the city.”
Brizzlebabber exclaims: “‘A bit steep?’ Massive understatement there. Meanwhile essential services are cut to the bone or lost altogether. Arts whilst great are not essential in the way SEND funding is for example.”
Thinkingstraight1 feels: “If you are able to afford the ticket price, but not a problem if you work in the public sector. Ouch 🙂 (of those I refer to on inflated salaries and pensions).”
Rch1976uk adds: “I will never ever go in there and give them my money!”
Broken Arrow answers: “You have already given them your money. And will do for the next 50 years.”
Bs3bob says: “Councils take the cheapest bid and then put all the risk on the taxpayer and not the contractor when expenses soar.”
Onlooker2 believes: “Another dismal failure by BCC, however, for those of us living near Bristol many thanks for a subsidised facility for our use.”
Feeder writes: “If as he claims we have been deliberately misled and as a result have taken on long term liabilities that were concealed in order to obscure the truth, then what redress do we have against those responsible with political oversight?
Lionville adds: “Never had to queue so long in a men’s toilet in larger venues in the country.”
Junius1 believes: “BCC’s external auditors need to thoroughly investigate this. It’s a pity the politicians responsible cannot be surcharged if negligence or carelessness can be proved.”
So are you surprised that the cost of the Beacon refurbishment has risen so high? Let us know in the comments below by joining in the conversation.