“I need not come back on Malcolm's statement, as the posts since have already done that for me.

However I will say that the budget line in Council papers clearly states under Workplaces, Keynsham New Build and across the next five years adds up to £37.5m. It does not say Keynsham Regeration project.

If anyone would like a copy of that I am happy to email it out.

There was never an urgency to shut a school until the Tories took power of the Council.

If the Council lose BTP funding that is the Tory's fault for not doing as Governmet asked, amend plans and make cheaper, instead they simply ploughed £9m of local tax in to ensure that the Bus Road through Newbridge happens.

Most concerning though is that I have agreed with VV on two posts on two seperate stories.”

“Malcolm Hanney- Re: The BTP/BRT "it can't be split and still get government money;".
Not strictly true. You will not get the government money regardless because you failed to adjust the original plan when told to do so by central government. Resulting instead, of you deciding to sell 9M of our assets to push it through.”

“"At least Keynsham will act as a catalyst for real inward investment, hopefully job creation at Somerdale, and will return a profit to us, both from retail and private office rental income, and a massive carbon footprint reduction."

Good to see you're on message with your party. From where will this carbon fooprint saving come, though? Presumably the vacated Bath offices will be occupied by someone else. Meanwhile what's the predicted carbon consumption for all those officers travelling between Keynsham and Bath, where half of their work is likely to be based?

"At least Keynsham will act as a catalyst for real inward investment"

Not into Bath, though, where half of B&NES live and many others work. For Bath it's a loss of investment and a loss of jobs.”

“Where and when, Malcolm, has it been clearly stated that the Bath Transport Package "can't be split and still get government money"? Are you not basing this misleading statement on the previous government's directives?

And how on earth is your statement the BRT will create: "regeneration, offices, workspace, jobs and homes" qualified?

And have you not read your own Council's reports that the proposed £60 million Bath Transport Package will neither deliver significant or sustainable improvements in air quality nor ease traffic congestion?

Why have you stated what you have when it's not true?”

“What you fail to address, Malcolm, is why a project you have advertised as costing £33 million is actually budgetted at £37.5 million. When I raised the £4.5 million gap at the council meeting, it took a month to send an email about it. Are you sure that everyone knows what's going on here?”

“I refer to Paul Wiltshire's post of 10.29 am yesterday and the report of his discussion with Cllr. Dave Dixon (who incidentally is the Chair of the Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee and should know better because the Keynsham Regeneration Project has not exactly been absent from that Committee's agenda.

On 16 March the Director of Resources of the Council sent the following e-mail to the LibDem group (Cllr. Coombes) at my request to clarify a question Cllr. Coombes had raised at the February Council.

'I have been asked to let you know more about the budget figure for new offices in Keynsham as you raised a question on the evening of the budget statement. Sorry for not replying before!

The Budget report refers to a cost of £37M as you correctly stated. In various press releases we have referred to £33M which is the cost of onsite construction. The difference relates to client costs and offsite works. It is worth noting that just under half of the total project costs relate to the offices and the rest relates to one stop shop, library, retail, and public realm works.

The figures are estimates at pre tender stage and in advance of completion of detailed design. Nevertheless the scheme is now worked up to reasonable degree of detail (outline designs) as was evident from the positively received exhibition in Keynsham as part of Treasure & Transform.

I hope this clarifies and is useful.'

So the LibDem group have no reason to think the Council Offices are £33m or 337m and to publish same in their manifesto or seek to have the Chronicle article amended.

Additionally the point should be made that the LibDems office proposals included the refurbishing of Riverside in Keynsham. This would mean that the Council Offices will cost 3% more than now rather than save 10% as per the Administration's proposals. The LibDem proposals would save less than 20% in carbon footprint rather than the 70% as per the Administration's proposals. It should also be obvious that the cost of a Town Centre regeneration without Offices would be substantially more expensive than when built as part of an overall scheme and that the purpose of the regeneration which includes attracting other employers including potentially into a replacement of Riverside itself will be much less likely!!

It is also not my objective to benefit private landlords at the cost of local taxpayers. The regeneration option is much better for residents including in financial and environmental terms.

The commitment to Keynsham also needs to be seen in the context of an overall capital budget of over £200m over the next few years where the emphasis is for regeneration across Bath, Keynsham and indeed the whole of B&NES. The balance is undoubtedly directed to Bath because it is the economic driver but that does not mean the Council should ignore the needs of the rest of the area.

As for the rest of the LibDem manifesto, being against the BRT also means being against the Bath Transport Package (because as the LibDems should understand it can't be split and still get government money; regeneration in Bath and the related creation of offices / workspace / jobs / homes, improvement in air quality, and the easing and management of congestion.

On Cluverhay, a lot has already been said but if the LibDems won't say which school they would have closed / would close then they can't expect the rest of the schools to pick up the cost of continuing surplus places by keeping open more schools than necessary. They also ought to take a close look at the rapidly falling number on roll in recent years and in the sixth form and wonder whether 31% of A*-C at GCSE including English and Maths is really good enough. If no school is closed to reduce surplus places and the funding of empty desks it will just risk the viability of other schools.

As for Cllr. Crossley's outrage on the Visitor Accommodation Study, he knows full well that the study will i”

“I also passionately hope for an end to council-sponsored, political points-scoring, empty rhetoric, no more wasting of public money, employment for everyone in the dawning of a bright new wealth-creating future, finding intelligent life somewhere (anywhere) in the universe, and world peace.

However, like most sensible Bath residents and unlike the current council and their hangers-on, I fear that because these particular and unrealistic aspirations aren't unjustifiably funded by other people's taxes I'll never get to see them realised.”

“The regeneration element of £4 million of the total budget of £37 million for the Keynsham development is not touched..........

Perhaps Cllr Dixon intends putting it towards a Keynsham Spa.”

“Crikey - someone still going on about the Spa! It's now a great success and contributing to our economy.............

Yes Cllr Roger it's a great success. For the company you virtually gave it to, Thermae Spa. Why not tell the people the small pittance we the council taxpayers get per annum from them, through you and your colleagues negotiating incompetence?

At least Keynsham will act as a catalyst for real inward investment, hopefully job creation at Somerdale, and will return a profit to us, both from retail and private office rental income, and a massive carbon footprint reduction.

Where's your plans for job creation?”

“David Dixon has just emailed to say: The article states:

"It says the party would abandon plans for a £33 million development in Keynsham which includes new council offices, a new library and shops."

Our scrapping is of the Council's proposal to spend £33 million on the New Office Block in Keynsham. The regeneration element of £4 million of the total budget of £37 million for the Keynsham development is not touched."

I will update the story accordingly”