The confusion continues over £90m loan

If there's one thing the residents of Newport need right now, it's confidence in the council that is borrowing £90 million in their name. Unfortunately, the messaging coming out of the Civic Centre suggests this is a council either 'bumbling' over the issue. or STILL spectacularly failing to get its messaging right.

It's only reasonable that we, the residents of Newport, should expect the council to be watertight on the issue of loaning £90 million to underwrite Friars Walk. We need to know the council is confident, in full possession of the facts, and making this decision based on a total 360 degree analysis and situational awareness. We also need to know they are being honest with us.

As with so many things in life, you don't always get what you want.

On Tuesday 19th November 2013, we were told about the plan to borrow £90 million via the pages of the Argus...

Newport council aims to secure Friars Walk scheme with £90m loan to developers in ‘unprecedented move

In the story, we are told how senior council officer Sheila Davies, strategic director for regeneration and environment, describes the plan as an “unprecedented move for a UK council”. Unprecedented, as in 'never done or known before'. The inference is that this is a council bravely pushing ahead, breaking new ground because, presumably, that's the kind of can-do innovative thinking the city needs at this time. To boldly go etc.

Stirring stuff I'm sure you'll agree. But then, on 28th November, Paul Sargent, partner at Queensberry Real Estate, pulls up a chair and inadvertently pulls the rug from under poor Sheila's feet...

Friars Walk developer's praise for Newport council

In the interview Sargent explains that this funding deal is anything but unprecedented, and is actually becoming commonplace...

'He said that before the recession these sorts of funding deals involving local authorities were not at all usual but now lots of councils were either providing loans or looking at other financial packages to help kick start struggling development schemes.'

So what does this revelation tell us? We have three possible conclusions we can draw:

1. Sheila and the council really do not have the foggiest idea where the loan deal sits in the wider picture of development and regeneration. They're effectively bumbling along in complete - and dangerous - ignorance. This is the most worrying conclusion.

2. They DO know that this sort of loan deal is commonplace (if indeed it is), but chose, in a moment of misguided PR, to 'sex up' the idea when they initially tried to sell it to us. If this was the case, it probably would have been better to have simply told us 'we're going to do what a lot of other councils are now doing'. By claiming the idea was unprecedented, all they did was invite scorn along the lines of 'no wonder its unprecedented, it's madness'.

3. The tune has changed in response to criticism. This is uncertain as we've not yet heard anything from the council to this effect and only have the words of Paul Sargent to go on. But it does suggest there may be a lack of communication between council and developer. Did the council not think to pick up the phone and ask Sargent "Has this sort of thing been done before?" Did Sargent not think to advise them "Before you go to press, be aware that we're not doing anything that hasn't already been proven."

It would be interested to hear Sheila Davies' thoughts following the Argus interview with Paul Sargent and his revelation that the loan deal is not actually unprecedented as she claimed. I fear it might be one of those uncomfortable 'yeah but, no but' Vicky Pollard moments.

A few councillors have tried to reassure me that the proposal and plans received due scrutiny prior to the vote to agree the loan, but while their efforts are genuinely appreciated, they do little to calm my nerves or placate my cynicism when faced with an apparent ignorance of something as fundamental as whether the plan is unprecedented or not. Presumably the proposal didn't have a section titled 'Previous Examples' or 'Case Studies'.

The worst case scenario is that the council truly are bumbling around and don't fully understand what they're dealing with. In that case, it's probably advisable to stock up on tins of beans and bottled water just in case.

The best case scenario is that the council is simply still mishandling the messaging. They have form in this respect. At the very same meeting to vote on the loan they also 'apologised' (I use the term loosely) for the way they (mis)handled the mural fiasco. Essentially that whole episode was all about bad communication and the apology was a recognition of this.

Alternatively, the council could further elaborate on why the loan deal IS unprecedented in their view. I won't hold my breath on that one.