I WRITE regarding your story ‘£1m spruce-up on the way for town streets’ as I believe the comments made by the local authority representative need to be examined more fully and a number of questions answered.
The representative says there was no cost to the property owners as it is funded by central government – but as taxpayers all of us are contributing to what are privately-owned assets.
Why is there no cost to property owners? Were the property owners asked to make a contribution? If they were unable to make a contribution, was the possibility of a legal charge considered under which the cost would be paid on any sale of the property? Did the council consider asking for a contribution? If not, why not? How many of the affected properties are being let? Most of these properties were purchased over 10 years ago and any rental income would be providing a return of at least 15 per cent. In these times of restricted public spending, is it right that private landlords are being subsided? What are the criteria for deciding which streets are revamped? The article refers to six more regenerative schemes. What streets are being considered and will members of the public outside of these streets have an input? In conclusion, I believe that the scheme is wrong as any property owner considering a revamp will defer their decision in the hope that the public purse will pick up the bill.
If property owners defer any repairs, then it will only accelerate the decline in the affected areas.
James Naunton Genista Close, Stapenhill
