Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Garden Bridge's £50m spent and lost says Sadiq

Garden bridge revised

There is no prospect of recovering almost £50million of taxpayers’ money already spent on the shelved Garden Bridge, London’s mayor today admitted

Speaking on his regular Q&A on LBC radio this morning (8 August), Khan said the deal struck by his predecessor Boris Johnson on the £200million scheme ‘beggared belief’.

The Heatherwick-designed bridge was originally set to be 100 per cent funded by private sector donors before Johnson and then Chancellor George Osborne agreed to commit £60million from the GLA and the Department for Transport.

In her recent report for the mayor, Margaret Hodge MP, the former chair of the Public Accounts Committee, concluded that £46.6m had already been spent on the scheme but that it was better value to write this off than continue with the project planned between Temple station and the south bank.

‘The money that Boris Johnson gave to the [Garden Bridge] Trust has been spent by the Trust,’ Khan said. ‘One of the criticisms of Dame Margaret Hodge in her report was the fact that there was no incentive for those who pledged money – these rich donors – to actually give the money over.

‘These were pledges not actual money. As a consequence of the deal made by the previous mayor, monies were given by him and by the government and that money has been spent.’

Host James O’Brien questioned why Khan was not pursuing Johnson and accused the Garden Bridge Trust - which is a registered charity - of ‘blowing £50million of taxpayers money with absolutely nothing to show for it’.

Making reference to the Business Secretary’s recent proposal on the former charity Kid’s Company, O’Brien asked whether trustees of the Garden Bridge Trust should also be banned from holding directorships in future.

Khan replied that this was a matter for the government to address, adding: ‘I echo the conclusions of Dame Margaret Hodge which is that serious questions should be asked about Boris Johnson, about processes that were used but also that there is no evidence of value for money in the money that was given to the Garden Bridge Trust by the government but also by the previous mayor’.

In February, a report by charities regulator the Charity Commission found that the Trust had acted in compliance with charity law and had the correct financial controls in place.

A Garden Bridge Trust spokesperson said: ’James O’Brien is wrong to accuse the Garden Bridge Trust of blowing taxpayers money with nothing to show for it. The money was all spent legitimately and as planned on detailed pre-construction plans as we have said on many occasions.

’It was always the intention to use the public investment first on preconstruction work and to kickstart the private fundraising drive. It is outrageous to make ill-informed comparisons to Kids Company when the Charity Commission has looked closely at the governance of the GBT. It concluded…that the trustees met their duties, financial management met the required standards, strategic leadership was provided, and that there was “robust and informed decision-making”.

’As the Mayor knows, we also dispute the conclusions of Dame Margaret Hodge’s findings and her selective use of evidence to support her own opinions. We regret that he chose to listen to her findings and to withdraw his previous support of the project.’


Readers' comments (6)

  • Picking up Boris by his ankles and shaking him would probably only produce loose change in bitcoins, but could there perhaps be justification in clawing back some of Thomas Heatherwick's cut of the loot - and maybe that of at least one other consultant?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If you start a major project then abandon it for silly reasons, you waste money. It is this sort of nonsense which means donors pledge rather than hand over cash-- why should they trust politicians to be consistent? As I have argued ad nauseam, all the money could be recovered by building the bridge and charging users via Oyster cards. The blame for waste lies fairly and squarely with the miserabalists who have wrecked a potential London magnet which has planning permission. The same hopeless attitudes explain why we have a housing shortage: no strategy, blow-hard speeches, political quagmire.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Paul Finch - We do not have a housing shortage, there are hundreds of thousands of empty properties in the uk.... we actually have a distribution scandal. The 'hopeless attitudes' of responsible people outraged with a corrupt vanity project for the rich have little to do with the housing issues that half of the population face.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Paul Finch - The 'donors' are not donors at all if they didn't come up with the money, rather taking the kudos for backing the scheme and then letting it drop. Words like cheats and liars or even swindlers come to mind.
    Blame lies with Boris, Osborne & London Transport and the Garden Bridge Trust -who proved that they could not be trusted with money, specially £50 mio.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Paul Finch is rewriting history. The objections were well founded and the project was unfunded. The Chancellor and Mayor magicked up some of our money and handed it over - no strings attached. An appalling piece of chicanery by public servants.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Is there a breakdown of exactly how £50m, or 25% of the estimated total cost of the scheme, was spent in the pre-construction phase? I was under the impression that core consultant fees even on major projects like this are around 10% of the total construction cost

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.