Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

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

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Committee questions Garden Bridge project

Garden Bridge

The Treasury’s permanent secretary said he was “unaware” of plans for further loans or guarantees by the government for the Garden Bridge project.

Giving evidence at a Public Accounts Committee (PAC) meeting, Tom Scholar answered questions on the Garden Bridge project’s finances, stressing he knew of no government plans to issue further loans and guarantees or to extend the underwriting of the trustees’ liabilities.

When questioned on the validity of the original business case, he stressed that the Department for Transport (DfT) took the lead, adding: “The Treasury was sufficiently satisfied that it agreed to allocate the money to the Department [for Transport].”

Scholar also defended the DfT’s role in administering the grant funding and guarantees for the traffic-free bridge.

“Since it was a bridge, I think the decision was taken that its primary purpose was transport related,” he said.

The PAC meeting follows the publication of a National Audit Office (NAO) report last week, which found that the project – which has been allocated £60M of public funding – was at risk of offering poor value for money.

“We at the government will be studying very carefully the NAO report and responding in due course,” he said.

Readers' comments (1)

  • Why can't folk stop over-intellectualising and just bang this crazy scheme firmly on the head? It's not needed, it's diverting funds from much more useful projects elsewhere, isn't a particularly functional piece of infrastructure and shows every sign of being a drain on resources for years to come.

    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. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.