Latest news with #GrahamEdwards
Telegraph
18-04-2025
- General
- Telegraph
Anti-duck town scraps plans for ‘ludicrous' giant bird statue
For five long years, Faced with an invasion of ducks, residents have attempted to lure them away with an artificial island, hired professional cleaners to dispose of droppings outside shops and even discussed a cull. So plans for a 5ft duck statue – part of a sculpture trail branded 'Swaffham goes Quackers' – were always likely to trigger deep division. The proposals were ultimately thrown out by a single vote in a meeting of the Norfolk town's council at which members warned that any embrace of the animals risked making them a 'laughing stock'. Councillors feared the tourist attraction would expose them to ridicule, after spending years wanting to get rid of the birds for the 'mess' they left along the streets. For half a decade residents have been divided on their web-footed neighbours. The town is thought to have at least 400 ducks residing among a population of 8,000 people. While some families welcomed the birds into their gardens during the height of Covid lockdown, shopkeepers were forced to hire professional help to clean up their mess and combat 'health problems'. At one point, eco-engineers created a giant floating island to try to entice the ducks away from homes at Swaffham's Northwell Pool. But the ducks refused to stay on the island causing some councillors to consider a cull. Despite concerns over the havoc wrought by the animals, the town council was the recipient of a £2,000 Love Your Market Town (LYM) grant from Norfolk county council and Breckland district council for the project featuring the 5ft duck statue. The town needed to raise an extra £250, as well as a potential extra £1,000 for painting the 'giant duck' as a community project. Lindsay Beech, the town's deputy mayor, made the case for the statue and said: 'We have got the ducks, they are a unique selling point. I think we would be mad not to exploit this to be honest.' Graham Edwards, a councillor, replied: 'Forget it – quite frankly, this is an embarrassment. The idea is absolutely ridiculous.' Jill Skinner reminded members of the council's long-established troubled relationship with the birds. Questioning why a duck had been chosen, she said: 'We used to be a council that was against the ducks and in favour of killing them.' Steph Cooper, another councillor, raised concerns the statue would play into the hands of vandals, prompting an opponent to suggest a Neighbourhood Watch scheme could be implemented to help protect it. She said: 'Everybody wrecks everything in this town. That's why we are the way we are. If it does get wrecked, which it will, we will have to pay.' She suggested the council instead pay homage to a local wicker man or another figure who had actually contributed to its history. Speaking after the debate, Mr Edwards said he was 'delighted' that the plan had been 'kicked into touch'. He said the town council would have looked 'ridiculous' paying tribute to a bird that has been the centre of so much contention. 'I was furious about it,' he said. 'This would have made the town council an utter laughing stock. It's lunacy. There was a really angry response about the town council making themselves more stupid than it already is.' He said the 'crazy, stupid' idea had prompted looks of disbelief among those attending when it was first raised. Graham Eves, a councillor who was at the meeting but abstained from voting said: 'People wondered why we needed a statue of a duck. We are known for ducks in this town. They don't stay where they are supposed to be and go all around the town.' Paul Darby, the mayor, said the sculpture would have been 'something novel' for the town and children to enjoy. 'It's disappointing,' he said. 'It's something we could have had for a boost for the people in the town. I felt sad we didn't go ahead with it.' Of the duck population, he said: 'Some people love them and some people hate them.' But he insisted there was never any move to cull them and it was not within the council's power. Announcing its decision, the town council said: 'After thoughtful discussion, the town council has decided not to contribute to the 'LYM' Duck Project. 'While the project will not move forward, the council remains committed to exploring other exciting opportunities to enhance our community.'
Yahoo
18-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
What does Thames Water's £3 billion rescue loan deal mean for customers?
Thames Water's plans for a £3 billion loan have been approved by a judge, designed to prevent it from going bust in the near future. The deal was approved in the High Court on Tuesday, which would give bosses at the London water company time to find a permanent source of funding. But why does it need the emergency money, and what does it mean for consumers? – What happened? After weeks of hearings in the High Court, a £3 billion funding plan for Thames Water has been approved as part of a loan deal agreed internally last year. The utility company supplies about 16 million households across London and the South East. But it has at least £16 billion of debt, and had previously warned it only had enough money to keep running until March 24. The new financing is designed to stop it from going bust, albeit temporarily. – Why are people angry about Thames Water? Thames Water has been at the centre of a growing scandal in the wider water industry. Bills will climb steeply over the coming years, while privately-run water firms are still pumping raw sewage into rivers and waterways. That is despite a succession of penalties from regulators Ofwat and the Environment Agency. Meanwhile, many bosses, including those at Thames Water, have still been given large bonuses in the last year. Thames Water also requested last week that Ofwat allows it to raise consumer bills over the next five years by more than the 35% it previously granted. – Why does Thames Water need this emergency money? The company's debts are so high and its cash reserves are so low that it would have gone out of business in March. The taps in people's homes would still work – but it would be damaging for the big finance firms to which Thames owes billions of pounds. Many of them would have seen those debts written off, resulting in hefty losses. Thames Water would instead come under temporary government control until a new buyer is found. Labour previously said it wants to avoid that scenario, citing extra costs to taxpayers of running the water company. -So what happens next? The £3 billion is thought to be enough to last Thames Water for about one year. It buys bosses some more time to find a permanent source of funding, which will likely come by selling the company. Potential suitors are lining up, with four bidders understood to have thrown their hat in the ring to buy Thames. One is Castle Water, a firm owned by the Conservative Party treasurer Graham Edwards. Another is investment firm Covalis Capital, which would bring in French utility giant Suez to run Thames day-to-day. – What's the catch? The new loan is being provided by Thames' creditors – namely companies it already owes about £11.5 billion. They are mostly made up of hedge funds and other big finance firms, including Abrdn, M&G and others. They are charging an unusually high interest rate of 9.75%, plus fees. Over the 2.5-year life of the loan, and including fees, that could mean about £800 million in interest payments, experts have said. Earlier this year, a group of MPs said it would force households to pay an extra £250 over the next five years to cover the costs. Currently, about 28% of Thames' bills service its debts, a figure which is expected to rise to 31% this year. – How did things get this bad? When Thames Water was privatised in 1989, it had no debt. It has had a succession of different owners since then, including an Australian investment bank called Macquarie. In December 2005, before Macquarie bought the utility, Thames Water's net debt was £2.4 billion. When Macquarie sold it around a decade later, the debt pile had ballooned to more than £10 billion. The other problem is that interest payments on much of its debts rise with inflation, which has been high in recent years, adding to the pressure.
The Independent
18-02-2025
- Business
- The Independent
What does Thames Water's £3 billion rescue loan deal mean for customers?
Thames Water's plans for a £3 billion loan have been approved by a judge, designed to prevent it from going bust in the near future. The deal was approved in the High Court on Tuesday, which would give bosses at the London water company time to find a permanent source of funding. But why does it need the emergency money, and what does it mean for consumers? – What happened? After weeks of hearings in the High Court, a £3 billion funding plan for Thames Water has been approved as part of a loan deal agreed internally last year. The utility company supplies about 16 million households across London and the South East. But it has at least £16 billion of debt, and had previously warned it only had enough money to keep running until March 24. The new financing is designed to stop it from going bust, albeit temporarily. – Why are people angry about Thames Water? Thames Water has been at the centre of a growing scandal in the wider water industry. Bills will climb steeply over the coming years, while privately-run water firms are still pumping raw sewage into rivers and waterways. That is despite a succession of penalties from regulators Ofwat and the Environment Agency. Meanwhile, many bosses, including those at Thames Water, have still been given large bonuses in the last year. Thames Water also requested last week that Ofwat allows it to raise consumer bills over the next five years by more than the 35% it previously granted. – Why does Thames Water need this emergency money? The company's debts are so high and its cash reserves are so low that it would have gone out of business in March. The taps in people's homes would still work – but it would be damaging for the big finance firms to which Thames owes billions of pounds. Many of them would have seen those debts written off, resulting in hefty losses. Thames Water would instead come under temporary government control until a new buyer is found. Labour previously said it wants to avoid that scenario, citing extra costs to taxpayers of running the water company. -So what happens next? The £3 billion is thought to be enough to last Thames Water for about one year. It buys bosses some more time to find a permanent source of funding, which will likely come by selling the company. Potential suitors are lining up, with four bidders understood to have thrown their hat in the ring to buy Thames. One is Castle Water, a firm owned by the Conservative Party treasurer Graham Edwards. Another is investment firm Covalis Capital, which would bring in French utility giant Suez to run Thames day-to-day. – What's the catch? The new loan is being provided by Thames' creditors – namely companies it already owes about £11.5 billion. They are mostly made up of hedge funds and other big finance firms, including Abrdn, M&G and others. They are charging an unusually high interest rate of 9.75%, plus fees. Over the 2.5-year life of the loan, and including fees, that could mean about £800 million in interest payments, experts have said. Earlier this year, a group of MPs said it would force households to pay an extra £250 over the next five years to cover the costs. Currently, about 28% of Thames' bills service its debts, a figure which is expected to rise to 31% this year. – How did things get this bad? When Thames Water was privatised in 1989, it had no debt. It has had a succession of different owners since then, including an Australian investment bank called Macquarie. In December 2005, before Macquarie bought the utility, Thames Water's net debt was £2.4 billion. When Macquarie sold it around a decade later, the debt pile had ballooned to more than £10 billion. The other problem is that interest payments on much of its debts rise with inflation, which has been high in recent years, adding to the pressure.
