YOUR new Liberal Democratic/Labour-run council faces some tough decisions.

In 1991, it was a Lib/Lab administration which decided to centralise the council's offices. They chose Bourne Hill as the place to do this and set up a working group to carry the project forward.

When, two months later, a new Conservative administration took over, it agreed the importance of centralising the council's offices and continued the project.

Over the years the project costs mounted. By late 2004, the money spent on design, consultation and the planning process more or less matched the council's available reserves. Had the project been cancelled in 2004, reserves would just about have covered costs.

Buildings can be paid for out of capital, but costs have to come out of revenue - that is, the money needed for day-to-day running of the council.

If the council cancels the project now, it cannot use capital to cover the costs. It will mean that, for the foreseeable future, there will be no money to spend on leisure, arts, sports facilities, care of public gardens, public lavatories or any other service not required by law. And every day the costs rise.

What I cannot understand is why the new administration intends to throw yet more money at the project instead of making a decision.

In his advertisement in the Journal the Liberal Democrat leader said: "We'll save money by cutting the number of highly paid consultants..."

Yet his first action is to increase the costs of the office project by delay and by employing yet more consultants!
CLLR FRED WESTMORELAND, Conservative Group leader, Salisbury District Council

I HAVE a simple message for Paul Sample and his recently elected colleagues on Salisbury District Council.

Many of us deserted a lifelong political allegiance to support you because we felt so strongly over the twin issues of the Secret Garden development and the proposal to move to fortnightly bin collections. The message is: Don't let us down now you're in power.
STUART MCARDELL, Salisbury

I CONFESS myself puzzled by the story on the front of the Journal's May 17 issue - You could go bust'.

I am, admittedly, a tyro when it comes to economics, but surely a decision "not" to go ahead with an expensive outlay would benefit rather than bankrupt me? Or are we to infer that the previous council was so steeped in folly as to commit the city to a scheme, withdrawal from which would lead to financial ruin?

I look forward to being enlightened.
RICHARD MERWOOD, Salisbury