London’s controversial garden bridge cannot be guaranteed as a going concern, its trustees have warned, raising the possibility of about £40m of public money being wasted on the project if it has to be scrapped.

The Garden Bridge Trust, the charity behind the planned 366m “floating garden” above the Thames in London, insisted it still hoped to go ahead with its construction, starting later this year.

But it said a series of delays meant the costs were expected to “substantially exceed” the long-promised £185m.

The trust’s long-delayed accounts, published on Tuesday, showed it spent just over £26m in pre-construction costs during the 17 months covered by the figures, 80% of which came from public money via Transport for London (TfL).

However, over the same period, the accounts show, the trust raised just £13m in new private donations for the bridge, planned to reach from Temple on the north side of the Thames to the South Bank and feature 270 trees and thousands of other plants.

Introducing the accounts, Mervyn Davies, the former banker and Labour trade minister who chairs the trustees, warned that the project faced “challenges that must be resolved before construction of the garden bridge can start”.

These include securing final planning consents for the south end of the bridge, securing a guarantee from London authorities for future maintenance costs and raising more private money, including funds that can be spent immediately, Lord Davies wrote.

He continued: “Due to the material uncertainties in existence ahead of finalising these accounts, trustees are unable to conclude that the trust is a going concern, and feel it only appropriate to flag these risks in this report.”



While it was hoped the outstanding issues would be resolved in the next few months, “since a number of these matters are outside the control of the trustees they recognise that if this is not possible they will need to consider the future of the project, and in a worse-case scenario, whether the project remains viable”, Davies said.

The accounts, covering the 17 months until the end of March 2016, cast significant doubt on the viability of a project that has already attracted significant controversy over its receipt of £60m in public money, half from TfL and half from the Department for Transport.

While proponents argue the bridge would be both a big tourist asset and a useful pedestrian transport link, critics argue it is in an overcrowded section of London already well served by bridges.

They also question why taxpayers’ money should go on a link that will be privately run and can set its own rules and close at night and for corporate events.

If it does not go ahead, well over £40m of money would be lost to taxpayers. This was the sum cited by London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, after his election in May, when he argued that cancelling the bridge – supported by his predecessor, Boris Johnson – would cost more than supporting the project.



Despite the risks, the trust said in the accounts it is “actively” seeking donors who will pledge money that can be spent immediately, and who thus risk losing it if the project is cancelled. This is needed in part as the planning consents given for the bridge expire in December 2017.

This appears a big ask for the trust. Even if the cost was to remain at £185m, it still needs to raise an extra £56m from donors, which would take six years at the rate of funding seen in the accounts.

In a statement released with the accounts, Davies said the project had made significant progress, and had consistently flagged the areas of risk.

“These matters are dependent on third parties and are outside trustees’ control and have led to delays,” he said.

“The trustees are duty bound to disclose these risks and how we intend to deal with them, in this report. We strongly believe we can progress all outstanding issues and we are determined to make the project happen.”

Two members of the Greater London Assembly called on Khan to quash the scheme before any more public money was spent.

Tom Copley, a Labour colleague of the mayor, said the it appeared to be “a development on the verge of collapse”, and Khan should refuse to guarantee the future maintenance costs.

Caroline Pidgeon, a Lib Dem member, said Khan should deny the taxpayer guarantee “and so put the whole sorry saga to an end”.