It has cost £1.5 million to restore - but new claims suggest that Morecambe's Winter Gardens is nothing more than a worthless storeroom for bowling balls!

That's the fear of Friends of the Winter Gardens who this week welcomed attempts to clear the confusion surrounding the landmark building including its ownership, loan deals and charges.

The historic theatre on the resort's promenade came under the spotlight at a meeting of the council's External Affairs Review Board on Tuesday.

And local councillors joined the Friends in asking if a rumour that bowling balls were being stored there was true.

The claim was denied but officers struggled to explain away details of a council loan made to the developers back in 1995.

Councillors learnt that vital changes to the terms of a £112,000 council loan were apparently changed without proper procedures being followed.

The terms of the loan, made 'jointly and severally' to the building's owners, the Buildings at Risk Trust and developers Barnfield, who have a 'registered charge' on the building, originally prevented the money from being used to buy the property.

However, the meeting heard that changes were made under the council's 'emergency powers' during one weekend in 1995.

The council's corporate director (central services), Roger Muckle, said that no 'audit trail' existed for the decision, adding: "We cannot guarantee that some of the procedures actually took place at the time."

The council's legal adviser, Sarah Taylor, said even if the variation to the loan was granted without the correct legal procedures taking place, the law of equity prevented the council from reclaiming it from Bart/Barnfield on those grounds.

According to Mr Muckle, the council may now have to write off the loan, which is due to be repaid when more grants are received, in order for the building to be returned to use.

Meanwhile, Cllr Peter Robinson questioned whether bowling balls and shoes were currently being stored in the gardens - a claim also made by the Friends of the Victoria Pavilion.

Officers denied this.

Councillors asked officers to continue investigations.

In particular, they have been asked to explain how BART and/or Barnfield managed to raise £402,317 towards the cost of the restoration from 'unknown sources' and who those sources are.

Representatives from BART will also be asked to attend the next meeting.

There was dismay from councillors at the lack of readily available information about the deal.

Cllr Trevor Tattersall said: "If we are partners to an agreement, details of that agreement should be kept in a filing cabinet so we can pull out what we agreed to back in 1995.

It's not that far back, after all."

Conservative Cllr Roger Mace, who took the issue to the review board, said: "We are trying to look forward to what we can do from here to ensure that the building isn't empty for the next 25 years.

"The answer we were given yesterday seems to be that while the variation to the loan was strange it was, apparently, legal.

"Clearly the loan may have to be written off, and the reason it may have to be written off is the poor drafting of the original agreement.

"

He also expressed his surprise at learning that the building had been valued as 'worthless' by surveyors Irvine Taylor 18 months ago.

"Hopefully, by alerting people to these various issues, interested parties will get together to discuss the way forward and untie all the financial complexities of the past," he added.

Evelyn Archer, of the friends, said: "I am quite excited that they are finally asking questions.

We have waited so long for councillors to start asking questions, this is the way forward."

Council leader, Cllr Tricia Heath, expressed her hopes that by clearing up the confusion around the site, which was, she added, the responsibility of the previous administration, the way would be clear for the building to be brought back into use.

See next week's Citizen Smith.