Westfield - a response to a commenter

****

An anonymous commentor (why the need to hide - I'm not going to eat you for heaven's sake) has a bit of an ill-informed go at me. I've fisked the comment - not a regular habit here but I thought worthwhile on this occasion:

"I've just read your piece in issue 7 of Bradford Howdo? magazine, headed with this quote 'Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits'"

The original piece on this blog was titled:

...and sometimes I sits and thinks (this time about Westfield and Bradford)

Quite apt really, because you haven't actually ever done anything to help the regeneration in Bradford.

Here’s a selected few things (from memory) I've had a hand in:

• Secured the restoration of Manningham Mills
• Improvements to Manningham Park
• The rescuing of Eastbrook Hall
• Robert’s Park, Saltaire
• Bradford International Markets Festival
• City Park
• Impressions Gallery & Gallery One
• Refurbishment of John Street Market
• Airedale greenways project
• Airedale Partnership
• Broadband enablement of the whole District
• Improvements to Keighley market

I find the disdain and apathy which oozes through in your piece, along with your derogatory use off the word 'agitators' to describe people who are sick to death of inept politicians and corporations who have destroyed a section of Bradford, deeply offensive.

While I suspect the “offence” here is pretty false, I’ll take the sentiment as honest. But “disdain” and “apathy” aren’t sentiments I recognise from my thoughts – do people really think we are less frustrated, less concerned, more unbothered about the prospects of development at Westfield?

But you're a councillor aren't you, so we shouldn't expect anything else.

Understand that people who have lived in Bradford are utterly disgusted with you, the councillors and the corporations who have decimated Bradford. And your snide use of descriptive language against people with a valid repulsion at what's happened is a disgrace.

I used the term “agitator” as an accurate description – it isn’t remotely snide. Here’s what I said:

I’m going to start with the unpopular bit – throughout the development the council has acted in good faith and has delivered on the promises it made to developers, Yorkshire Forward, the Department for Communities and Local Government, and through them the European Commission. Occupiers, agitators and those riding the bandwagon of local annoyance may wish it to be otherwise but councils are in the business of running local services not developing shopping centres.

 

How long has that hole has been there? Why is it taking so long?

Broadway was demolished in 2006 which makes the ‘hole’ about six now – far too long as we’re oft reminded. But, as I tried to explain, development is down to the developer. I guess we could discuss a “compulsory purchase” of the site – on what grounds I have no idea – which would be opposed, would cost a couple of million in legal fees and would leave Bradford Council owning the “hole”. Perhaps the agitators and occupiers have the £200 million needed to build a shopping centre and know lots of retailers who want to set up shop in the new centre?

Whole cities get rebuilt after the tragedy of war in a fraction of the time it takes to build a bloody shopping center (sic).

With billions in public investment. Bradford Council has quite significant reserves – around £180 million – but not enough to build a shopping centre.

You should be ashamed of yourself, but you're not are you? Like the council and Westfield you simply don't care.

When I became Executive Portfolio Holder for Regeneration in 2000, a friend remarked that Bradford was beyond redemption and I was wasting my time. I said then and still believe that we are better being condemned for trying to do something to improve our City than doing nothing. I’m proud of the efforts we made – including the hundreds of hours trying to get Broadway out of the ground. We might have been mistaken but it wasn’t because we didn’t care. I don’t think anyone holding the Regeneration Portfolio holder’s role before or since showed more passion or commitment to bettering the City than I did.

Obviously I can’t comment about Westfield. I hope they care but they may not – go ask them.

 (I won't be accepting any more Anonymous comments on this subject - if you've something to say, be honest about it and give your name)

....

The only way to achieve this would be to scrap it...

****

...surely?

The Government attempted to quell concern that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) could effectively become a ‘development tax’ this week, during a Lords debate on the Localism Bill.

Since it is a government impost on development, it is surely a tax? After all, if the developer thought that "community infrastructure" necessary it would build it and cost it within the proposed development?

The only way to stop it being a development tax would be to scrap it or make it voluntary.

....

...on the development tax

****

For many years many of my councillor colleagues have worried and fussed about things called "Section 106 Agreements". Essentially these constitute a tax on development;

Section 106 (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning authority (LPA) to enter into a legally-binding agreement or planning obligation with a landowner in association with the granting of planning permission. The obligation is termed a Section 106 Agreement.

These agreements are a way of delivering or addressing matters that are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms. They are increasingly used to support the provision of services and infrastructure, such as highways, recreational facilities, education, health and affordable housing.

Now under more recent legislation - courtesy of the last Labour government but implemented by the current Coalition government - most of this tax regime is to be replaced with a different tax. We are to get a "Community Infrastructure Levy", the level of which will be determined by the local authority. And, of course, all those useless, Labour-led councils are getting inordinately excited at the prospect of zillions in lovely developer cash winging its way into the Council coffers as a result of this new arrangement.

However, there's a catch. Developers aren't keen and, as is the wont of the market, plan to gravitate to places with lower levies. And - even more importantly - the new levy doesn't include "affordable housing". You still needs a Section 106 Agreement to get that stuff. So the National Housing Federation (the body representing all the housing associations) is frothing:

But the National Housing Federation has warned that without further safeguards many councils will set CIL at a level that jeopardises affordable housing development as CIL can be spent on anything and developers won’t be prepared to spend money on Section 106 agreements as well.

Cameron Watt, head of neighbourhoods at the NHF, said if councils set an unrealistically high level of CIL developers will push to provide a much lower number of affordable homes.

However, the NHF should be worrying that, in their eagerness for some extra cash, Councils will actually stop development altogether. After all, the developer isn't going to build at a loss is he?

....

Mad Frankie is right here....

****

Francis Maude - dubbed 'Mad Frankie" by Mr Fawkes - had this to say about the National Trust and planning:

"No. I mean, our position is right. I think this idea, that creating a presumption in favour of sustainable development is somehow a massive erosion of the ability to conserve, is bollocks, frankly."

As we've said before, there is current a presumption in favour of any kind of development (it's in the original 1947 Act). Under the changes there will be a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Precisely how much of a change is that?

....