Dipping a toe - Lancaster!

General, non-amusement park heritage-related discussion, including conservation news and information.

Moderator: EAS

Dipping a toe - Lancaster!

Postby EAS » 14 Mar 2009, 14:20

First post on the new forum! Wow!

Let's hope that people will join in with news and views and questions and discussions and general chat, and a bit of fun too, it's clear that many of us who post on the Dreamland forums have wider interests in heritage and conservation matters, so good to have a section where people with similar interests can post. Thank Nick!

So OK - to start with, some news on Lancaster, threatened with a big new development which many feel will not at all be suitable to 'regenerate' the historic city.

A local campaign against it (sound familiar?) has become a national one, and...

Well, here's the latest news:

http://nemesisrepublic.blogspot.com/200 ... ntros.html

which made it into Building Design yesterday:

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sec ... 000192a837
User avatar
EAS
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: 18 Sep 2006, 09:09
Location: North

Dipping a toe - Lancaster!

Postby Spider in the bath » 15 Mar 2009, 15:12

I have a friend who is a (long) retired Planning Inspector, who used to specialise in heritage cases, what his position would be if the Lancaster situation had happened to him while he was working. This is what he said:

The absence of the developer to defend his scheme would count very heavily against his case in the eyes of an Inspector whatever the council itself did. It is indeed very odd.
Costs of any statutory party could be awarded against the developer if he failed to turn up, if he is not prepared to defend.


In fact he was intrigued by the situation, and asked me to let him know what happens. So can someone closer to the action please blog or post here any significant developments, so that I can pass them on to him?
Spider in the bath
 
Posts: 5
Joined: 15 Mar 2009, 14:54
Location: Bath

Postby EAS » 15 Mar 2009, 15:21

Well, I'll certainly do that. I know that SAVE and It's Our City both are intending to be Rule Six parties, alongside English Heritage; in fact the SAVE alternative scheme, prepared to show that it is possible to have new development in historic places without spoiling them, would have been part of the inquiry. (As you know, it's always a good idea to not only object to the nasty stuff, but have something up your sleeve too.) I'll pass on your post to them also.

I think we are all intrigued, I can't see how the city council can actually be expected to defend what is, after all, a private development!

Welcome to the new part of the forum! Do keep posting, I know you have plenty of heritage news to post and link to! 8)

A copy of the Rule Six parties letter and terms of the inquiry is here:

http://www.itsourcity.org.uk/index.html
Ferengi Rules of Acquisition: Rule 76. Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.
User avatar
EAS
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: 18 Sep 2006, 09:09
Location: North

Postby EAS » 16 Mar 2009, 23:11

The SAVE website has been updated with more Lancaster news, including the Country Life articles by Ptolo Dean:

http://www.savebritainsheritage.org/doc ... rticle.pdf

http://www.savebritainsheritage.org/doc ... TOLEMY.pdf

and the alternative plans and Design Statement by Richard Griiffiths Architects can be viewed there also:

http://www.savebritainsheritage.org/news/
Ferengi Rules of Acquisition: Rule 76. Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.
User avatar
EAS
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: 18 Sep 2006, 09:09
Location: North

Postby EAS » 18 Mar 2009, 11:46

It's Our City has issued a Press Release today:

It’s Our City press release 18 March 2009

It’s Our City calls on Lancaster City Council to abandon Centros public inquiry

It’s Our City are surprised that at a time of budget cuts across the board, including £54,000 cut from the children and young people’s budget, Lancaster City Council is intending to spend £50,000, or more, of public money, on defending a scheme to which the developer is no longer committed.

It’s Our City had every confidence that we would be successful at the Public Inquiry in stopping this scheme, before Centros pulled out.

However, It’s Our City now call on Lancaster City Council to abandon their support for the Centros plans. The chief planning officer, Andrew Dobson, may still believe that this scheme is “robust” but the government obviously disagrees, or it would not have decided that its “robustness” needs to be tested at a public inquiry. It’s Our City has spent two and a half years planning for a public inquiry and the planning inspectorate has granted us the same status as the council and English Heritage to present the case for the local community and to cross-examine witnesses. We’re ready, at no cost to the taxpayer.

As Mr. Dobson has pointed out, it is without precedent for a council to defend plans at a public inquiry when the developer has chosen not to appear. Centros has left the council high and dry. This is a golden opportunity for Lancaster City Council to give up on this outdated scheme and instead to work on new plans for the Canal Corridor which are appropriate for Lancaster, and which have been developed with the full and genuine involvement of the local community. The economy, and national planning policy, have moved on. It’s time for the city council to move on with them; and to put the money earmarked for lawyers and consultants back into the budget, to be spent where it’s needed.
Ferengi Rules of Acquisition: Rule 76. Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.
User avatar
EAS
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: 18 Sep 2006, 09:09
Location: North

Postby Spider in the bath » 18 Mar 2009, 15:19

I have in the past been shown an e-mail from a Silk who specialises on planning cases, though I am not allowed to name him or quote him verbatim because it is an "off the record" opinion on another development, not the Lancaster one.

But his view on the Roanne decision is (paraphrased) that any developer anywhere in the EU who can reasonably show that they would have been capable of tendering for a development where a council has chosen a preferred developer, is not restricted to three months from when the preferred developer was chosen, but three months from when planning permission is granted, because it is at that point that other bids for the work are closed off. And the offended developers sue the council for damages as a civil rather than criminal offence.

This means that a council who perseveres with a preferred developer could potentially be the target of an unknown number of individual claims from other developers, and they would have to fight each one separately or reach an out-of-court settlement with each. It is lilkely to cost a small fortune, which from a council budget point of view is unpredictable, and that is why so many councils are playing safe and going for a full tendering exercise.
Spider in the bath
 
Posts: 5
Joined: 15 Mar 2009, 14:54
Location: Bath

Postby EAS » 18 Mar 2009, 16:07

Thanks for that - it has been passed around!

There is this also:


"Land Securities' Stratford plan dealt blow by EU ruling

Ben Cook, Regen.net, 28 April 2008


Developer Land Securities' hopes of signing an agreement with Newham Council to extend a shopping centre in the borough have been dealt a blow by a European Union ruling.

The property company has, over the last four years, been developing plans for a mixed-use extension to its 350,000 square foot Stratford Centre in east London. The extension would have involved the development of land owned by Newham Council.

But an EU ruling on a case in France means Newham Council has been forced to put the contract out to full tender.The ruling - which related to a case involving Roanne town council - has established the principle that public development agreements are bound by EU procurement rules. Previously, such development agreements were not considered to be work contracts falling under EU procurement legislation.

Land Securities says it was close to signing a deal with Newham Council and the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation to work on the project, but now the contract has been put out to tender via the Official Journal of the European Union.

The Stratford Island Regeneration Project will consist of an extension to the shopping centre as well as educational facilities for the University of London.

A spokesman for Land Securities, which owns the shopping centre, said the company was "disappointed" with the ruling.

He added: "The Stratford centre has development potential and we will take a view on what is the best way forward." "


and:

http://www.propertyweek.com/story.asp?s ... de=3111289
Ferengi Rules of Acquisition: Rule 76. Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.
User avatar
EAS
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: 18 Sep 2006, 09:09
Location: North

Postby EAS » 19 Mar 2009, 08:51

Meanwhile, it seems Centros is in financial trouble with its Portsmouth development:

http://www.planningresource.co.uk/bulle ... ear-delay/

Possibly the bubble has burst and they aren't 'the best show in town'; I suppose it depends if you want a vast shopping complex of second rate architecture 'anchored' by a Debenham's or not.

Portsmouth scheme faces six-year delay Michael Donnelly,

PlanningResource, 17 March 2009

Portsmouth City Council has defended its decision to honour a contract with developer Centros after it delayed plans for a major regeneration scheme until 2015.
In a letter to the council, Centros delayed its plans for the £500m Northern Quarter project saying the scheme is no longer economically viable.
Centros says wants time to draw up a new masterplan as well as getting planning permission and other legal agreements in place.
Opposition councillors have called for the contract to be retendered and accused Centros of having the council ‘over a barrel’ because of the company’s ownership much of the development site.
But a paper recommending the council sticks with Centros goes before the full council on the 24th March.
Tom Southhall, senior valuer at Portsmouth City Council said: "Both parties have an ability to terminate the development agreement but until March 2010 and even if we do exercise that right there is a further one year cooling off period so realistically we would be into March 2011 before we’re in a position to consider retendering the opportunity
"The advice from our property agents DTZ indicates that Centros are the best show in town we have a contractual relationship with them, we share the same vision going forward. Centros has invested heavily in Portsmouth to the tune of £50m, they share our aspirations and they want to get a return."
Ferengi Rules of Acquisition: Rule 76. Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.
User avatar
EAS
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: 18 Sep 2006, 09:09
Location: North

Postby EAS » 24 Jun 2009, 15:38

Well, the latest and excellent news is that mid inquiry Lancaster CC has withdrawn from the inquiry! And I gather it's mainly owing to the Conservation Officer who stood up to be counted...
Ferengi Rules of Acquisition: Rule 76. Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.
User avatar
EAS
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: 18 Sep 2006, 09:09
Location: North

Postby EAS » 25 Jun 2009, 19:23

It's all become wonderfully exciting today, with Lancaster blaming Centros, Centros blaming English Heritage!

The Lancaster Guardian has the latest news on site.

http://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/lanc ... 5402575.jp


More here:

http://nemesisrepublic.blogspot.com/200 ... -from.html

www.savebritainsheritage.org
Ferengi Rules of Acquisition: Rule 76. Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.
User avatar
EAS
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: 18 Sep 2006, 09:09
Location: North


Return to Heritage Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron